# Roman Empire Times > Dive into the Roman Empire Times for captivating tales, intriguing anecdotes, latest news, and factual insights from Rome's illustrious history. Public Ghost content for AI and LLM tooling. This file includes a bounded export of public pages first, then recent public posts. Append `.md` to any post or page URL to get the content in Markdown (for example, `/example-post.md`). ## Pages ### About this site URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/about/ Last updated: 2024-07-13T21:28:20.000Z Roman Empire Times is an independent publication launched in October 2023 by Sensei Minimal Lda, a private owned company registered in Lisbon, Portugal, under the VAT no. PT517489058\. If you subscribe today, you'll get full access to the website as well as email newsletters about new content when it's available. Your subscription makes this site possible, and allows Roman Empire Times to continue to exist. Thank you! ![A view of the Tiber River, Copyright: Christina Athanasiou](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/02/Roman-Empire-Times-Personal-Pictures-01.jpg) A view of the Tiber River, Copyright: Christina Athanasiou ### Who we are We are Christina Athanasiou and George Liapis, the owners of the [bespoke marketing agency Sensei Minimal](https://senseiminimal.com/?ref=romanempiretimes.com), both fuelled with a strong passion for Ancient Roman history; welcome to our world, a haven dedicated to the grandeur and intrigue of the Roman Empire. We are the heart and soul behind this site, united by our unwavering fascination with all things Roman. Through countless journeys to Rome and beyond, we've immersed ourselves in the legacy of an empire that has shaped the course of history. Our mission began as a hobby, but turned out to be much more than that; it's a lifelong journey of discovery. We delve deep into the annals of history, not just to recount what is already known but to unearth the secrets and mysteries that lie hidden beneath the surface. Our love for the Roman Empire is not confined to its historical achievements and monumental ruins; it extends to the vibrant stories of those who lived, fought, and triumphed in those ancient times. We strive to deliver the most accurate, factual and academic quality content for the Roman Empire, in the best possible user experience. Our [Editorial guidelines](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-empire-times-editorial-guidelines/) stand as a commitment to our cause, alongside our [Corrections policy](https://romanempiretimes.com/corrections-policy/), [Copyright notice](https://romanempiretimes.com/copyright-notice/), and [Web Accessibility statement](https://romanempiretimes.com/web-accessibility-statement/). Should you wish to join our team, we are more than glad to [welcome you as a contributor](https://romanempiretimes.com/write-for-roman-empire-times/). ![A night view of Ancient Roman Ruins, Copyright: Christina Athanasiou](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/02/Roman-Empire-Times-Personal-Pictures-02.jpg) A Night View of Ancient Roman Ruins, Copyright: Christina Athanasiou We share our findings and insights on this site, ranging from well-documented historical facts to the most intriguing anecdotes. We're constantly scouring for the latest research and news, ensuring that our content is as enriching as it is enlightening. But what truly sets our hearts ablaze is the art of storytelling. Inspired by real historical events, we craft "scripts" for short stories, breathing life into the facts with our imagination. These narratives, grounded in historical accuracy yet embellished with our creative touch, aim to transport you back in time, offering a glimpse into the daily lives, monumental decisions, and serendipitous moments of ancient Rome. We invite you to join us on this journey, to explore the depths of Roman history through our eyes. By subscribing, you'll receive a treasure trove of stories and insights [directly to your inbox](https://romanempiretimes.com/#/portal/signup), each one a testament to our dedication and passion for the Roman Empire. Our commitment to uncovering and sharing the marvels of Rome is unwavering, and we assure you, that there's no better place to satiate your curiosity and fuel your love for ancient Rome. So, whether you're a fellow enthusiast, a curious learner, or someone in search of inspiration from the past, you've come to the right place. Together, let's keep the legacy of the Roman Empire alive, discovering and telling its stories, one article at a time. Welcome to our site, where history is not just remembered but relived and cherished. ![A Night View of Ancient Roman Ruins, Copyright: Christina Athanasiou](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/02/Roman-Empire-Times-Personal-Pictures-03.jpg) A Night View of Ancient Roman Ruins, Copyright: Christina Athanasiou ### Access all areas By signing up, you'll get access to the full archive of everything that's been published before and everything that's still to come. Your very own private library. ### Fresh content, delivered Stay up to date with new content sent straight to your inbox! No more worrying about whether you missed something because of a pesky algorithm or news feed. ### Meet people like you Join a community of other subscribers who share the same interests. --- ![A Day View of the Colosseum, Copyright: Christina Athanasiou](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/02/Roman-Empire-Times-Personal-Pictures-04.jpg) A Day View of the Colosseum, Copyright: Christina Athanasiou ### Privacy Policy URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/privacy-policy/ Last updated: 2023-10-12T22:51:29.000Z **Last updated October 12, 2023** This privacy notice for Sensei Minimal LDA ("**we**," "**us**," or "**our**"), describes how and why we might collect, store, use, and/or share ("**process**") your information when you use our services ("**Services**"), such as when you: - Visit our website at Romanempiretimes.com, or any website of ours that links to this privacy notice - Engage with us in other related ways, including any sales, marketing, or events **Questions or concerns?** Reading this privacy notice will help you understand your privacy rights and choices. If you do not agree with our policies and practices, please do not use our Services. If you still have any questions or concerns, please contact us at info@senseiminimal.com. **SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS** ***This summary provides key points from our privacy notice, but you can find out more details about any of these topics by clicking the link following each key point or by using our*** [***table of contents***](#toc) ***below to find the section you are looking for.*** **What personal information do we process?** When you visit, use, or navigate our Services, we may process personal information depending on how you interact with us and the Services, the choices you make, and the products and features you use. Learn more about [personal information you disclose to us](#personalinfo). **Do we process any sensitive personal information?** We do not process sensitive personal information. **Do we receive any information from third parties?** We do not receive any information from third parties. **How do we process your information?** We process your information to provide, improve, and administer our Services, communicate with you, for security and fraud prevention, and to comply with law. We may also process your information for other purposes with your consent. We process your information only when we have a valid legal reason to do so. Learn more about [how we process your information](#infouse). **In what situations and with which types of parties do we share personal information?** We may share information in specific situations and with specific categories of third parties. Learn more about [when and with whom we share your personal information](#whoshare). **What are your rights?** Depending on where you are located geographically, the applicable privacy law may mean you have certain rights regarding your personal information. Learn more about [your privacy rights](#privacyrights). **How do you exercise your rights?** The easiest way to exercise your rights is by visiting , or by contacting us. We will consider and act upon any request in accordance with applicable data protection laws. Want to learn more about what we do with any information we collect? [Review the privacy notice in full](#toc). **TABLE OF CONTENTS** [1\. WHAT INFORMATION DO WE COLLECT?](#infocollect) [2\. HOW DO WE PROCESS YOUR INFORMATION?](#infouse) [3\. WHAT LEGAL BASES DO WE RELY ON TO PROCESS YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION?](#legalbases) [4\. WHEN AND WITH WHOM DO WE SHARE YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION?](#whoshare) [5\. WHAT IS OUR STANCE ON THIRD-PARTY WEBSITES?](#3pwebsites) [6\. HOW LONG DO WE KEEP YOUR INFORMATION?](#inforetain) [7\. DO WE COLLECT INFORMATION FROM MINORS?](#infominors) [8\. WHAT ARE YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS?](#privacyrights) [9\. CONTROLS FOR DO-NOT-TRACK FEATURES](#DNT) [10\. DO UNITED STATES RESIDENTS HAVE SPECIFIC PRIVACY RIGHTS?](#uslaws) [11\. DO WE MAKE UPDATES TO THIS NOTICE?](#policyupdates) [12\. HOW CAN YOU CONTACT US ABOUT THIS NOTICE?](#contact) [13\. HOW CAN YOU REVIEW, UPDATE, OR DELETE THE DATA WE COLLECT FROM YOU?](#request) **1\. WHAT INFORMATION DO WE COLLECT?** **Personal information you disclose to us** ***In Short:*** *We collect personal information that you provide to us.* We collect personal information that you voluntarily provide to us when you register on the Services, express an interest in obtaining information about us or our products and Services, when you participate in activities on the Services, or otherwise when you contact us. **Personal Information Provided by You.** The personal information that we collect depends on the context of your interactions with us and the Services, the choices you make, and the products and features you use. The personal information we collect may include the following: - names - email addresses - usernames - passwords - contact preferences **Sensitive Information.** We do not process sensitive information. **Payment Data.** We may collect data necessary to process your payment if you make purchases, such as your payment instrument number, and the security code associated with your payment instrument. All payment data is stored by Stripe. You may find their privacy notice link(s) here: [https://stripe.com/en-gb-pt/privacy](https://stripe.com/en-gb-pt/privacy?ref=romanempiretimes.com). All personal information that you provide to us must be true, complete, and accurate, and you must notify us of any changes to such personal information. **Information automatically collected** ***In Short:*** *Some information — such as your Internet Protocol (IP) address and/or browser and device characteristics — is collected automatically when you visit our Services.* We automatically collect certain information when you visit, use, or navigate the Services. This information does not reveal your specific identity (like your name or contact information) but may include device and usage information, such as your IP address, browser and device characteristics, operating system, language preferences, referring URLs, device name, country, location, information about how and when you use our Services, and other technical information. This information is primarily needed to maintain the security and operation of our Services, and for our internal analytics and reporting purposes. The information we collect includes: - *Log and Usage Data.* Log and usage data is service-related, diagnostic, usage, and performance information our servers automatically collect when you access or use our Services and which we record in log files. Depending on how you interact with us, this log data may include your IP address, device information, browser type, and settings and information about your activity in the Services (such as the date/time stamps associated with your usage, pages and files viewed, searches, and other actions you take such as which features you use), device event information (such as system activity, error reports (sometimes called "crash dumps"), and hardware settings). - *Device Data.* We collect device data such as information about your computer, phone, tablet, or other device you use to access the Services. Depending on the device used, this device data may include information such as your IP address (or proxy server), device and application identification numbers, location, browser type, hardware model, Internet service provider and/or mobile carrier, operating system, and system configuration information. - *Location Data.* We collect location data such as information about your device's location, which can be either precise or imprecise. How much information we collect depends on the type and settings of the device you use to access the Services. For example, we may use GPS and other technologies to collect geolocation data that tells us your current location (based on your IP address). You can opt out of allowing us to collect this information either by refusing access to the information or by disabling your Location setting on your device. However, if you choose to opt out, you may not be able to use certain aspects of the Services. **2\. HOW DO WE PROCESS YOUR INFORMATION?** ***In Short:*** *We process your information to provide, improve, and administer our Services, communicate with you, for security and fraud prevention, and to comply with law. We may also process your information for other purposes with your consent.* **We process your personal information for a variety of reasons, depending on how you interact with our Services, including:** - **To facilitate account creation and authentication and otherwise manage user accounts.** We may process your information so you can create and log in to your account, as well as keep your account in working order. - **To deliver and facilitate delivery of services to the user.** We may process your information to provide you with the requested service. - **To respond to user inquiries/offer support to users.** We may process your information to respond to your inquiries and solve any potential issues you might have with the requested service. - **To send administrative information to you.** We may process your information to send you details about our products and services, changes to our terms and policies, and other similar information. - **To fulfill and manage your orders.** We may process your information to fulfill and manage your orders, payments, returns, and exchanges made through the Services. - **To enable user-to-user communications.** We may process your information if you choose to use any of our offerings that allow for communication with another user. - **To save or protect an individual's vital interest.** We may process your information when necessary to save or protect an individual’s vital interest, such as to prevent harm. **3\. WHAT LEGAL BASES DO WE RELY ON TO PROCESS YOUR INFORMATION?** **In Short:* We only process your personal information when we believe it is necessary and we have a valid legal reason (i.e., legal basis) to do so under applicable law, like with your consent, to comply with laws, to provide you with services to enter into or fulfill our contractual obligations, to protect your rights, or to fulfill our legitimate business interests.* **If you are located in the EU or UK, this section applies to you.** The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and UK GDPR require us to explain the valid legal bases we rely on in order to process your personal information. As such, we may rely on the following legal bases to process your personal information: - **Consent.** We may process your information if you have given us permission (i.e., consent) to use your personal information for a specific purpose. You can withdraw your consent at any time. Learn more about [withdrawing your consent](#withdrawconsent). - **Performance of a Contract.** We may process your personal information when we believe it is necessary to fulfill our contractual obligations to you, including providing our Services or at your request prior to entering into a contract with you. - **Legal Obligations.** We may process your information where we believe it is necessary for compliance with our legal obligations, such as to cooperate with a law enforcement body or regulatory agency, exercise or defend our legal rights, or disclose your information as evidence in litigation in which we are involved. - **Vital Interests.** We may process your information where we believe it is necessary to protect your vital interests or the vital interests of a third party, such as situations involving potential threats to the safety of any person. In legal terms, we are generally the "data controller" under European data protection laws of the personal information described in this privacy notice, since we determine the means and/or purposes of the data processing we perform. This privacy notice does not apply to the personal information we process as a "data processor" on behalf of our customers. In those situations, the customer that we provide services to and with whom we have entered into a data processing agreement is the "data controller" responsible for your personal information, and we merely process your information on their behalf in accordance with your instructions. If you want to know more about our customers' privacy practices, you should read their privacy policies and direct any questions you have to them. ***If you are located in Canada, this section applies to you.*** We may process your information if you have given us specific permission (i.e., express consent) to use your personal information for a specific purpose, or in situations where your permission can be inferred (i.e., implied consent). You can [withdraw your consent](#withdrawconsent) at any time. In some exceptional cases, we may be legally permitted under applicable law to process your information without your consent, including, for example: - If collection is clearly in the interests of an individual and consent cannot be obtained in a timely way - For investigations and fraud detection and prevention - For business transactions provided certain conditions are met - If it is contained in a witness statement and the collection is necessary to assess, process, or settle an insurance claim - For identifying injured, ill, or deceased persons and communicating with next of kin - If we have reasonable grounds to believe an individual has been, is, or may be victim of financial abuse - If it is reasonable to expect collection and use with consent would compromise the availability or the accuracy of the information and the collection is reasonable for purposes related to investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province - If disclosure is required to comply with a subpoena, warrant, court order, or rules of the court relating to the production of records - If it was produced by an individual in the course of their employment, business, or profession and the collection is consistent with the purposes for which the information was produced - If the collection is solely for journalistic, artistic, or literary purposes - If the information is publicly available and is specified by the regulations **4\. WHEN AND WITH WHOM DO WE SHARE YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION?** ***In Short:*** *We may share information in specific situations described in this section and/or with the following categories of third parties.* **Vendors, Consultants, and Other Third-Party Service Providers.** We may share your data with third-party vendors, service providers, contractors, or agents ("**third parties**") who perform services for us or on our behalf and require access to such information to do that work. We have contracts in place with our third parties, which are designed to help safeguard your personal information. This means that they cannot do anything with your personal information unless we have instructed them to do it. They will also not share your personal information with any organization apart from us. They also commit to protect the data they hold on our behalf and to retain it for the period we instruct. The categories of third parties we may share personal information with are as follows: - Ad Networks - Data Analytics Services - Cloud Computing Services - Data Storage Service Providers - Payment Processors - Retargeting Platforms - Sales & Marketing Tools - Social Networks - Testing Tools - Website Hosting Service Providers - User Account Registration & Authentication Services We also may need to share your personal information in the following situations: - **Business Transfers.** We may share or transfer your information in connection with, or during negotiations of, any merger, sale of company assets, financing, or acquisition of all or a portion of our business to another company. - **Other Users.** When you share personal information (for example, by posting comments, contributions, or other content to the Services) or otherwise interact with public areas of the Services, such personal information may be viewed by all users and may be publicly made available outside the Services in perpetuity. Similarly, other users will be able to view descriptions of your activity, communicate with you within our Services, and view your profile. **5\. WHAT IS OUR STANCE ON THIRD-PARTY WEBSITES?** ***In Short:*** *We are not responsible for the safety of any information that you share with third parties that we may link to or who advertise on our Services, but are not affiliated with, our Services.* The Services may link to third-party websites, online services, or mobile applications and/or contain advertisements from third parties that are not affiliated with us and which may link to other websites, services, or applications. Accordingly, we do not make any guarantee regarding any such third parties, and we will not be liable for any loss or damage caused by the use of such third-party websites, services, or applications. The inclusion of a link towards a third-party website, service, or application does not imply an endorsement by us. We cannot guarantee the safety and privacy of data you provide to any third parties. Any data collected by third parties is not covered by this privacy notice. We are not responsible for the content or privacy and security practices and policies of any third parties, including other websites, services, or applications that may be linked to or from the Services. You should review the policies of such third parties and contact them directly to respond to your questions. **6\. HOW LONG DO WE KEEP YOUR INFORMATION?** ***In Short:*** *We keep your information for as long as necessary to fulfill the purposes outlined in this privacy notice unless otherwise required by law.* We will only keep your personal information for as long as it is necessary for the purposes set out in this privacy notice, unless a longer retention period is required or permitted by law (such as tax, accounting, or other legal requirements). No purpose in this notice will require us keeping your personal information for longer than the period of time in which users have an account with us. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize such information, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible. **7\. DO WE COLLECT INFORMATION FROM MINORS?** ***In Short:*** *We do not knowingly collect data from or market to children under 18 years of age.* We do not knowingly solicit data from or market to children under 18 years of age. By using the Services, you represent that you are at least 18 or that you are the parent or guardian of such a minor and consent to such minor dependent’s use of the Services. If we learn that personal information from users less than 18 years of age has been collected, we will deactivate the account and take reasonable measures to promptly delete such data from our records. If you become aware of any data we may have collected from children under age 18, please contact us at gliapis@senseiminimal.com. **8\. WHAT ARE YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS?** ***In Short:*** *In some regions, such as the European Economic Area (EEA), United Kingdom (UK), Switzerland, and Canada, you have rights that allow you greater access to and control over your personal information. You may review, change, or terminate your account at any time.* In some regions (like the EEA, UK, Switzerland, and Canada), you have certain rights under applicable data protection laws. These may include the right (i) to request access and obtain a copy of your personal information, (ii) to request rectification or erasure; (iii) to restrict the processing of your personal information; (iv) if applicable, to data portability; and (v) not to be subject to automated decision-making. In certain circumstances, you may also have the right to object to the processing of your personal information. You can make such a request by contacting us by using the contact details provided in the section "[HOW CAN YOU CONTACT US ABOUT THIS NOTICE?](#contact)" below. We will consider and act upon any request in accordance with applicable data protection laws. If you are located in the EEA or UK and you believe we are unlawfully processing your personal information, you also have the right to complain to your [Member State data protection authority](https://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/bodies/authorities/index%5Fen.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com) or [UK data protection authority](https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/data-protection-complaints/data-protection-complaints/?ref=romanempiretimes.com). If you are located in Switzerland, you may contact the [Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner](https://www.edoeb.admin.ch/edoeb/en/home.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com). **Withdrawing your consent:** If we are relying on your consent to process your personal information, which may be express and/or implied consent depending on the applicable law, you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time. You can withdraw your consent at any time by contacting us by using the contact details provided in the section "[HOW CAN YOU CONTACT US ABOUT THIS NOTICE?](#contact)" below or updating your preferences. However, please note that this will not affect the lawfulness of the processing before its withdrawal nor, when applicable law allows, will it affect the processing of your personal information conducted in reliance on lawful processing grounds other than consent. **Opting out of marketing and promotional communications:**You can unsubscribe from our marketing and promotional communications at any time by clicking on the unsubscribe link in the emails that we send, replying "STOP" or "UNSUBSCRIBE" to the SMS messages that we send, or by contacting us using the details provided in the section "[HOW CAN YOU CONTACT US ABOUT THIS NOTICE?](#contact)" below. You will then be removed from the marketing lists. However, we may still communicate with you — for example, to send you service-related messages that are necessary for the administration and use of your account, to respond to service requests, or for other non-marketing purposes. **Account Information** If you would at any time like to review or change the information in your account or terminate your account, you can: - Log in to your account settings and update your user account. - Contact us using the contact information provided. Upon your request to terminate your account, we will deactivate or delete your account and information from our active databases. However, we may retain some information in our files to prevent fraud, troubleshoot problems, assist with any investigations, enforce our legal terms and/or comply with applicable legal requirements. If you have questions or comments about your privacy rights, you may email us at info@senseiminimal.com. **9\. CONTROLS FOR DO-NOT-TRACK FEATURES** Most web browsers and some mobile operating systems and mobile applications include a Do-Not-Track ("DNT") feature or setting you can activate to signal your privacy preference not to have data about your online browsing activities monitored and collected. At this stage no uniform technology standard for recognizing and implementing DNT signals has been finalized. As such, we do not currently respond to DNT browser signals or any other mechanism that automatically communicates your choice not to be tracked online. If a standard for online tracking is adopted that we must follow in the future, we will inform you about that practice in a revised version of this privacy notice. **10\. DO UNITED STATES RESIDENTS HAVE SPECIFIC PRIVACY RIGHTS?** ***In Short:*** *If you are a resident of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah or Virginia, you are granted specific rights regarding access to your personal information.* **What categories of personal information do we collect?** We have collected the following categories of personal information in the past twelve (12) months: | **Category** | **Examples** | **Collected** | | -------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------- | | A. Identifiers | Contact details, such as real name, alias, postal address, telephone or mobile contact number, unique personal identifier, online identifier, Internet Protocol address, email address, and account name | YES | | B. Personal information as defined in the California Customer Records statute | Name, contact information, education, employment, employment history, and financial information | YES | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | C. Protected classification characteristics under state or federal law Gender and date of birth YES D. Commercial information Transaction information, purchase history, financial details, and payment information YES E. Biometric information Fingerprints and voiceprints NO F. Internet or other similar network activity Browsing history, search history, online behavior, interest data, and interactions with our and other websites, applications, systems, and advertisements YES G. Geolocation data Device location YES H. Audio, electronic, visual, thermal, olfactory, or similar information Images and audio, video or call recordings created in connection with our business activities NO I. Professional or employment-related information Business contact details in order to provide you our Services at a business level or job title, work history, and professional qualifications if you apply for a job with us NO J. Education Information Student records and directory information NO K. Inferences drawn from collected personal information Inferences drawn from any of the collected personal information listed above to create a profile or summary about, for example, an individual’s preferences and characteristics NO L. Sensitive personal Information NO We will use and retain the collected personal information as needed to provide the Services or for: - Category A - As long as the user has an account with us - Category B - As long as the user has an account with us - Category C \- As long as the user has an account with us - Category D \- As long as the user has an account with us - Category F \- As long as the user has an account with us - Category G \- As long as the user has an account with us We may also collect other personal information outside of these categories through instances where you interact with us in person, online, or by phone or mail in the context of: - Receiving help through our customer support channels; - Participation in customer surveys or contests; and - Facilitation in the delivery of our Services and to respond to your inquiries. **How do we use and share your personal information?** Learn about how we use your personal information in the section, "[HOW DO WE PROCESS YOUR INFORMATION?](#infouse)" We collect and share your personal information through: - Targeting cookies/Marketing cookies - Social media cookies - Beacons/Pixels/Tags **Will your information be shared with anyone else?** We may disclose your personal information with our service providers pursuant to a written contract between us and each service provider. Learn more about how we disclose personal information to in the section, "[WHEN AND WITH WHOM DO WE SHARE YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION?](#whoshare)" We may use your personal information for our own business purposes, such as for undertaking internal research for technological development and demonstration. This is not considered to be "selling" of your personal information. We have not sold or shared any personal information to third parties for a business or commercial purpose in the preceding twelve (12) months. We have disclosed the following categories of personal information to third parties for a business or commercial purpose in the preceding twelve (12) months: The categories of third parties to whom we disclosed personal information for a business or commercial purpose can be found under "[WHEN AND WITH WHOM DO WE SHARE YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION?](#whoshare)" **California Residents** California Civil Code Section 1798.83, also known as the "Shine The Light" law permits our users who are California residents to request and obtain from us, once a year and free of charge, information about categories of personal information (if any) we disclosed to third parties for direct marketing purposes and the names and addresses of all third parties with which we shared personal information in the immediately preceding calendar year. If you are a California resident and would like to make such a request, please submit your request in writing to us using the contact information provided below. If you are under 18 years of age, reside in California, and have a registered account with the Services, you have the right to request removal of unwanted data that you publicly post on the Services. To request removal of such data, please contact us using the contact information provided below and include the email address associated with your account and a statement that you reside in California. We will make sure the data is not publicly displayed on the Services, but please be aware that the data may not be completely or comprehensively removed from all our systems (e.g., backups, etc.). **CCPA Privacy Notice** This section applies only to California residents. Under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), you have the rights listed below. The California Code of Regulations defines a "residents" as: (1) every individual who is in the State of California for other than a temporary or transitory purpose and (2) every individual who is domiciled in the State of California who is outside the State of California for a temporary or transitory purpose All other individuals are defined as "non-residents." If this definition of "resident" applies to you, we must adhere to certain rights and obligations regarding your personal information. **Your rights with respect to your personal data** Right to request deletion of the data — Request to delete You can ask for the deletion of your personal information. If you ask us to delete your personal information, we will respect your request and delete your personal information, subject to certain exceptions provided by law, such as (but not limited to) the exercise by another consumer of his or her right to free speech, our compliance requirements resulting from a legal obligation, or any processing that may be required to protect against illegal activities. Right to be informed — Request to know Depending on the circumstances, you have a right to know: - whether we collect and use your personal information; - the categories of personal information that we collect; - the purposes for which the collected personal information is used; - whether we sell or share personal information to third parties; - the categories of personal information that we sold, shared, or disclosed for a business purpose; - the categories of third parties to whom the personal information was sold, shared, or disclosed for a business purpose; - the business or commercial purpose for collecting, selling, or sharing personal information; and - the specific pieces of personal information we collected about you. In accordance with applicable law, we are not obligated to provide or delete consumer information that is de-identified in response to a consumer request or to re-identify individual data to verify a consumer request. Right to Non-Discrimination for the Exercise of a Consumer’s Privacy Rights We will not discriminate against you if you exercise your privacy rights. Right to Limit Use and Disclosure of Sensitive Personal Information We do not process consumer's sensitive personal information. Verification process Upon receiving your request, we will need to verify your identity to determine you are the same person about whom we have the information in our system. These verification efforts require us to ask you to provide information so that we can match it with information you have previously provided us. For instance, depending on the type of request you submit, we may ask you to provide certain information so that we can match the information you provide with the information we already have on file, or we may contact you through a communication method (e.g., phone or email) that you have previously provided to us. We may also use other verification methods as the circumstances dictate. We will only use personal information provided in your request to verify your identity or authority to make the request. To the extent possible, we will avoid requesting additional information from you for the purposes of verification. However, if we cannot verify your identity from the information already maintained by us, we may request that you provide additional information for the purposes of verifying your identity and for security or fraud-prevention purposes. We will delete such additionally provided information as soon as we finish verifying you. Other privacy rights - You may object to the processing of your personal information. - You may request correction of your personal data if it is incorrect or no longer relevant, or ask to restrict the processing of the information. - You can designate an authorized agent to make a request under the CCPA on your behalf. We may deny a request from an authorized agent that does not submit proof that they have been validly authorized to act on your behalf in accordance with the CCPA. - You may request to opt out from future selling or sharing of your personal information to third parties. Upon receiving an opt-out request, we will act upon the request as soon as feasibly possible, but no later than fifteen (15) days from the date of the request submission. To exercise these rights, you can contact us by visiting , by email at info@romanempiretimes.com, or by referring to the contact details at the bottom of this document. If you have a complaint about how we handle your data, we would like to hear from you. **Colorado Residents** This section applies only to Colorado residents. Under the Colorado Privacy Act (CPA), you have the rights listed below. However, these rights are not absolute, and in certain cases, we may decline your request as permitted by law. - Right to be informed whether or not we are processing your personal data - Right to access your personal data - Right to correct inaccuracies in your personal data - Right to request deletion of your personal data - Right to obtain a copy of the personal data you previously shared with us - Right to opt out of the processing of your personal data if it is used for targeted advertising, the sale of personal data, or profiling in furtherance of decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects ("profiling") To submit a request to exercise these rights described above, please email info@senseiminimal.com or visit . If we decline to take action regarding your request and you wish to appeal our decision, please email us at info@senseiminimal.com. Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of an appeal, we will inform you in writing of any action taken or not taken in response to the appeal, including a written explanation of the reasons for the decisions. **Connecticut Residents** This section applies only to Connecticut residents. Under the Connecticut Data Privacy Act (CTDPA), you have the rights listed below. However, these rights are not absolute, and in certain cases, we may decline your request as permitted by law. - Right to be informed whether or not we are processing your personal data - Right to access your personal data - Right to correct inaccuracies in your personal data - Right to request deletion of your personal data - Right to obtain a copy of the personal data you previously shared with us - Right to opt out of the processing of your personal data if it is used for targeted advertising, the sale of personal data, or profiling in furtherance of decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects ("profiling") To submit a request to exercise these rights described above, please email info@senseiminimal.com or visit . If we decline to take action regarding your request and you wish to appeal our decision, please email us at info@senseiminimal.com. Within sixty (60) days of receipt of an appeal, we will inform you in writing of any action taken or not taken in response to the appeal, including a written explanation of the reasons for the decisions. **Utah Residents** This section applies only to Utah residents. Under the Utah Consumer Privacy Act (UCPA), you have the rights listed below. However, these rights are not absolute, and in certain cases, we may decline your request as permitted by law. - Right to be informed whether or not we are processing your personal data - Right to access your personal data - Right to request deletion of your personal data - Right to obtain a copy of the personal data you previously shared with us - Right to opt out of the processing of your personal data if it is used for targeted advertising or the sale of personal data To submit a request to exercise these rights described above, please email info@senseiminimal.com or visit . **Virginia Residents** Under the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA): "Consumer" means a natural person who is a resident of the Commonwealth acting only in an individual or household context. It does not include a natural person acting in a commercial or employment context. "Personal data" means any information that is linked or reasonably linkable to an identified or identifiable natural person. "Personal data" does not include de-identified data or publicly available information. "Sale of personal data" means the exchange of personal data for monetary consideration. If this definition of "consumer" applies to you, we must adhere to certain rights and obligations regarding your personal data. Your rights with respect to your personal data - Right to be informed whether or not we are processing your personal data - Right to access your personal data - Right to correct inaccuracies in your personal data - Right to request deletion of your personal data - Right to obtain a copy of the personal data you previously shared with us - Right to opt out of the processing of your personal data if it is used for targeted advertising, the sale of personal data, or profiling in furtherance of decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects ("profiling") Exercise your rights provided under the Virginia VCDPA You may contact us by email at info@senseiminimal.com or visit . If you are using an authorized agent to exercise your rights, we may deny a request if the authorized agent does not submit proof that they have been validly authorized to act on your behalf. Verification process We may request that you provide additional information reasonably necessary to verify you and your consumer's request. If you submit the request through an authorized agent, we may need to collect additional information to verify your identity before processing your request. Upon receiving your request, we will respond without undue delay, but in all cases, within forty-five (45) days of receipt. The response period may be extended once by forty-five (45) additional days when reasonably necessary. We will inform you of any such extension within the initial 45-day response period, together with the reason for the extension. Right to appeal If we decline to take action regarding your request, we will inform you of our decision and reasoning behind it. If you wish to appeal our decision, please email us at info@senseiminimal.com. Within sixty (60) days of receipt of an appeal, we will inform you in writing of any action taken or not taken in response to the appeal, including a written explanation of the reasons for the decisions. If your appeal is denied, you may contact the [Attorney General to submit a complaint](https://www.oag.state.va.us/consumer-protection/index.php/file-a-complaint?ref=romanempiretimes.com). **11\. DO WE MAKE UPDATES TO THIS NOTICE?** **In Short:* Yes, we will update this notice as necessary to stay compliant with relevant laws.* We may update this privacy notice from time to time. The updated version will be indicated by an updated "Revised" date and the updated version will be effective as soon as it is accessible. If we make material changes to this privacy notice, we may notify you either by prominently posting a notice of such changes or by directly sending you a notification. We encourage you to review this privacy notice frequently to be informed of how we are protecting your information. **12\. HOW CAN YOU CONTACT US ABOUT THIS NOTICE?** If you have questions or comments about this notice, you may contact our Data Protection Officer (DPO), George Liapis, by email at gliapis@senseiminimal.com, by phone at 926513116, or contact us by post at: Sensei Minimal LDA George Liapis Avenida Magalhaes Lima 7, 2D Lisbon, Lisbon 1000-197 Portugal If you are a resident in the European Economic Area or Switzerland, we are the "data controller" of your personal information. We have appointed George Liapis to be our representative in the EEA and Switzerland . You can contact them directly regarding our processing of your information, by email at gliapis@senseiminimal.com, by visiting senseiminimal.com, by phone at 926513116, or by post to: Avenida Magalhaes Lima 7, 2D Lisbon, Lisbon 1000-197 Portugal **13\. HOW CAN YOU REVIEW, UPDATE, OR DELETE THE DATA WE COLLECT FROM YOU?** Based on the applicable laws of your country, you may have the right to request access to the personal information we collect from you, change that information, or delete it. To request to review, update, or delete your personal information, please visit: . ### Cookie Policy URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/cookie-policy/ Last updated: 2023-10-12T23:18:51.000Z **Last updated October 12, 2023** This Cookie Policy explains how Sensei Minimal LDA ("**Company**," "**we**," "**us**," and "**our**") uses cookies and similar technologies to recognize you when you visit our website at [https://romanempiretimes.com](https://romanempiretimes.com/) ("**Website**"). It explains what these technologies are and why we use them, as well as your rights to control our use of them. In some cases we may use cookies to collect personal information, or that becomes personal information if we combine it with other information. **What are cookies?** Cookies are small data files that are placed on your computer or mobile device when you visit a website. Cookies are widely used by website owners in order to make their websites work, or to work more efficiently, as well as to provide reporting information. Cookies set by the website owner (in this case, Sensei Minimal LDA) are called "first-party cookies." Cookies set by parties other than the website owner are called "third-party cookies." Third-party cookies enable third-party features or functionality to be provided on or through the website (e.g., advertising, interactive content, and analytics). The parties that set these third-party cookies can recognize your computer both when it visits the website in question and also when it visits certain other websites. **Why do we use cookies?** We use first- and third-party cookies for several reasons. Some cookies are required for technical reasons in order for our Website to operate, and we refer to these as "essential" or "strictly necessary" cookies. Other cookies also enable us to track and target the interests of our users to enhance the experience on our Online Properties. Third parties serve cookies through our Website for advertising, analytics, and other purposes. This is described in more detail below. **How can I control cookies?** You have the right to decide whether to accept or reject cookies. You can exercise your cookie rights by setting your preferences in the Cookie Consent Manager. The Cookie Consent Manager allows you to select which categories of cookies you accept or reject. Essential cookies cannot be rejected as they are strictly necessary to provide you with services. The Cookie Consent Manager can be found in the notification banner and on our website. If you choose to reject cookies, you may still use our website though your access to some functionality and areas of our website may be restricted. You may also set or amend your web browser controls to accept or refuse cookies. The specific types of first- and third-party cookies served through our Website and the purposes they perform are described in the table below (please note that the specific cookies served may vary depending on the specific Online Properties you visit): **Essential website cookies:** These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our Website and to use some of its features, such as access to secure areas. | Name: | m | | ----------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Purpose: | Tracks the user's session for Stripe | | Provider: | m.stripe.com | | Service: | Stripe [View Service Privacy Policy](https://stripe.com/privacy?ref=romanempiretimes.com) | | Country: | United States | | Type: | server\_cookie | | Expires in: | 1 year 11 months 29 days | | Name: | \_\_stripe\_mid | | ----------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Purpose: | Fraud prevention and detection | | Provider: | .romanempiretimes.com | | Service: | Stripe [View Service Privacy Policy](https://stripe.com/en-nl/privacy?ref=romanempiretimes.com) | | Country: | United States | | Type: | http\_cookie | | Expires in: | 11 months 30 days | | Name: | \_\_stripe\_sid | | ----------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Purpose: | Fraud prevention and detection | | Provider: | .romanempiretimes.com | | Service: | Stripe [View Service Privacy Policy](https://stripe.com/en-nl/privacy?ref=romanempiretimes.com) | | Country: | United States | | Type: | http\_cookie | | Expires in: | 29 minutes | **Analytics and customization cookies:** These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our Website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our Website for you. | Name: | \_\_gpi | | ----------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Purpose: | Tracks the user's interaction with Google products | | Provider: | .romanempiretimes.com | | Service: | Google [View Service Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy?ref=romanempiretimes.com) | | Country: | United States | | Type: | http\_cookie | | Expires in: | 1 year 24 days | | Name: | \_ga\_# | | ----------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Purpose: | Used to distinguish individual users by means of designation of a randomly generated number as client identifier, which allows calculation of visits and sessions | | Provider: | .romanempiretimes.com | | Service: | Google Analytics [View Service Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy?ref=romanempiretimes.com) | | Country: | United States | | Type: | http\_cookie | | Expires in: | 1 year 1 month 4 days | | Name: | \_ga | | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Purpose: | Records a particular ID used to come up with data about website usage by the user | | Provider: | .romanempiretimes.com | | Service: | Google Analytics [View Service Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy?ref=romanempiretimes.com) | | Country: | United States | | Type: | http\_cookie | | Expires in: | 1 year 1 month 4 days | **Advertising cookies:** These cookies are used to make advertising messages more relevant to you. They perform functions like preventing the same ad from continuously reappearing, ensuring that ads are properly displayed for advertisers, and in some cases selecting advertisements that are based on your interests. | Name: | \_\_gads | | ----------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Purpose: | Set by Google Ad Manager on a site to help with measuring how a user interacts with the ads on that domain and preventing the same ads from being shown to the user too many times. | | Provider: | .romanempiretimes.com | | Service: | Google Ad Manager [View Service Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy?ref=romanempiretimes.com) | | Country: | United States | | Type: | http\_cookie | | Expires in: | 1 year 24 days | | Name: | test\_cookie | | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Purpose: | A session cookie used to check if the user’s browser supports cookies. | | Provider: | .doubleclick.net | | Service: | DoubleClick [View Service Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy?ref=romanempiretimes.com) | | Country: | United States | | Type: | server\_cookie | | Expires in: | 15 minutes | **Unclassified cookies:** These are cookies that have not yet been categorized. We are in the process of classifying these cookies with the help of their providers. | Name: | loglevel | | ----------- | -------------------- | | Purpose: | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | | Provider: | open.spotify.com | | Service: | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | | Country: | United States | | Type: | html\_local\_storage | | Expires in: | persistent | | Name: | ghost-history | | ----------- | -------------------- | | Purpose: | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | | Provider: | romanempiretimes.com | | Service: | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | | Country: | United States | | Type: | html\_local\_storage | | Expires in: | persistent | | Name: | sp\_landing | | ----------- | ------------------------ | | Purpose: | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | | Provider: | .spotify.com | | Service: | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | | Country: | United States | | Type: | server\_cookie | | Expires in: | 2 years 8 months 26 days | | Name: | sp\_t | | ----------- | -------------------- | | Purpose: | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | | Provider: | .spotify.com | | Service: | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | | Country: | United States | | Type: | server\_cookie | | Expires in: | 999 years 4 months | | Name: | isAnnouncementBarVisible | | ----------- | ------------------------ | | Purpose: | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | | Provider: | romanempiretimes.com | | Service: | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | | Country: | United States | | Type: | html\_session\_storage | | Expires in: | session | | Name: | rc::h | | ----------- | -------------------- | | Purpose: | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | | Provider: | www.google.com | | Service: | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | | Country: | United States | | Type: | html\_local\_storage | | Expires in: | persistent | | Name: | announcementBarContent | | ----------- | ---------------------- | | Purpose: | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | | Provider: | romanempiretimes.com | | Service: | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | | Country: | United States | | Type: | html\_session\_storage | | Expires in: | session | **How can I control cookies on my browser?** As the means by which you can refuse cookies through your web browser controls vary from browser to browser, you should visit your browser's help menu for more information. The following is information about how to manage cookies on the most popular browsers: - [Chrome](https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95647?ref=romanempiretimes.com#zippy=%2Callow-or-block-cookies) - [Internet Explorer](https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/delete-and-manage-cookies-168dab11-0753-043d-7c16-ede5947fc64d?ref=romanempiretimes.com) - [Firefox](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-protection-firefox-desktop?redirectslug=enable-and-disable-cookies-website-preferences&redirectlocale=en-US&ref=romanempiretimes.com) - [Safari](https://support.apple.com/en-ie/guide/safari/sfri11471/mac?ref=romanempiretimes.com) - [Edge](https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/microsoft-edge-browsing-data-and-privacy-bb8174ba-9d73-dcf2-9b4a-c582b4e640dd?ref=romanempiretimes.com) - [Opera](https://help.opera.com/en/latest/web-preferences/?ref=romanempiretimes.com) In addition, most advertising networks offer you a way to opt out of targeted advertising. If you would like to find out more information, please visit: - [Digital Advertising Alliance](http://www.aboutads.info/choices/?ref=romanempiretimes.com) - [Digital Advertising Alliance of Canada](https://youradchoices.ca/?ref=romanempiretimes.com) - [European Interactive Digital Advertising Alliance](http://www.youronlinechoices.com/?ref=romanempiretimes.com) **What about other tracking technologies, like web beacons?** Cookies are not the only way to recognize or track visitors to a website. We may use other, similar technologies from time to time, like web beacons (sometimes called "tracking pixels" or "clear gifs"). These are tiny graphics files that contain a unique identifier that enables us to recognize when someone has visited our Website or opened an email including them. This allows us, for example, to monitor the traffic patterns of users from one page within a website to another, to deliver or communicate with cookies, to understand whether you have come to the website from an online advertisement displayed on a third-party website, to improve site performance, and to measure the success of email marketing campaigns. In many instances, these technologies are reliant on cookies to function properly, and so declining cookies will impair their functioning. **Do you use Flash cookies or Local Shared Objects?** Websites may also use so-called "Flash Cookies" (also known as Local Shared Objects or "LSOs") to, among other things, collect and store information about your use of our services, fraud prevention, and for other site operations. If you do not want Flash Cookies stored on your computer, you can adjust the settings of your Flash player to block Flash Cookies storage using the tools contained in the [Website Storage Settings Panel](http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings%5Fmanager07.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com). You can also control Flash Cookies by going to the [Global Storage Settings Panel](http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings%5Fmanager03.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com) and following the instructions (which may include instructions that explain, for example, how to delete existing Flash Cookies (referred to "information" on the Macromedia site), how to prevent Flash LSOs from being placed on your computer without your being asked, and (for Flash Player 8 and later) how to block Flash Cookies that are not being delivered by the operator of the page you are on at the time). Please note that setting the Flash Player to restrict or limit acceptance of Flash Cookies may reduce or impede the functionality of some Flash applications, including, potentially, Flash applications used in connection with our services or online content. **Do you serve targeted advertising?** Third parties may serve cookies on your computer or mobile device to serve advertising through our Website. These companies may use information about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide relevant advertisements about goods and services that you may be interested in. They may also employ technology that is used to measure the effectiveness of advertisements. They can accomplish this by using cookies or web beacons to collect information about your visits to this and other sites in order to provide relevant advertisements about goods and services of potential interest to you. The information collected through this process does not enable us or them to identify your name, contact details, or other details that directly identify you unless you choose to provide these. **How often will you update this Cookie Policy?** We may update this Cookie Policy from time to time in order to reflect, for example, changes to the cookies we use or for other operational, legal, or regulatory reasons. Please therefore revisit this Cookie Policy regularly to stay informed about our use of cookies and related technologies. The date at the top of this Cookie Policy indicates when it was last updated. **Where can I get further information?** If you have any questions about our use of cookies or other technologies, please email us at \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ or by post to: Sensei Minimal LDA Avenida Magalhaes Lima 7, 2D Lisbon, Lisbon 1000-197 Portugal Phone: 926513116 ### Welcome to the Roman Empire Times Free Tier URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/free-member-signup/ Last updated: 2024-08-04T19:46:59.000Z _This page is for subscribers only._ ### Welcome to the Roman Empire Times Premium Tier URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/premium-member-signup/ Last updated: 2024-04-14T20:11:45.000Z _This page is for paying subscribers only._ ### Contact us URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/contact-us/ Last updated: 2024-07-13T21:35:55.000Z _No content available._ ### Web Accessibility Statement URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/web-accessibility-statement/ Last updated: 2024-07-12T21:11:16.000Z At Roman Empire Times, we value all our visitors and strive to improve the accessibility and usability of our website. We are passionate about web typography, and delivering a smooth web experience for everyone, is our main goal. ## General Our commitment ensures that our services and content are accessible to individuals with disabilities, including those using screen reader technology. To achieve this, we have partnered with accessScan, a leading web accessibility service, utilizing their advanced Website Accessibility Checker. This partnership helps us align with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, among other international standards. The initial accessibility enhancements have been implemented, including thorough testing with automated tools and screen reader users to identify and fix accessibility barriers. AccessScan will continue to monitor our Website and update accessibility features as needed, and we continuously strive to provide the best and most accessible experience possible, for all of our readers. ### Disclaimer Please note that our efforts to enhance website accessibility are ongoing. While we aim to make the Website as accessible as possible, some users may experience issues due to the wide variety of assistive technologies available. We appreciate your understanding and patience. ### Contact Us If you encounter any accessibility issues on our Website, please contact us via email at [hello@romanempiretimes.com](mailto:hello@romanempiretimes.com). Please describe the specific webpage and the nature of the issue. We are committed to making all reasonable efforts to resolve such issues and ensure that the content is accessible to you. Thank you for visiting Roman Empire Times. ### Corrections Policy URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/corrections-policy/ Last updated: 2024-07-12T21:09:19.000Z Roman Empire Times is committed to delivering accurate and factual content. Mistakes are inevitable though, so if errors occur, we do our best to rectify them promptly. Corrections requests can be sent to our newsroom via emailing us at [newsroom@romanempiretimes.com](mailto:newsroom@romanempiretimes.com), detailing the article's headline, URL, and the necessary correction. For significant corrections, a note will be added to the article explaining the change and its date. Major issues that compromise the article's integrity, or reveal that the article failed to meet Roman Empire Times' editorial standards, will prompt an editor's note at the article's top, clarifying the correction and the concerns it raises. Formal replies to articles can be requested via email, citing specific details. To submit a formal right of reply to an article, please email [editor@romanempiretimes.com](mailto:editor@romanempiretimes.com) citing the article headline and URL. ### Copyright Notice URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/copyright-notice/ Last updated: 2024-07-13T08:15:47.000Z Roman Empire Times is committed to respecting copyright law and other intellectual property rights. We value our intellectual property and that of others, making every reasonable effort to secure permission from rights holders before reproducing any work on our website, blog, or other media. Any omissions or errors are inadvertent and will be corrected in future publications upon written notification by the rights holder. Please note that the content of this website is owned by Roman Empire Times and other specified rights holders. The guidance provided by any member of our staff does not constitute legal advice. It is your responsibility to secure permission from copyright holders before reproducing any elements from our site, and failure to do so may constitute a breach of copyright laws. At Roman Empire Times, we utilize advanced AI tools such as DALL-E, Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion to create unique images that are integral to our content. **We hold exclusive copyrights** to all material generated by these AI technologies. Our proprietary images are crafted with the intent to enhance our offerings and engage our audience uniquely. As the rightful copyright holders, we assert our legal rights vigorously and will pursue legal action against unauthorized use of our AI-generated images. Prior authorization is mandatory for any external use to ensure respect for our creative assets and intellectual property. To request said authorization, kindly contact us at [copyright@romanempiretimes.com](mailto:copyright@romanempiretimes.com) with the material in question, your name and details of its desired use. ### Take Down Procedure We diligently work to trace and obtain permissions to reproduce intellectual property in support of our educational and informational offerings, while protecting our own copyrights and trademarks. International copyright law under the allows certain 'fair dealing' exceptions, which permit the free use of copyrighted materials for: - Instruction or illustration, - Quotation, - Non-commercial research or private study. Should you own copyright to any material used on our website and believe it infringes on your rights, Roman Empire Times has implemented a take down notice and procedure. Please contact us immediately at [copyright@romanempiretimes.com](mailto:copyright@romanempiretimes.com) with your name, address, details of the copyright material, your relationship to it, and the nature of the objection. We will remove the material pending an investigation after initial verification of your complaint. ### Roman Empire Times Editorial Guidelines URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-empire-times-editorial-guidelines/ Last updated: 2024-07-13T08:27:17.000Z At Roman Empire Times, our mission is to provide insightful, accurate, and engaging content that illuminates the history and legacy of the Roman Empire. We aim to educate, entertain, and inspire our readers by delivering high-quality articles, features, and analyses. --- ## Editorial Standards ### Accuracy and Credibility - We ensure that all information is thoroughly researched and verified. Our sources are reputable and properly cited. - Any [corrections](https://romanempiretimes.com/corrections-policy/) or updates to our content will be clearly indicated. ### Objectivity and Balance - We strive to present balanced perspectives on historical events and figures, acknowledging the complexity and diversity of historical interpretations. - While we may offer analysis, opinion and fictional content in the form of stories, it will always be clearly distinguished from factual reporting. ### Sources and Attribution - All sources of information will be clearly identified unless confidentiality is necessary to protect the source. - Direct quotations and paraphrased content will be attributed to their original sources. ### Originality and Plagiarism - All content must be original and free from plagiarism. We value creative and unique contributions that offer fresh perspectives on historical topics. - We adhere to strict anti-plagiarism policies and employ tools to ensure the originality of our content. ### Ethical Conduct - Our writers and editors adhere to the highest standards of ethical journalism. They must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. - Gifts, payments, or other incentives from sources or advertisers are strictly prohibited. --- ## Content Guidelines ### Quality and Engagement - Articles should be well-written, engaging, and accessible to a broad audience, including both history enthusiasts and casual readers. - We value clarity, coherence, and readability in all our publications. ### Diversity of Topics - We cover a wide range of topics related to the Roman Empire, including art, politics, culture, military history, daily life, and notable figures. - Contributions that explore lesser-known aspects of Roman history or offer new interpretations are particularly encouraged. ### Visual Content - High-quality images, maps, and other visual aids should complement the text and enhance the reader's understanding. - All visual content must be properly [credited](https://romanempiretimes.com/copyright-notice/) and used with permission. - AI-generated visual content that is thoroughly researched and historically accurate is encouraged, when used to enhance readability, add context to the article, and provide a visual guide on the topic. --- ## Corrections and Feedback - We welcome feedback from our readers and are committed to [correcting](https://romanempiretimes.com/corrections-policy/) any inaccuracies promptly. - Any factual errors brought to our attention will be addressed transparently and swiftly. ## Advertising and Sponsorship - Advertisements and sponsored content will be clearly distinguished from editorial content. - Editorial independence is paramount, and our content is not influenced by advertisers or sponsors. By adhering to these guidelines, Roman Empire Times maintains its commitment to delivering trustworthy, engaging, and informative content about the fascinating history of the Roman Empire. ### Write for Roman Empire Times URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/write-for-roman-empire-times/ Last updated: 2024-07-13T21:17:00.000Z At Roman Empire Times, we bring excitement and depth to discussions on ancient Roman history, philosophy, art, and more. Founded in October 2023, our site draws an international audience, boasting a steady growth rate MoM. Our most significant readership comes from the USA, UK, Europe, Latin America, and India. ### Interested in contributing? To write for us, you must adhere to academic principles. We welcome researchers and academics who hold an academic degree in their subject area. We also encourage guest posts or contributors enthusiastic about Ancient Rome, who must always properly cite their articles using strictly academic or official sources. ### Author perks #### **Full credit* - We never change authors to our articles, unless directly stated by the original author (i.e. to write under an alias) - Articles posted have no expiration date - Articles may be republished in future dates; - - either in their exact same status; - or updated with more information by the original author or Chief Editor; when done so, it will be clearly indicated #### **Dedicated profile page* - A custom profile picture crafted in the style of Roman Empire Times design principles - A short bio with their experience (200 characters) - Up to three links to their preferred page (i.e. personal blog, Facebook, X/Twitter) - Their location (city, country) #### **Nominal fees per article + Guest posts* - Payments are made via PayPal - Fees vary per topic, level of experience and are TBD with each individual author - Guest posts offered pro bono are welcome ## Join us today! --- ### Contribution Terms & Conditions Roman Empire Times upholds high standards of integrity and professionalism. All submissions are reviewed by experts. By applying, you agree to our standards and guidelines: 1. You must have the necessary educational background and/or provide the necessary academic/official sources, for factual claims. 2. We promote the **ethical use of AI** (i.e. to facilitate research, spelling & grammar, generate visual content, and improve readability). All original material used as sources for AI-generated content must be properly credited and cited. 3. Zero tolerance for plagiarism or blatant rephrasing using AI; articles must be original and fact-checked. Upon detection, violations will result in termination without payment. 4. Your content must not be obscene, defamatory or illegal. 5. We reserve the right to edit submissions before publishing an article. 6. Upon payment, you grant Roman Empire Times a worldwide, royalty-free, exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to your material. 7. Any breaches of the above will result in termination of participation. Roman Empire Times is all about loving the topic you're writing about. Feel proud and responsible for the quality of your work, read by a worldwide audience. ### Media Relations URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/media-relations/ Last updated: 2024-07-13T22:44:18.000Z Established in October 2023, Roman Empire Times delivers daily articles on Ancient Roman History, Museums, Architecture, Philosophy, Art, and more, specially authored by experts. Trusted by history enthusiasts, our website strives for top quality content and a uniquely crafted user experience, that brings the past to life. For media inquiries, kindly contact [media@romanempiretimes.com](mailto:media@romanempiretimes.com) or complete the form below. ### Advertise with Roman Empire Times URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/advertise-with-roman-empire-times/ Last updated: 2024-07-13T22:52:28.000Z Unlock the potential of your brand by advertising with Roman Empire Times. We offer flexible and modern ad placements with over 70% viewability and top-notch metrics. Our newsletters boast exceptional open rates exceeding 60%, ensuring your message reaches a highly engaged audience. Additionally, we provide unique opportunities for top-quality advertorials that resonate with our readership. For advertising inquiries, please contact us at advertise@romanempiretimes.com or complete the form below. Partner with us to elevate your brand's presence and connect with a dedicated community of history enthusiasts. ### Thank you for funding our Symposium URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/donation-member-signup/ Last updated: 2024-08-04T19:48:16.000Z Welcome to the list of members who are helping Roman Empire Times grow! You've just unlocked the special **Donator access level**, granting you an Ad-free browsing experience of Roman Empire Times. Enjoy a fully Ad-free experience, access all News and Historical Facts, enjoy all Free Stories and preview all Premium Stories and Anecdotes, all carefully curated from our small team of human writers, fascinated with Roman myths & legends. We're so glad you're here. ### Catch up on our latest stories👇 Get a taste of the insights you're about to receive in your inbox by checking out the [latest posts](https://romanempiretimes.com/). ## Posts ### Gratian: A Child on the Throne, a Soldier in the Making URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/gratian-a-child-on-the-throne-a-soldier-in-the-making/ Last updated: 2026-09-02T20:51:40.000Z When Gratian became Augustus in 367, he was eight years old. His father, Valentinian I, had recovered from a serious illness that had already prompted discussion at court about who might succeed him, and the solution he adopted was unusual. Instead of giving his son the junior rank of Caesar, Valentinian raised the boy directly to the same imperial title held by himself and his brother Valens. Gratian could not yet command an [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/), conduct government independently, or fulfil most of the duties traditionally associated with an [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/the-year-of-the-four-emperors/). His elevation nevertheless secured his place within the new dynasty and gave him full imperial rank long before he was capable of exercising the responsibilities that went with it. The arrangement remained workable while Valentinian was alive. It became considerably more complicated after his death in 375, when Gratian inherited a western government in which generals, civilian officials and aristocratic networks already possessed considerable authority around the throne. During the following eight years he increasingly attempted to perform the functions expected of an adult Roman ruler: commanding troops, responding to frontier crises, making appointments, arbitrating religious disputes and directing imperial policy. His reign ended in 383 when [Magnus Maximus](https://romanempiretimes.com/magnus-maximus-the-roman-commander-who-rose-from-britain-to-rule-the-west/) was proclaimed emperor by troops in Britain, crossed into Gaul and drew much of Gratian's military support away from him. Ancient writers subsequently offered several explanations for his fall, including his enthusiasm for hunting, his attachment to foreign soldiers, the influence of advisers and his growing involvement in religious affairs. None of these explanations by itself accounts adequately for what happened. Gratian had entered imperial life as a child ruler around whom other men necessarily performed many of the practical functions of government. As he grew older, he attempted to exercise more of those functions himself, while the political and military structures formed during his youth remained in place. ## An Eight-Year-Old Augustus Gratian was born in 359, the son of Valentinian and Severa. When Valentinian became emperor in 364, his son acquired an entirely new political significance. Before his promotion as Augustus, Gratian had received the designation *nobilissimus puer*, and in 367 he held his first consulship. His position changed dramatically later that year after Valentinian became seriously ill. The illness exposed the uncertainty surrounding a dynasty that had only recently come to power. While Valentinian appeared close to death, groups at court discussed possible adult successors, and [Ammianus](https://romanempiretimes.com/ammian-or-ammianus-marcellinus-from-a-roman-soldier-to-one-of-the-best-historians-of-all-time/) names Rusticus Julianus and the general [Severus](https://romanempiretimes.com/septimius-severus-founder-fighter-and-father-of-a-new-rome/) among the men whose candidacies attracted support. The eight-year-old Gratian was therefore not automatically treated as the obvious successor merely because he was the emperor's son. When Valentinian recovered, he acted to prevent a similar crisis from occurring again. ![Valentinian I was suddenly struck by a stroke during a conversation with the barbarian ambassadors, 375](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/09/Valentinian-I-was-suddenly-struck-by-a-stroke-during-a-conversation-with-the-barbarian-ambassadors--1--1.jpg) Valentinian I was suddenly struck by a stroke during a conversation with the barbarian ambassadors, 375\. Public domain On 24 August 367 at Amiens, Valentinian presented Gratian to the assembled army and proposed him as an imperial colleague. The[ soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/) acclaimed the boy as Augustus.[ Rome ](https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-client-kings-how-the-empire-ruled-without-annexing/)had known youthful [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/the-year-of-the-four-emperors/) before, and [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) had promoted their sons while they were young, but the direct elevation of a child of eight to the full rank of Augustus, beside a reigning father and uncle and without an intermediate period as Caesar, remained a striking departure from recent imperial practice. In formal terms, Gratian did not possess a lesser imperial rank. He stood beside Valentinian and [Valens](https://romanempiretimes.com/valens-the-emperor-rome-remembered-through-disaster/) as an Augustus even though his age meant that his practical role would necessarily remain restricted. The arrangement therefore created a considerable gap between title and capacity: Gratian possessed the highest rank in the Roman state while remaining dependent upon his father and the experienced adults surrounding the imperial court. Ammianus' account of the elevation is especially useful because the military expectations placed upon the new emperor are explicit. After clothing his son in the imperial insignia, Valentinian instructed Gratian to prepare for the responsibilities he would eventually have to assume, telling him to: > "accustom yourself to pass fearlessly with the infantry over the Danube and the Rhine" Valentinian also instructed him to remain close to his soldiers and to be prepared to risk his life for those under his command. His son was still a child, but the role being described to him was that of the traditional campaigning emperor who travelled with the army, crossed the frontier rivers and shared military danger. Gratian could not fulfil that role in 367, but his father expected him eventually to grow into it. Gratian did receive some exposure to military life during his father's reign. Valentinian took him on campaign against the Alamanni in 368, although Ammianus states that the boy was kept back with the Jovian legion because his age made him unequal to[ battle](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-battle-of-lake-trasimene-hannibals-devastating-ambush/) and hardship. When Valentinian undertook his final campaign on the Danube in 375, Gratian remained at Trier. By then he was sixteen and recently married, and leaving him in Gaul may have represented a greater measure of independence, but he had still not established himself as a field commander. His civilian education developed alongside this military environment. Ausonius, the distinguished teacher from Bordeaux, was summoned to court during the later 360s to supervise Gratian's education. Literary training, rhetoric and familiarity with the language of administration were valuable qualifications for a late Roman ruler, whose government depended heavily upon communicating with educated officials and aristocrats throughout the empire. Gratian was therefore prepared both for the cultivated civilian world represented by Ausonius and for the active military emperorship exemplified by his father. ## Valentinian Dies, and Another Child Becomes Emperor By 374 Gratian had married Constantia, daughter of Constantius II. The marriage connected the Valentinian dynasty with the Constantinian house and strengthened Gratian's dynastic position. By the time Valentinian left for the Danube in 375, his elder son had already held three consulships, in 367, 371 and 374, and had been Augustus for eight years. There was little doubt that he had been deliberately marked out as his father's principal heir. ![Gratian Siliqua](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/09/gratian--1--1.jpg) Gratian Siliqua. Public domain Valentinian died suddenly at Brigetio on 17 November 375 while receiving an embassy from the Quadi. Gratian was at Trier and was not present when the succession crisis began. Senior officials around the dead emperor moved quickly, recalling the general Merobaudes and removing the respected commander Sebastianus from the immediate scene because of fears that troops might proclaim an experienced adult soldier instead. Six days after Valentinian's death, his four-year-old son by Justina was brought before the army and proclaimed Valentinian II. Neither Gratian nor Valens had authorized the elevation beforehand. The decision took place amid a genuine political emergency, but the precise calculations of those involved have to be reconstructed cautiously. A sudden imperial death could encourage military usurpation and [civil war](https://romanempiretimes.com/for-rome-no-war-was-worse-than-civil-war/), while a four-year-old dynastic Augustus also offered advantages to powerful men who could exercise authority around him without facing an independent adult ruler. Modern interpretations consequently give considerable importance to Merobaudes and other senior figures involved in the settlement, while Petronius Probus has also been associated with the political manoeuvring surrounding the new regime. The evidence does not allow every detail of these arrangements to be recovered, but Valentinian II's elevation was not the straightforward execution of a succession plan left by his father. Men on the spot acted without prior imperial authorization and created a new political situation to which Gratian then had to respond. Gratian accepted his half-brother instead of challenging the proclamation and risking conflict within the dynasty. Later accounts have sometimes encouraged the impression of a clear territorial division in which Gratian governed Gaul, Britain and Spain while Valentinian II received Italy, Africa and Illyricum. In practice, the younger emperor was four years old and there is little evidence of independent governmental activity by him before Gratian's death. Contemporary evidence generally treats Gratian as the effective western ruler, and it was Gratian who later dealt with the disposition of Illyrian territory. The early years of Gratian's independent rule also brought substantial changes within the civilian administration. Some officials closely associated with Valentinian's Pannonian network disappeared from power, while relations with the Roman senatorial aristocracy became less confrontational. Valentinian's reign had produced considerable resentment among senators because of prosecutions and investigations associated with officials such as Maximinus, and Gratian's government adopted a noticeably different tone. ![Ausonius statue in Milan](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/09/Ausonius-statue-in-Milan--1--1.jpg) Ausonius statue in Milan. Credits: G.dallorto, CC BY-SA 1.0 Ausonius and his associates prospered conspicuously within this new environment. His son Hesperius received important appointments, other relatives and associates advanced through the administration, and Ausonius himself rose through the praetorian prefecture to the consulship of 379\. The prominence of Gallic officeholders became one of the most noticeable characteristics of Gratian's early government. That prominence did not make Ausonius the controller of the western empire. His influence depended heavily upon access to his former pupil and upon civilian networks of office and patronage, while his position within the army was much weaker. Merobaudes remained an important military figure, and members of the Roman senatorial aristocracy possessed their own connections and interests. Gratian's government therefore contained several overlapping centres of influence rather than a single faction directing policy from behind the throne. ## Gratian Tries to Become a Military Emperor The crisis of 378 gave Gratian his clearest opportunity to perform the military role Valentinian had described eleven years earlier. In the East, Valens was facing the consequences of the Gothic crossing of the Danube. The situation had deteriorated into a major war, and the eastern emperor requested military assistance from the West. Before Gratian could reach his uncle, however, the Lentienses, an Alamannic group, crossed the Rhine after learning that Roman troops were being transferred towards Illyricum. Gratian recalled some forces and entrusted the immediate response to Nannienus and Mallobaudes. The Romans defeated the invaders near Argentaria, but Gratian did not end the campaign after that initial victory. He crossed the Rhine himself and continued the pursuit into difficult mountainous country. The decision consumed time while Valens faced a much larger emergency in Thrace, but it also produced the clearest surviving evidence of Gratian attempting to exercise personal battlefield leadership. During the fighting, Ammianus says the Roman troops were encouraged because: > "the emperor himself was continually seen actively employed among the front rank" The Romans continued their operations despite the difficult terrain and heavy fighting. When direct attacks proved costly, Gratian and his commanders resorted to blockade, after which the surviving Lentienses surrendered, provided young men for Roman recruitment and were permitted to return home. Ammianus' assessment immediately afterwards is unusually favourable. He praises Gratian's vigour and rapidity of action and describes him as eloquent, moderate, warlike and merciful. He nevertheless follows that praise with criticism of the emperor's enthusiasm for hunting and of the influence exerted by people around him, producing a mixed portrait rather than either an unqualified panegyric or a simple condemnation. The Lentienses campaign nevertheless delayed Gratian's journey east. From the perspective of the wider military crisis, his decision to complete the western campaign was strategically costly. It also makes sense within the political circumstances of a nineteen-year-old emperor who had possessed imperial rank since childhood but had relatively little opportunity to establish a personal military reputation. A victory achieved in his own presence allowed Gratian to demonstrate precisely the kind of martial leadership expected of an emperor and described by Valentinian at Amiens. After the campaign he resumed his movement east, reached Sirmium and continued towards Castra Martis, but illness slowed his progress. Ammianus records that Gratian suffered an intermittent fever during the journey. He nevertheless remained in communication with Valens, and Richomeres eventually arrived at the eastern court carrying letters announcing Gratian's approach and urging Valens to wait for the western reinforcements. ![Solidus of Gratian](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/09/Solidus-of-Gratian--1--1.jpg) Solidus of Gratian. Public domain The eastern command disagreed over what to do. Victor and others advised waiting for Gratian, while another group urged Valens to fight immediately. Ammianus also associates the decision with rivalry between the emperors, describing Valens as conscious of his nephew's recent success and receptive to advisers who wanted him to secure a victory before Gratian could share in it. Valens attacked the Goths near Adrianople on 9 August 378\. The result was a catastrophic Roman defeat in which the eastern emperor was killed and a large part of his field army destroyed. Gratian's delay on the Rhine formed part of the sequence leading to the battle, but the evidence does not support the claim that he abandoned Valens or caused the disaster. The eastern emperor knew that Gratian was approaching, received advice to wait and nevertheless chose to fight before the western army arrived. ## Adrianople, Theodosius and a New Imperial Balance The death of Valens left Gratian and the seven-year-old Valentinian II as the surviving Augusti. A new emperor was not appointed immediately, and almost five months passed before [Theodosius](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-theodosius-i-the-man-who-defined-christianity-and-also-massacred-thousands/) was elevated in January 379\. This interval is significant because the later, simplified account in which Gratian immediately selected a capable general to save the East does not capture the uncertainty of the situation. Theodosius was the son of the distinguished commander who had served under Valentinian I before being executed after the emperor's death. The younger Theodosius had military experience, including service in the Danubian region, and had not been implicated in the disaster at Adrianople. In a military emergency that required experienced leadership, he offered qualities neither of the surviving young emperors could yet provide in the [East](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-the-eastern-roman-empire-did-not-collapse/). ![The Obelisk of Theodosius, details of the base of the Obelisk of Thutmose III, Hippodrome, Istanbul](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/09/The-Obelisk-of-Theodosius--1--1.jpg) The Obelisk of Theodosius, details of the base of the Obelisk of Thutmose III, Hippodrome, Istanbul. The white marble base is entirely covered with bas-reliefs documenting the Imperial household and the engineering feat of removing it to Constantinople. Theodosius and the Imperial family are separated from the nobles among the spectators in the Imperial box, with a cover over them as a mark of their status. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 The role of the surviving eastern commanders also has to be considered. Richomeres, Victor and Saturninus survived Adrianople and remained important military figures. One modern reconstruction gives these generals and the eastern army a substantial role in bringing Theodosius forward. The surviving evidence does not allow that reconstruction to be demonstrated in full, but it also makes it difficult to reduce the accession to a purely personal appointment by Gratian, since any new eastern Augustus needed the acceptance of the army he was expected to command. Theodosius became Augustus at Sirmium on 19 January 379 with Gratian's recognition. The precise balance of initiative among Gratian, the military commanders and other political figures remains uncertain. Ausonius' subsequent silence is notable because his *Gratiarum Actio*, delivered later in 379, praises Gratian extensively without celebrating what would have been the remarkable act of selecting Theodosius as emperor. Once Theodosius had been elevated, Gratian cooperated with the new political settlement. He transferred the dioceses of Dacia and Macedonia to his eastern colleague, providing territory and resources useful for the continuing Gothic war. The accession nevertheless changed the balance within the imperial college, since Gratian's formal seniority now existed alongside an adult military emperor governing the region in which Rome's most serious military emergency was unfolding. The new circumstances also contributed to the decline of Ausonius' political importance. His consulship in 379 represented the culmination of his rise, but the major decisions following Adrianople had taken place away from Trier and increasingly beyond the environment in which his influence was strongest. As Gratian's attention moved towards Illyricum and northern Italy, other political and ecclesiastical figures gained greater access to the emperor. ## Gratian, Ambrose and the Christian Emperor Gratian's religious policies developed gradually rather than changing in a single moment. After Valens' death, ecclesiastical historians report that he permitted exiled bishops to return and allowed substantial freedom of worship, with exceptions for groups already prohibited. Subsequent measures narrowed some of those freedoms, suggesting an evolving response to the confused religious conditions left by Valens rather than the immediate adoption of a fixed programme. There is also evidence that a basilica in Milan was available to the Homoean Christian community during this period before Gratian later returned it to the Nicenes. The precise circumstances remain debated, but the episode is difficult to reconcile with the idea that Gratian instantly adopted an uncompromising Nicene policy as soon as Ambrose acquired influence over him. ![ Late antique mosaic of Saint Ambrose in the church St. Ambrogio in Milan which might be an actual portrait made while Ambrose was living.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/09/ambrosius-1.jpg) Late antique mosaic of Saint Ambrose in the church St. Ambrogio in Milan which might be an actual portrait made while Ambrose was living. Public domain Ambrose's importance nevertheless increased, particularly as Gratian spent more time within the political environment of northern Italy. The emperor's own surviving correspondence is valuable because it shows Gratian actively seeking theological instruction rather than merely receiving episcopal pressure. In 379 he wrote to Ambrose: > "Hasten then, holy Bishop of God; come and teach me, who am already a sincere believer" Gratian also requested further theological material concerning the Holy Spirit. His own words show that the relationship was not simply one in which Ambrose imposed his views upon a passive young ruler. Gratian deliberately sought the bishop's instruction, while Ambrose's growing influence operated partly because the emperor wanted the guidance he could provide. By 381 that influence was more clearly visible in the preparations for the Council of Aquileia. Gratian appears originally to have envisaged a broader gathering than the council that eventually took place. By September the meeting had become relatively small and heavily dominated by Ambrose, with proceedings directed primarily against the Homoean bishops Palladius and Secundianus. The council nevertheless remained connected to imperial authority. Its participants thanked the emperors for allowing the meeting and expected imperial government to enforce the resulting decisions. Gratian was therefore exercising a religious function increasingly associated with Christian emperorship, in which rulers were expected to participate in maintaining ecclesiastical order and to give practical effect to decisions made by bishops. Theodosius' role complicates any attempt to make Ambrose the sole explanation for Gratian's religious development. The eastern emperor had his own bishops, councils and policies, and the two imperial courts did not always pursue identical objectives. Gratian's religious government emerged from interaction among the emperor himself, Ambrose, other western bishops, the Roman church and his eastern colleague. ## The Altar of Victory and the Pontifical Question Around 382, Gratian took measures that changed the relationship between the western government and some of Rome's traditional religious institutions. The Altar of Victory was removed from the [senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) house, and privileges associated with the traditional priesthoods and the [Vestal Virgins](https://romanempiretimes.com/vestal-virgins-keepers-of-romes-eternal-flame-and-protectors-of-the-state/) were affected. The relevant legislation has not survived in full, so the exact scope of the financial measures cannot be reconstructed with complete confidence. Later evidence concentrates particularly upon the privileges and financial support associated with the Vestals and priestly colleges. Modern scholarship has consequently questioned older descriptions of Gratian's policy as a comprehensive assault upon pagan worship. The measures were nevertheless substantial enough to provoke serious opposition from traditionalist senators, while removing the Altar of Victory from the senate house carried considerable symbolic importance. A senatorial delegation attempted to approach Gratian but was not received. The circumstances became part of the subsequent controversy, and Christian senators also opposed the restoration of the older privileges. The episode therefore did not represent a uniformly pagan senate confronting a uniformly [Christian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-theodosius-i-the-man-who-defined-christianity-and-also-massacred-thousands/) imperial government, since [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)'s senatorial aristocracy itself contained competing religious constituencies. The related question of the title *pontifex maximus* requires particular caution. Zosimus later claimed that Gratian rejected a ceremonial pontifical robe because accepting it was incompatible with his [Christianity](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-forbidden-dionysian-mysteries-why-did-the-roman-empire-persecute-christianity/) and placed the episode at the beginning of the reign. Contemporary evidence makes that chronology impossible, since Ausonius was still using pontifical language for Gratian in 379. ![Reconstruction of the Curia Julia with the winged Victory statue displayed in the Senate house. Gratian ordered the Altar of Victory removed in the early 380s.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/09/reconstruction-of-the-altar-of-victory-1.jpg) Reconstruction of the Curia Julia with the winged Victory statue displayed in the Senate house. Gratian ordered the Altar of Victory removed in the early 380s.Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Alan Cameron's 1968 reconstruction moved the supposed refusal to the final period of the reign and associated it with the senatorial controversy of 382–383\. Cameron explicitly acknowledged that elements of this reconstruction were hypothetical, and his later work weakened the traditional story further. The supposed ceremonial robe described by Zosimus is not otherwise securely attested, while the imperial pontifical title itself may have undergone modification or reinterpretation rather than being rejected in one dramatic public act. The evidence therefore supports a change in the relationship between Christian emperorship and[ Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)'s traditional chief priesthood during this period, but not the familiar scene of Gratian ceremonially refusing a pagan robe as an established historical event. The distinction is important because much of the conventional picture of his religious reign has depended upon treating that later narrative as a straightforward description of what happened. ## Magnus Maximus and the Collapse of Gratian's Rule By 383 Gratian had been Augustus for sixteen years and had effectively governed the western empire since his father's death. His regime nevertheless remained vulnerable in the area upon which imperial survival ultimately depended: the loyalty of the army. The successful campaign of 378 showed that Gratian could lead troops personally, but occasional battlefield leadership did not necessarily give him the same enduring relationship with the western military establishment as commanders who spent much of their careers among the soldiers. Ancient writers offered personal explanations for the deterioration of his support. Ammianus, despite praising Gratian's conduct against the Lentienses, criticized his passion for hunting and suggested that it distracted him from serious government. Zosimus later claimed that Gratian showed excessive favour to Alan soldiers and alienated Roman troops by adopting elements of their dress and behaviour. These accounts preserve evidence of contemporary or later hostility towards the emperor, but they do not provide a complete explanation for the collapse of his regime. Gratian may indeed have recruited and favoured Alan troops, while such recruitment could also have served a political purpose in an army where powerful established commanders possessed their own following. His difficulties therefore involved not only personal popularity but the distribution of military allegiance within the western government. Merobaudes was especially important. He had been involved in the arrangements following Valentinian I's death and remained one of the leading military figures of Gratian's reign. The emperor's personal courage was not the central issue, since Ammianus' account of 378 shows that Gratian could campaign and expose himself to battle. More consequential was whether the continuing loyalty of the western troops belonged primarily to the emperor or to commanders who had maintained much closer and more continuous relationships with them. In 383 Magnus Maximus was proclaimed emperor by troops in Britain and crossed to Gaul. His revolt quickly became more than a movement confined to the British army. Once Maximus had established himself on the Continent, soldiers, commanders and provincial [elites](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) had practical reasons to respond to a ruler who possessed military force and could exercise power within Gaul itself. Gratian moved against the challenge, and Zosimus describes several days of confrontation during which units progressively abandoned him for Maximus. The details cannot be reconstructed securely enough to treat every stage of that narrative as certain, but the overall result is clear. Gratian's military position disintegrated before he could defeat the usurper. Merobaudes' precise role remains debated. A substantial strand of modern scholarship accepts that the general defected from Gratian and regards his loss as central to the collapse of the emperor's military support, while other reconstructions have questioned aspects of the evidence. It is therefore safer not to present a dramatic betrayal by Merobaudes as an uncontested fact. What can be established is that Gratian was no longer able to rely upon the military establishment that had sustained his government. He fled south after the collapse of his forces. Andragathius, one of Maximus' commanders, pursued him, and Gratian was killed near Lyon in August 383 at the age of twenty-four. Later ecclesiastical writers elaborated the episode with a story in which Andragathius used a carriage and false information concerning Gratian's wife to lure him into a trap, but the surviving versions differ and cannot securely establish the deception. Gratian's death immediately changed the position of Valentinian II. For almost eight years the younger Augustus had remained largely in his brother's shadow, but at twelve he now became the principal surviving legitimate emperor in the West. Civilian and military figures consequently regrouped around his court in an effort to preserve an alternative to Maximus. The events of 383 also exposed a difficulty that had existed since Gratian's elevation in 367\. A child could hold full imperial rank while adults around him performed many of the practical functions associated with the office. Officials could administer government, generals could command armies and aristocratic networks could exercise patronage while the young emperor provided dynastic legitimacy. Gratian, however, had not been educated to remain permanently in that position. Valentinian had prepared him for the expectation that an emperor would cross the Rhine and Danube with his troops and share the dangers of military command. In 378 Gratian attempted to fulfil that expectation, personally crossing the Rhine, pursuing the Lentienses into difficult terrain and appearing among his fighting men. The political environment in which he attempted to assume those responsibilities had been formed during the years in which he could not exercise them himself. Civilian networks had developed around access to his court, senior generals possessed their own relationships with the army, and bishops increasingly sought imperial intervention in ecclesiastical disputes. Gratian could exercise authority within that system, but his accession to adulthood did not remove the independent influence already accumulated by the figures surrounding him. His failure did not end the practice of placing children on the imperial throne. Theodosius subsequently raised his sons Arcadius and Honorius as Augusti while they were still young, and later western governments became increasingly accustomed to emperors who inherited power as children while powerful military commanders exercised many of the practical functions traditionally associated with the imperial office. Gratian therefore stood near the beginning of an important development in the later Roman West, but his reign differed from the more established pattern of child-emperor government that followed. He had received full imperial rank at eight while his father and other experienced figures exercised the practical functions of rule around him. As he matured, he attempted to assume those functions himself, including personal military command, and his overthrow in 383 showed how difficult that transition could become when political influence and military loyalty were already concentrated among powerful figures around the imperial court. 💡 ****Sources used:** Meaghan A. McEvoy, **Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West, AD 367–455*. John Matthews, **Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, A.D. 364–425*. Alan Cameron, “Gratian’s Repudiation of the Pontifical Robe,” **Journal of Roman Studies* 58 (1968). Ammianus Marcellinus, **The Roman History*, Books XXVII, XXX and XXXI, trans. C. D. Yonge. Gratian, Letter to Ambrose, 379. Ambrose of Milan, correspondence and material associated with the Council of Aquileia. Symmachus, **Relatio* 3. Zosimus, **New History*, Book IV. Socrates Scholasticus, **Ecclesiastical History*. Sozomen, **Ecclesiastical History*. ### ### The Roman Rudis: The Award That Ended a Gladiator’s Service URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-rudis-the-award-that-ended-a-gladiator-service/ Last updated: 2026-09-01T10:28:15.000Z The *rudis* appears in Roman gladiatorial life in two connected but distinct contexts. Wooden or blunted weapons were used for training, while the same term was associated with a gladiator’s permanent release from further compulsory service in the arena. A man who received that release could be called a *rudiarius* or *rudarius*. The surviving evidence, however, does not support the simple idea that every recipient of the *rudis* thereby became legally free. [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) provides one of the clearest ancient references to the award. During games given by the [emperor Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/), four sons appealed for the discharge of a gladiator fighting as an *essedarius*: > “when he had granted the wooden sword to an essedarius, for whose discharge four sons begged” The *rudis* here accompanies release from gladiatorial service. Yet gladiators entered the [arena](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/) under very different legal conditions. Some were enslaved, some were condemned criminals, and others were free men who voluntarily contracted to fight. The consequences of receiving the *rudis* therefore depended partly upon the recipient’s existing legal status. ### The Rudis Began as a Training Weapon The *rudis* was associated with weapons training long before some of the better-known evidence concerning gladiatorial retirement. After the capture of Carthago Nova during the Second Punic War, [Scipio Africanus](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-was-the-best-roman-warrior-scipio-africanus-a-man-who-never-lost-a-battle/) remained there for several days and subjected his land and naval forces to a repeated programme of military exercises. Both [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-and-the-architecture-of-roman-power/) and [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) describe mock combat with wooden or blunted weapons. Livy describes the third day of Scipio’s programme: > “the third day they engaged in regular battle practice with single-sticks and darts, the points of which were muffled with balls of cork or lead” Livy’s *rudes* were practice weapons used in combat exercises intended to reproduce real fighting without the same danger posed by sharpened swords. Polybius describes wooden swords in the corresponding exercise and adds that they were fitted with leather and protective “buttons.” The exact construction indicated by his wording has been interpreted differently. One reading understands the wooden swords as covered with leather and fitted with buttons, while another takes the leather to refer principally to the protective feature attached to the tip. The second interpretation addresses an obvious danger created by realistic practice. A wooden sword could still cause serious injury if driven hard into the chest or abdomen. Roman swordsmanship included thrusting as well as cutting, and military training needed to reproduce the movements used in actual fighting. A protective button on the point would therefore reduce the danger of a thrust without preventing the soldier from practising the technique itself. The important characteristic of the *rudis* in these contexts was its bluntness and suitability for practice. Roman authors could use the word more broadly for harmless or practice weapons rather than for one precisely defined wooden sword. The contrast was between the weapon used for training and the sharpened weapon used when the fighting was real. ![A possible representation of a Roman rudis, the wooden gladius sword offered to gladiators as a mark of their freedom. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/09/A-possible-representation-of-a-Roman-rudis--the-wooden-gladius-sword-offered-to-gladiators-as-a-mark-of-their-freedom--1--1.jpg) A possible representation of a Roman rudis, the wooden gladius sword offered to gladiators as a mark of their freedom. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney [Scipio](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-continence-of-scipio-a-legacy-of-clemency-in-roman-history-and-art/)’s exercises are also important when considering the relationship between military and gladiatorial training. Gladiatorial instructors were employed in Roman military training at a later date, but wooden practice swords were already being used by soldiers during the Second Punic War. The *rudis* therefore cannot simply be described as an invention of the gladiatorial school that was subsequently adopted by the Roman army. ### Training With the Rudis in the Ludus Wooden weapons formed part of the normal training conducted inside the gladiatorial *ludus*. [Gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/) were organized according to their fighting types and trained in the particular weapons, armour and techniques appropriate to those classifications. Specialist instructors are attested for categories including *secutores* and *murmillones*, while the gladiators themselves were ranked within systems connected with the *palus*. The *palus* was the wooden post against which a gladiator could practise attacks repeatedly. Training involved not only striking with the weapon but coordinating attacks with movements of the shield. [Juvenal](https://romanempiretimes.com/juvenal-the-poet-who-held-a-mirror-to-rome/)’s description of a woman practising gladiatorial techniques has her repeatedly striking the *palus* with *rudes* and attacking the post with her shield. Such exercises allowed movements to be repeated against a fixed target until the fighter became accustomed to using his equipment together. The ranking terminology of gladiators was itself connected with the *palus*. References survive to positions such as *primus palus* and *secundus palus*, including ranks attached to particular fighting categories. Training and status within the school were therefore closely connected with the techniques demanded by a gladiator’s specific armament. Experienced [gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/ave-imperator-morituri-te-salutant-what-did-gladiators-actually-say-before-fighting/) could also become instructors. [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/) describes Hermes as both an active gladiator and a *magister*, while epigraphic evidence records another man who combined the position of doctor, or instructor, with a senior gladiatorial rank. The organization of the *ludus* allowed experienced fighters to transmit the techniques they had acquired even while they remained active gladiators. People outside the professional gladiatorial population could also seek such expertise. Apuleius, attacking the behaviour of the young Sicinius Pudens, complains that he frequented a gladiatorial school: > “He is frequently seen in the gladiatorial school and there ... he learns from the keeper of the school the names of the gladiators.” Apuleius goes on to associate Pudens’ interest with knowledge of the gladiators’ fights and wounds and with instruction from the *lanista*. The accusation was intended to portray his behaviour as unsuitable for a young man of respectable social position. At the same time, the passage shows that a gladiatorial school could be approached as a place in which knowledge of fighting and weapons could be acquired. Other evidence connects men associated with gladiatorial combat with groups of Roman *iuvenes*, or young men. The precise nature of those relationships cannot always be determined, but they have been connected with the possibility that young Romans sought weapons instruction from people who possessed professional knowledge of gladiatorial combat. ### Was the Award a Wooden Sword or a Wooden Rod? The physical form of the *rudis* presented when a gladiator was discharged is not entirely certain. In one interpretation, the retirement award was a wooden sword. The same object associated with practice and training thus acquired a second meaning when presented to a gladiator who was released from the obligation to continue fighting. The symbolism would have been appropriate: a weapon that could not be used for lethal combat marked the end of compulsory service in the arena. There is, however, another interpretation. The wooden practice sword is frequently represented by the plural *rudes*, while the singular *rudis* associated with gladiatorial release has been identified instead as a wooden rod or staff. On this reading, describing the retirement award simply as a “wooden sword” combines two related but physically distinct objects represented by the same Latin term. The disagreement concerns the object itself rather than the essential function of the award. The evidence associates the *rudis* given to a gladiator with permanent discharge from his obligation to continue serving as a professional fighter. The recipient could thereafter be described as a *rudiarius* or *rudarius*. The terminology attached to gladiatorial referees adds another complication. An official known as the *summa rudis* is represented not with an object resembling a wooden sword but with a stick or switch appropriate to someone supervising a fight. The word *rudis* could therefore operate within the gladiatorial world in ways that cannot always be reduced to a single physical object. ### Missio Was Not Permanent Discharge The *rudis* must also be distinguished from *missio*. A defeated gladiator could receive *missio* and leave an individual contest alive without being released permanently from gladiatorial service. He remained a gladiator and could fight again. ![Villa Borghese gladiator mosaic ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/09/Borghese-villa-gladiator-mosaic--1--1.jpg) Villa Borghese gladiator mosaic. Public domain The evidence preserves different terminology for such outcomes. A gladiator might be described as *stans missus*, indicating release while still standing. The plural expression *stantes missi* could be applied when two opponents were both released after a contest in which neither had established a decisive superiority. These expressions recorded the result of a particular fight rather than retirement from the profession. [The career record of the gladiator Flamma](https://romanempiretimes.com/flamma-the-gladiator-who-refused-his-freedom-four-times/) demonstrates how repeated *missio* could form part of a long career. He fought more than thirty contests before dying at the age of thirty. His inscription records numerous victories as well as occasions on which he survived without winning. Being released from a particular contest allowed him to continue his career rather than ending it. An exceptional combination of the two forms of release occurred during the inaugural spectacles of the Colosseum. Martial describes the famous contest between Priscus and Verus. The two men remained evenly matched for so long that neither could establish superiority. Both ultimately received the *rudis*: > “Caesar sent wands to each, to each the meed of victory.” Martial explains the *rudes* as signs of their discharge from further gladiatorial service. In their case, the resolution of an individual contest and permanent release from future compulsory service occurred together. There was no universal rule requiring every gladiator to complete a fixed number of contests before receiving the *rudis*. Surviving records of *rudiarii* show careers of different lengths, while the frequency with which individual gladiators entered the arena could also vary considerably. The number of fights alone therefore cannot be converted into a standard Roman timetable for retirement. ### The Rudis Did Not Always Mean Legal Freedom The distinction between release from gladiatorial service and legal freedom is crucial. Gladiators entered the profession from different legal positions, and the *rudis* did not have an identical effect upon all of them. A free man who voluntarily entered gladiatorial service as an *auctoratus* had not ceased to be legally free simply by becoming a gladiator, although the profession carried serious social and legal disabilities and his service was governed by the contract he had undertaken. Release ended the obligation to continue fighting under that arrangement. ![A replica of a rudis](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/09/Rudis-replica--1--1.jpg) A replica of a rudis. Public domain The situation was different for an enslaved gladiator. Receiving permanent discharge from gladiatorial combat did not by itself manumit a slave. The *rudis* could remove the obligation to fight while leaving the recipient’s underlying status unchanged. Manumission and release from gladiatorial service were therefore separate acts, even though they could sometimes occur together. The distinction is particularly visible in legislation concerning criminals condemned to a gladiatorial school. Under a provision associated with [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-four-journeys-of-hadrian-the-globetrotter-emperor-of-the-roman-empire/), a man convicted of cattle rustling and sentenced *ad ludum gladiatorium* had to serve in the arena for at least three years before becoming eligible for the *rudis*. Even after receiving it, his sentence was not necessarily complete. Legal freedom could follow only after the fifth year. An official giving the games could exceptionally grant freedom together with the *rudis*, but the surviving provision treats the two outcomes separately. The interval also demonstrates that a man could be permanently removed from gladiatorial fighting while remaining subject to further obligations. What happened during the intervening period is not directly documented. It has been suggested that such men could have remained attached to the *ludus* and performed other duties, perhaps including assistance with training, but the evidence does not establish their precise activities. Nor can the three-year period associated with cattle rustling be turned into a general rule for all gladiators or for every category of condemned criminal. ### Rudiarii Could Return to the Arena Permanent discharge did not prevent a *rudiarius* from choosing to fight again. A retired gladiator with an established reputation could be particularly attractive to an organizer because spectators already knew his name and abilities. Suetonius records that [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/) persuaded retired gladiators to return during games commemorating members of his family: > “inducing some retired gladiators to appear with the rest by the payment of a hundred thousand sesterces to each.” The size of the payment shows the value that experienced former gladiators could possess when an organizer wanted them back in the arena. Their previous release did not prevent them from entering another agreement to fight voluntarily. Regulations intended to control the costs of gladiatorial spectacles under [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-stoic-emperor-how-marcus-aurelius-outwitted-death-in-the-germanic-wilds/) and [Commodus](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-commodus-truly-the-megalomaniac-gladiator-emperor/) likewise refer to a free fighter who, after obtaining release, returned to the dangerous profession. His valuation was not to exceed 12,000 sesterces. Release was therefore compatible with a later voluntary return under a new arrangement. Experience gained in the arena could also be useful without another professional fight. Former [gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/) possessed detailed knowledge of weapons, fighting styles and arena conventions, making them obvious candidates for some of the instructional and supervisory roles found around gladiatorial institutions. The evidence supports such movement between fighting and other roles, although it does not justify assuming that every instructor or referee had necessarily been a professional gladiator. ### The Summa Rudis and Secunda Rudis The *summa rudis* was an official who supervised or refereed gladiatorial contests, apparently sometimes accompanied by a junior official known as the *secunda rudis*. In surviving representations, such a referee can appear close to the combatants wearing a tunic marked by broad stripes and carrying a stick or switch with which he could intervene or signal during the fight. ![ Gladiators, fragment, Roman, 300-400 AD, marble and limestone mosaic - Galleria Borghese - Rome, Italy.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/09/Gladiators--fragment--1--1.jpg) Gladiators, fragment, Roman, 300-400 AD, marble and limestone mosaic - Galleria Borghese - Rome, Italy. Public domain A Pompeian notice advertising games given by Nigidius Maius contains praise for a man named Telephus, identified as a *summa rudis*. Inscriptions elsewhere connect holders of the title with groups of *iuvenes*. Their expertise in gladiatorial combat makes weapons instruction one possible explanation for such associations, although the evidence does not exclude other civic or religious functions. The origins of the men holding the titles *summa rudis* and *secunda rudis* have been disputed. One interpretation identifies them as distinguished former gladiators who had been released after successful careers and later used their expertise as instructors or referees. The titles could, on that reading, represent further stages in a professional life that began inside the arena. Other evidence has made that identification less straightforward. Several known holders of these offices achieved substantial standing in their communities. P. Aelius, a *summa rudis*, received citizenship in several cities of the Greek East. Another holder of the title made a religious dedication, while Lucius Vettonius Alexander at Mylasa erected a statue of Zeus Labraundos from his own resources on behalf of the town elders. At Hierapolis, the tomb of a *secunda rudis* named Apollonius received annual honours from the local *gerousia*. Such evidence led to doubts that all these men could have emerged from the socially degraded profession of gladiator. Yet successful gladiators could earn considerable sums, and release from the arena did not necessarily prevent a former fighter from later obtaining local prominence. One former gladiator achieved sufficient standing in his community to be selected for an embassy, although his gladiatorial past prevented the mission from succeeding once it became known to the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-emperor-who-ruled-rome-for-77-days/). A funerary inscription from Beroia supplies another connection between the refereeing offices and the personnel surrounding gladiatorial combat. It commemorates a *summa rudis* named Publius. Those honouring him included another *summa rudis*, a *secunda rudis*, ten additional men, a herald and a trumpeter. The exact identification of the group remains disputed, but it has been interpreted as personnel belonging to a gladiatorial *familia* or establishment. A possible professional progression has consequently been reconstructed in which a man could move from recruit to ranked gladiator, from experienced fighter to instructor, then receive the *rudis* and continue as an instructor before perhaps becoming a *secunda rudis* or *summa rudis*. An experienced man might eventually even become a *lanista*. The evidence does not establish such a sequence as a standard career system, but it shows how the skills acquired in gladiatorial training and combat could continue to have value after a fighter’s compulsory appearances in the arena had ended. 💡 **Sources Used:** Michael J. Carter, “Buttons and Wooden Swords: Polybius 10.20.3, Livy 26.51, and the \*Rudis\*,” \*Classical Philology\* 101.2 (2006), 153–160. Michael Carter, “Armorum Studium: Gladiatorial Training and the Gladiatorial Ludus,” \*Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies\* 61.1 (2018), 119–131. Roger Dunkle, \*Gladiators: Violence and Spectacle in Ancient Rome\* (2008). James H. Oliver, review of Louis Robert, \*Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec\*, \*American Journal of Archaeology\* 50.2 (1946), 322–323. Apuleius, \*Apologia\* 98 Livy, \*History of Rome\* 26.51. Martial, \*Book of Spectacles\* 29. Suetonius, \*Tiberius\* 7. Suetonius, \*Claudius\* 21. ### Petronius: The Courtier Who Understood How Rome Really Worked URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/petronius-the-courtier-who-understood-how-rome-really-worked/ Last updated: 2026-08-28T16:50:12.000Z Not every Roman who understood power held office, commanded armies, or wrote laws. Some exercised influence more quietly, through judgement rather than authority, proximity rather than rank. They moved within elite circles, observed without intervening, and shaped values that others followed without noticing. One such figure offers an unusually intimate view of Roman society – not as it wished to be remembered, but as it behaved when it assumed it was being watched only by itself. Yet that figure reaches us imperfectly, through fragments, scattered testimony, and later interpretation, demanding careful attention not only to what survives, but to how it has been preserved. 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in January 2026\. It was updated in August 2026.* ### A Figure Preserved in Fragments Petronius enters Roman history not as a stable authorial figure, but as a problem shaped by fragmentary texts, selective transmission, and a narrow set of ancient testimonies. What survives is enough to secure his importance, yet insufficient to resolve many of the questions that surround him. Modern understanding of Petronius has therefore developed not from a continuous narrative, but from sustained scholarly effort to reconstruct context, assess language, and trace reception across time. The ancient evidence itself already signals this uncertainty. Petronius is most vividly known through [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/), who places him within the court of [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-romes-most-infamous-ruler-part-1/) as a man valued not for moral rigor or political ambition, but for cultivated judgment and aesthetic authority. In Tacitus’ account, Petronius moves comfortably between leisure and responsibility, admired for discernment rather than severity. His reputation rests on taste, performance, and social intelligence rather than on public virtue in the traditional Roman sense. > “He passed his days in sleep, his nights in business and pleasure… yet he was not regarded as a wastrel or spendthrift, but as a man of polished ease.” (Tacitus, *Annals*) This portrait has shaped scholarly engagement with Petronius from antiquity onward. It offers a historical anchor but also raises immediate questions. Tacitus does not identify Petronius as an author, nor does he comment directly on the *Satyricon*. The connection between the court figure and the surviving literary work is therefore inferred rather than explicitly attested. Much modern scholarship has been devoted to examining whether this identification is secure, how it should be understood, and what it implies for interpreting the text. The literary work itself presents further challenges. The Satyricon survives only in fragments, preserved unevenly through manuscript tradition and later quotation. This incomplete state is not a marginal issue but a defining condition of interpretation. Questions of structure, narrative coherence, and genre cannot be addressed without acknowledging that large portions of the original composition are lost. As a result, scholarly analysis has focused as much on transmission and preservation as on content. Ancient readers already recognized the distinctive nature of Petronius’ writing. The surviving episodes combine prose and verse, elevated literary allusion and colloquial speech, elite settings and marginal figures. No ancient source assigns the work a clear generic label, and modern attempts to classify it have remained provisional. It has been variously described as satire, novel, or a hybrid form that resists stable categorization. Rather than resolving this issue, scholarship has documented how the text itself invites such uncertainty. Language has played a central role in this discussion. Particular attention has been given to Petronius’ rendering of social speech, especially in scenes that depict freedmen and non-elite environments. The realism of these passages has prompted extensive analysis of register, idiom, and literary artifice. Scholars have examined how linguistic variation functions within the narrative, not as accidental color, but as a deliberate literary technique. ![Petronius, first of the Satyricon fragments in the "Traguriensis" manuscript,](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/fragment-of-Satyricon.jpg) Petronius, first of the Satyricon fragments in the "Traguriensis" manuscript. Public domain The social world reflected in the text has also drawn sustained interest. The Satyricon offers glimpses of [Roman life](https://romanempiretimes.com/inside-roman-society-how-ordinary-life-shaped-an-extraordinary-empire-part-1/) that differ markedly from senatorial histories or moral treatises. Wealth, consumption, status anxiety, performance, and ridicule appear as recurring features. These elements have encouraged scholars to situate Petronius within the cultural environment of the early[ Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), particularly the court of Nero, where display and refinement carried political weight. Tacitus’ account of Petronius’ death reinforced this association. His description emphasizes composure, aesthetic sensibility, and controlled performance even in suicide: > “He broke off his life neither by stoic firmness nor with a philosopher’s discourse, but while conversing lightly… listening to songs and verses.”(Tacitus, Annals) This episode has often been read alongside the literary work, not as a key to interpretation, but as part of the broader image through which Petronius was remembered. The convergence of literary style and historical portrayal has encouraged scholars to treat Petronius as a figure whose identity is inseparable from questions of performance, taste, and cultural authority. Beyond antiquity, the transmission of Petronius further shaped his reception. The text survived through selective preservation, moral excerpting, and later scholarly reconstruction. Medieval and early modern readers encountered Petronius not as a complete work, but as a collection of episodes, quotations, and curiosities. This process influenced how the Satyricon was read, classified, and valued, and it continues to affect modern editions and interpretations. What emerges from this long scholarly engagement is not a settled portrait, but a carefully documented field of inquiry. Petronius remains a figure defined by fragments, mediated testimony, and competing lines of interpretation. Modern scholarship has approached him by mapping evidence, tracing transmission, and analyzing form rather than by imposing definitive conclusions. The result is a body of research that reflects the nature of its subject: partial, complex, and resistant to closure. It is within this framework that any discussion of Petronius must begin—not with certainty, but with an awareness of how his text, his historical setting, and his afterlife have been understood, debated, and preserved. *(“Mnemosyne. A bibliography of Petronius” by Gareth L. Schmeling & Johanna H. Stuckey)* ### What Remains When a Roman Text Stops Circulating The fragmented state of the Satyricon is not the result of a single act of loss or suppression, but of a long and uneven process of transmission. In its original form, the work circulated on papyrus scrolls, a medium that was both fragile and impractical for texts of great length. Copying such works required time, expense, and sustained interest, conditions that were not consistently met as literary priorities shifted. Evidence from Late Antiquity indicates that the Satyricon once survived in a more complete state than the one known today. Later authors refer to episodes and passages that are no longer extant, suggesting that the damage occurred not in the Roman period but much later. By the early Middle Ages, the work was no longer copied in full. Instead, excerpts were selected, rearranged, or omitted altogether, often according to the tastes, interests, or scruples of those handling the manuscripts. The surviving text ultimately derives from a single damaged exemplar, itself no longer preserved. Different manuscript traditions show signs of selective transmission, with some passages shortened or excluded, particularly where subject matter was judged unsuitable. The result is a work that reaches the modern reader as a sequence of episodes rather than a continuous narrative, shaped as much by medieval copying practices as by its original design. The fragmentary condition of the Satyricon therefore reflects patterns of preservation rather than authorial intention. What survives is not a deliberate selection, but the residue of a text that passed through centuries of partial copying, excerpting, and loss. ### Speaking Like Epic, Living Without It The Satyricon is marked by a distinctive narrative technique that repeatedly brings elevated literary forms into contact with scenes of physical immediacy and social instability. Characters frame their experiences in the language of epic, tragedy, and rhetorical display, only for those ambitions to be undercut by circumstance. Moments of high literary aspiration collapse into hunger, fear, bodily failure, or ridicule. ![Plate facing p. 200 from The Satyricon of Petronius Arbiter (1922)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/The-Satyricon-of-Petronius-Arbiter--1922--_facing_p._200--1-.jpg) Plate facing p. 200 from **The Satyricon of Petronius Arbiter* (1922). Public domain This pattern appears throughout the surviving text. The narrator repeatedly casts himself in heroic terms, borrowing the posture and vocabulary of epic protagonists, yet the situations he encounters offer no space for heroic resolution. Action gives way to confusion; resolve dissolves into improvisation. The effect is not achieved through parody alone, but through sustained tension between literary register and lived experience. The technique relies on contrast rather than commentary. The text does not explain its own irony or guide the reader toward a moral position. Instead, it allows the mismatch between language and reality to remain visible. Epic diction is not mocked directly; it is simply shown to be inadequate to the world in which the characters move. This method shapes the Satyricon as a narrative in which literary tradition is constantly present but never secure. The forms of the past are available, but they no longer guarantee meaning, authority, or coherence. What remains is a world governed by contingency, performance, and appetite, narrated in a language that continually reaches beyond its own reach. ### A Name That Signals Authority Rather Than Identity The author traditionally identified as Petronius is known to later sources as Arbiter, a designation associated with judgment, taste, and refinement rather than with family lineage. In the manuscripts, the term functions as a title rather than a cognomen, likely reflecting the role of an *arbiter elegantiae*, a figure consulted on matters of style and conduct. Ancient testimony connects this Petronius with the court of Nero, where a man of that name appears as a figure of cultivated detachment and social authority. The identification of the author of the Satyricon with this courtier is widely accepted, but it cannot be proven with certainty. Ancient sources disagree on details of his name and career, and no surviving text explicitly confirms the connection. What can be said is that the literary persona implied by the Satyricon aligns closely with the qualities attributed to such a figure: sensitivity to style, awareness of social performance, and a practiced distance from moral earnestness. The work does not speak from the margins of Roman society, nor from a position of formal authority, but from within elite circles that understood both the language of culture and its limits. The name “*Petronius Arbiter*” thus functions less as a biographical anchor than as a point of convergence between literary voice and social role. It identifies a mode of observation rather than a secure historical identity. ![Stachiewicz Petronius from Quo Vadis](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Stachiewicz-Petronius-from-Quo-Vadis.jpg) Stachiewicz Petronius from Quo Vadis. Public domain ### Observing Power Without Claiming It The world of the Satyricon corresponds closely to the social and cultural conditions of mid-first-century Italy. Its settings, references, and assumptions reflect a society shaped by mobility, display, and competitive self-presentation. Education, rhetoric, dining, and entertainment appear not as abstract institutions but as lived practices, embedded in daily interaction. The text presupposes familiarity with elite schooling, declamatory habits, and literary models current in the early imperial period. At the same time, it registers tensions created by wealth without pedigree, learning without authority, and ambition without stable outcome. Social boundaries are present but porous, and status is continually asserted, tested, and revised. Although later readers have often sought direct political commentary in the Satyricon, the surviving text does not adopt the language of opposition or reform. It does not argue against imperial power, nor does it seek to expose it. Instead, it reflects the conditions under which power was experienced indirectly, through proximity, imitation, and spectacle. The [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) that emerges from the Satyricon is neither idealised nor systematically condemned. It is observed. The narrative records how people speak, compete, flatter, and fail within a world that rewards performance more reliably than virtue. In this sense, the work belongs fully to its time, shaped by the social realities of Nero’s reign without reducing them to commentary. *(“The Satyrica of Petronius. An intermediate reader with commentary and guided review” by Beth Severy-Hoven)* --- What survives of the Satyricon offers no complete story and no stable viewpoint. Its value lies instead in what it preserves unintentionally: the texture of elite life, the fragility of literary authority, and the distance between cultural ideals and lived experience. Read in fragments, the work still reveals a Rome attentive to appearances, governed by proximity, and aware – often uncomfortably – of the limits of its own language. ### How Did Romans Do Math? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-romans-do-math/ Last updated: 2026-08-26T17:41:14.000Z Roman numerals are familiar enough that most people can still decipher a date such as MDCCCLXXXVIII with a little patience. Trying to multiply that number by CCCLXIV is another matter. Without positional notation, a written zero, or the column arithmetic taught in modern schools, even an ordinary multiplication problem can appear unnecessarily difficult. The Romans nevertheless had to calculate constantly. Land had to be measured and divided, prices and debts reckoned, interest calculated, inheritances apportioned, taxes and agricultural yields assessed, construction dimensions worked out and enormous quantities recorded in accounts. Roman texts preserve calculations involving large whole numbers, percentages and complicated fractions, while references to finger reckoning and counting devices show that written numerals were only part of the process. What has largely disappeared is the working itself. No surviving schoolboy's exercise or merchant's wax tablet takes us through an ordinary Roman multiplication or division from beginning to end, and even the surviving accounts of the Pompeian businessman Caecilius Jucundus record transactions without showing the calculations behind them. That absence is important because it limits how confidently the exact procedures can be reconstructed. Roman authors often preserve the figures they reached, and material evidence preserves some of the instruments available to them, but the movements of the counters or intermediate calculations were rarely recorded. The question is therefore not whether the Romans could perform arithmetic—they clearly could—but how much can be recovered about the methods they used. ### Roman Numerals Were Only Part of the Story For whole numbers, Roman counting was fundamentally decimal. Latin number words proceed through tens, hundreds and thousands, and written notation supplied signs such as I, V, X, L, C, D and M. The important difference from the modern system is that ordinary Roman notation did not use positional place value. In the modern number 505, the two instances of 5 have different values because of their positions, while the zero preserves an empty tens position. The Romans had no equivalent numerical zero functioning as a placeholder in this way. Roman numerals could still be used for written calculations. They were particularly convenient for recording quantities and totals, and simple addition and subtraction could be handled by grouping and manipulating corresponding signs. The difficulty of Roman numerals should therefore not be exaggerated into an inability to calculate with them. At the same time, Romans possessed other methods that avoided many of the inconveniences of written notation. The abacus or counting board operated according to a principle much closer to positional arithmetic. A pebble or bead had one value in one column and another value in the next. A counter might represent one in the first position, ten in the next, one hundred in the next and so on. Roman finger reckoning likewise distinguished units, tens, hundreds and thousands through different positions of the hands and fingers. Both systems could therefore embody place value even though ordinary Roman numerals did not. This helps explain why judging Roman arithmetic solely from inscriptions covered in I, V and X gives a misleading impression. The notation used to record a quantity did not necessarily tell us how the quantity had been calculated. ### Arithmetic Started at School Arithmetic formed part of [Roman education](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-ancient-romans-calculate/), although the evidence is much fuller for what pupils were expected to know than for the precise classroom methods used to teach them. Memorization and repeated drill appear to have been important, just as learning multiplication tables remained important in much later schooling. Horace gives one of the clearest glimpses. In the *Ars Poetica*, a Roman boy is questioned about fractions of the as. If an *uncia*, one-twelfth, is removed from a *quincunx*, five-twelfths, the pupil is expected to answer *triens*, one-third. When the twelfth is returned, he gives *semis*, one-half. Horace turns the lesson into a joke about the boy eventually being capable of looking after his property, but the arithmetic itself is treated as elementary knowledge. Later evidence preserves extensive numerical tables. The fifth-century Calculus of Victorius of Aquitaine included products involving units, tens, hundreds, thousands and Roman fractions, with whole numbers multiplied by values from two to fifty. It is the earliest surviving multiplication table of this sort for Roman numerals and fractions. Earlier calculations in authors such as Columella have been taken to indicate that comparable tables already existed or could be produced when needed. The surviving table notably contains products of whole numbers and fractions, but not fractions multiplied by one another. Petronius offers another glimpse of ordinary numeracy. One of Trimalchio's freedmen boasts that he has not studied geometry or literary criticism but can reckon in hundredths involving bronze, weight and [money](https://romanempiretimes.com/credit-loans-and-risk-how-ancient-rome-handled-money-without-a-central-bank/). The passage places practical arithmetic among the useful skills of someone involved in the commercial world. The same discussion of Roman education also connects school arithmetic with use of the abacus and probably finger reckoning. ### Romans Really Did Count on Their Fingers Finger reckoning in Rome was not simply counting from one to ten. Different positions could express different numerical values, and Roman writers expected their readers to recognize these gestures. ![Roman finger counting](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/roman-finger-counting-1.jpg) Roman finger counting. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Chat GPT Plautus describes a character apparently calculating with the fingers of his right hand. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) expects [Atticus](https://romanempiretimes.com/herodes-atticus-a-bridge-between-greek-heritage-and-roman-power/) to follow a financial calculation with his fingers. [Pliny](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) associates particular hand positions with the number 365, and [Quintilian](https://romanempiretimes.com/quintilian-a-roman-theory-of-education-that-left-its-mark-from-antiquity-onwards/) treats the correct use of numerical gestures as something an educated speaker ought to know. Quintilian makes the point particularly clearly while discussing the education of an orator: > “Such knowledge is frequently required in actual cases, in which a speaker is regarded as deficient in education, I will not say if he hesitates in making a calculation, but even if he contradicts the calculations which he states in words by making an uncertain or inappropriate gesture with his fingers.” The remark assumes that the gesture accompanying a number could itself be judged correct or incorrect. Calculation on the fingers was not an eccentric trick but part of a recognizable numerical language. The fullest written instructions for this system survive from the early Middle Ages, so those later descriptions cannot simply be transferred wholesale to earlier [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/). There is, however, Roman-period evidence that confirms much of the basic structure. Small carved bone discs, probably dating from the first three centuries AD, show hands arranged in numerical positions together with Roman numerals. Their gestures correspond closely with much of the later system. Units from one to nine could be indicated through positions of fingers on the left hand, while the thumb and index finger dealt with the tens. Corresponding gestures on the right hand represented hundreds and thousands. In this system, combinations of the two hands could express values up to 9,999\. The evidence becomes much less secure above that point, and later methods involving the position of the hands against different parts of the body should not automatically be assumed for the Roman period. The system was also useful for actual reckoning. A Roman monument associated with L. Calidius Eroticus and Fannia Voluptas shows a traveller and an innkeeper with their hands extended while discussing a bill. The accompanying inscription runs through [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/), [bread](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/), other [food](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/), a woman and fodder for the traveller's mule. The hands have been interpreted as registering the successive additions, allowing the total to be followed by both parties as the charges accumulated. ![Tombstone of Lucius Calidius Eroticus, Louvre, Paris. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/monument-1.jpg) Tombstone of Lucius Calidius Eroticus, Louvre, Paris. Public domain. Upscale by Roman Empire Times For commerce, the advantages were obvious. Fingers required no tablet, counters or writing equipment, and the people involved in a transaction could see the reckoning as it was performed. ### Pebbles, Counting Boards and the Roman Abacus The connection between counting and small stones survives in language. The Latin calculus meant a small stone or pebble, while calculi could be used as counters. From this comes the later language of calculation itself. A flat surface or *tabula* could be marked so that the counters occupied positions corresponding to different numerical values. No ordinary Roman counting board of this type has been securely identified archaeologically. If many were wooden, their disappearance would hardly be surprising. Roman literature nevertheless contains enough references to counters to show that they were widely familiar. The terminology generally refers to the counters and the board rather than consistently using abacus in the modern sense. A different type of device does survive: the portable Roman hand abacus. These were small metal instruments with parallel grooves or slots in which beads could be moved. The principal part of the device was arranged decimally, with successive positions for increasing powers of ten. An upper bead represented five times the value represented by each lower bead in the same position. This permitted quite large numbers to be displayed with relatively few beads. The fractional side of these instruments is especially revealing. It was not simply a decimal calculator with Roman symbols added to it. Separate positions were designed to handle the fractional relationships used in Roman measurement and money, particularly divisions based on the *uncia*. The portable devices could also be adapted to different Roman accounting conventions as monetary reckoning changed between bronze, denarius and sestertius systems. The physical instrument therefore joined two numerical habits that can otherwise seem incompatible. Whole numbers could be treated in decimal positions, while fractions followed specifically Roman systems of subdivision. Someone could record the finished result in Roman numerals without having manipulated that result in the same non-positional form throughout the calculation. ### Addition and Subtraction Addition and subtraction are the operations that can be reconstructed with the greatest confidence because the structure of the counting board gives relatively little room for radically different methods. A number could be laid out across columns representing units, tens, hundreds and thousands. To add another quantity, counters were placed in the corresponding positions. Whenever enough accumulated in one position, they could be exchanged for a counter of the next higher value. Subtraction reversed the process, removing counters and exchanging a higher-value one for lower units whenever necessary. Roman numerals themselves could also be manipulated directly. A worked modern demonstration using Roman notation subtracts 126 from 378: CCCLXXVIII − CXXVI = CCLII Equivalent symbols can be grouped and removed, leaving the result. The example illustrates why written Roman arithmetic was cumbersome by modern standards without being impossible. A reconstructed counting-board example begins with 4,739 and adds 1,456\. Counters are added through the units, tens, hundreds and thousands positions, producing 6,195\. Subtraction proceeds in reverse. The procedure is reconstructed, but for addition and subtraction the physical arrangement of the board sharply restricts the possible ways in which the operation could have been carried out. ![Roman abacus. Bronze. 2nd century.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Arte_romana-_abaco-_bronzo_Ii_sec-1.jpg) Roman abacus. Bronze. 2nd century. Credits: sailko, CC BY-SA 3.0 Multiplication and division are more difficult because several workable procedures can be devised for the same instrument, and the surviving Roman evidence does not tell us which one was routinely preferred. ### How Did Romans Multiply? Roman authors preserve calculations that could not have been obtained without multiplication. Late antique multiplication tables also make the operation explicit. The difficulty is not establishing that Romans multiplied but recovering their normal method. Repeated addition provides the most elementary route: to multiply a number by five, add it five times. Doubling and combining results could reduce the work considerably, while memorized multiplication tables would allow many products to be supplied immediately. A counting board could then hold and combine partial products. One reconstruction of multiplication on an ancient board uses a procedure documented in Greek mathematics. Instead of beginning with the lowest-value figures, as modern written multiplication commonly does, it starts with the highest-value components and progressively accumulates the products. The procedure adapts readily to an abacus. The source presenting it, however, explicitly derives the technique from [Greek ](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/)examples and does not possess a Roman multiplication exercise proving that Romans used precisely the same sequence. That distinction has to remain. Romans knew multiplication and had instruments capable of performing it, but a procedure that works on a Roman counting board is not automatically a documented Roman algorithm. The late table of Victorius is useful because it shows the scale of numerical relationships that could be tabulated. Its columns provide products for units, tens, hundreds, thousands and fractions, multiplied by whole numbers as high as fifty. Such a table would dramatically reduce the amount of computation required from scratch. Earlier calculations do not preserve comparable tables themselves, but they show the kind of arithmetic for which such memorized or written numerical relationships would have been useful. ### Division and the Problem of Roman “Long Division” Division is still harder to reconstruct. The Romans unquestionably divided quantities, but no surviving classical Roman document gives the equivalent of a modern textbook demonstration of long division. A counting board could handle division through subtraction. Rather than repeatedly subtracting the divisor one unit at a time, an experienced reckoner could remove known multiples of it, progressively determining the quotient. One reconstruction divides 808 by 35 by subtracting suitable multiples until the quotient reaches 23 and a remainder of 3 is left. The method is workable, but the source presenting it explicitly warns that it cannot be claimed as the exact procedure Romans used. The Roman administrative evidence from Veleia shows why this distinction between result and procedure is necessary. The *Tabula Alimentaria* records two imperial alimentary schemes at the northern Italian town in the second century AD. Loans were made to landowners against declared property, while the interest helped finance payments for the upbringing of selected local children. The tablet records the property declarations and resulting loans but not the calculations that connected them. ![Tabula alimentaria for an imperial mortgage loan, from Veleia, 2nd century](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Tabula-alimentaria-for-an-imperial-mortgage-loan--from-Veleia--1--1.jpg) Tabula alimentaria for an imperial mortgage loan, from Veleia, 2nd century. Credits:sailko, CC BY-SA 4.0 Analysis of these figures indicates that property values were rounded down to the nearest thousand sesterces before a fractional multiplier was applied. Earlier attempts expressed the multiplier as 8.05 per cent, but a rate of 8 7/144 per cent fits Roman fractional practice much more naturally. Using that formula gives the exact inscribed loan figure for 35 of the 46 cases. Several other results appear to come from the same calculation followed by rounding, while a few anomalies remain. The details even provide clues about the order in which one accountant may have worked. In one case, finding a 144th part first and then multiplying it by seven produces the wrong figure. Multiplying by seven first and only then dividing by 144 produces the number on the tablet. This has been interpreted as evidence that the numerator was multiplied first in that particular calculation. A repeated-subtraction method using counters can reproduce such a division, and rounding some figures could have reduced the work. Yet the proposed procedure remains conjectural. The Veleia figures preserve Roman administrative arithmetic at work, but not the accountant's hands moving across the board. ### Why Roman Fractions Were Built Around Twelve For someone accustomed to decimal fractions, the Roman fractional system can initially look more complicated than the whole-number notation. Its most familiar structure was based on twelfths. The as was divided into twelve *unciae*. Six *unciae* made a *semis*, one-half; four made a *triens*, one-third; three made a *quadrans*, one-quarter. Five-twelfths was the *quincunx*, two-thirds the *bes*, and three-quarters the *dodrans*. These were named quantities rather than fractions normally written with a numerator above a denominator. Subdivisions continued well below one-twelfth. The *semiuncia* represented 1/24, the *duella* 1/36, the *siculu*s 1/48, the *sextula* 1/72, and the *scripulum* 1/288. Twelve offered practical advantages because it divides evenly by two, three, four and six. Roman fractional terminology developed particularly from systems of weight and land measurement. The *uncia*, one-twelfth of the as, became the central fractional subunit, while smaller fractions were often related to halves, thirds, quarters and sixths of it. The Romans did not ordinarily write general fractions in the modern form 5/17 or 37/357\. Their traditional notation relied heavily on named unit fractions and combinations of them. This did not prevent them from approximating other ratios, but it affected the way the results were expressed. It is also important not to imagine that all Roman arithmetic was rigidly based on twelfths. Authors could speak of parts of a hundred, and some Roman texts contain more general fractional relationships. What survives shows several numerical habits coexisting rather than one perfectly uniform system. ### Percentages, Interest and Columella's Vineyard Interest calculations provide one of the clearest examples of Romans moving between their traditional fractional vocabulary and what we would describe as percentages. Columella discusses the cost of establishing a vineyard and arrives at 29,000 sesterces. He then calculates interest at a rate equivalent to one-half of one per cent per month, or six per cent annually. For two years the interest is 3,480 sesterces, giving a combined principal and interest of 32,480\. He next states that an annual return of 1,950 sesterces would be required on that total. ![A possible representation of Columella's discussion about calculating a vineyard's costs.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/calculating-with-abacus-1.jpg) A possible representation of Columella's discussion about calculating a vineyard's costs. Credits: roman Empire Times, Chat GPT The first calculation is exactly correct by modern arithmetic: six per cent of 29,000 for two years is 3,480\. Six per cent of the resulting 32,480, however, is 1,948.8 rather than 1,950\. [Columella](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) gives the result without explaining his working. Several ways of reproducing it have therefore been proposed, including rounding and decomposing the percentage into Roman unit fractions. One reconstruction begins by finding one-twelfth of the original sum, then applying a sequence of smaller unit fractions while discarding remainders. That sequence can reproduce Columella's figures, but the calculation is a proposed reconstruction rather than something Columella himself describes. The example is useful precisely because the answer survives without the method. It shows that Roman financial arithmetic could deal successfully with quantities equivalent to percentage interest while leaving open more than one possibility for how the calculation was carried out. ### Cicero, Taxes and Large Quantities Cicero's speeches show that numerical calculation also belonged to public life and the law. In the prosecution of Verres he works through large quantities of grain, beginning with an amount calculated from agricultural land, subtracting the grain represented by the tithe sale, adding a further fractional levy and arriving at a final total. Rendered in modern notation, the sequence includes a multiplication of 90,000 by six to obtain 540,000, subtraction of 216,000 to leave 324,000, calculation of three-fiftieths of 540,000 as 32,400, and addition of that amount to produce approximately 360,000. Quintilian's insistence that advocates should be capable of handling numbers therefore had a practical setting. Cases involving land, taxes, debts, inheritances or accounts could demand arithmetic, and a Roman speaker who became confused over his figures risked appearing poorly educated. ### Land Surveying and Fractions Roman land measurement also depended heavily on numerical relationships. [Varro](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-terentius-varro-the-polymath-who-catalogued-the-roman-civilization/) describes the *iugerum* and its subdivisions in a way that allows the dimensions to be checked mathematically. A square *actus* measured 120 feet by 120 feet. A *iugerum* contained two square *actus*, giving an area of 28,800 square feet. Its smallest named subdivision, the *scripulum*, was a square ten feet on each side and therefore measured 100 square feet. There were consequently 288 *scripula* in one *iugerum*. Inscriptions show the same fractional language being used in actual land descriptions. One records two *iugera* together with ten-twelfths and another twenty-fourth, equivalent to 2 7/8 *iugera*. Another Roman inscription uses fractions when recording the lengths of theatre seating allocated to the Arval Brotherhood. The combination of decimal whole numbers and duodecimal subdivisions was therefore not an abstract mathematical curiosity. It appeared in the practical measurement and division of Roman property. ### Vitruvius and Large-Scale Calculation Vitruvius provides several examples of arithmetic connected with architecture, measurement and machinery. In one passage he uses the conventional figure of 252,000 *stadia* for the circumference of the earth, converts it into 31,500,000 *paces* and then calculates one-eighth as 3,937,500 *paces*. His description of an ancient distance-measuring device also gives numerical information about a wheel four feet in diameter and twelve and a half feet in circumference. From those figures his implied value for π is 3⅛. Later Roman calculations could use a closer approximation. These examples do not tell us which instrument [Vitruvius](https://romanempiretimes.com/vitruvius-the-roman-who-shaped-modern-architecture/) used while calculating, but they show the kind of multiplication, division and proportional thinking expected in Roman technical writing. ### Frontinus and the Mathematics of Rome's Water Supply Some of the most elaborate surviving Roman arithmetic appears in[ Frontinus](https://romanempiretimes.com/frontinus-rome-master-of-strategy-and-water/)'s account of Rome's aqueducts, completed around AD 98 after his appointment to oversee the city's water supply. Frontinus had to deal with pipe dimensions, water depths, widths, areas and capacities. In one straightforward example he records water five feet deep and one and three-quarter feet wide and gives the resulting area as eight and three-quarter square feet. More difficult sections compare different standardized pipe sizes and the relationships between circular and square measurements. In one passage, the square *digitus* is said to exceed the corresponding circular one by 3/14 of its own area, while the circular form is smaller by 3/11\. Working backwards from these ratios shows that Frontinus was using 22/7 as an approximation for π. The relationship can be established from his figures, but the manuscripts contain the fractions written out in words and do not preserve his intermediate calculations. Frontinus then returns to more traditional Roman fractional notation when comparing pipe capacities. An *uncia* pipe is described in relation to the *quinaria* through a combination of an eighth, *scripula*, and a fraction of a *scripulum*. In modern decimal terms, one of his resulting comparisons differs from the calculated value by less than four parts in one hundred thousand. Other comparisons are less precise but still show substantial computational work. His use of fractions is particularly interesting because he does not always express quantities in the same form. In some passages he uses ratios such as 3/11 and 3/14, while elsewhere he returns to combinations of familiar Roman fractions. One interpretation is that more general fractions may have been useful during calculation before the result was translated into the fractional language most familiar to the intended reader. The exact process remains uncertain. Frontinus is therefore valuable not because he leaves us a Roman arithmetic manual, but because his finished figures show what a Roman technical administrator could accomplish even though the workings have disappeared. ### What Roman Arithmetic Actually Looked Like There was no single object or notation that can be called “the Roman calculator.” Different tasks could be handled in different ways. Roman numerals were useful for recording quantities and could themselves support some calculations. Fingers provided a portable numerical language. Pebbles on a board allowed numbers to be manipulated positionally. Portable metal abaci combined decimal whole numbers with fractional subdivisions. Memorized tables reduced repeated computation, while writing surfaces could presumably hold intermediate figures when a problem became too complicated for fingers or the available abacus. The sources also show that Roman numerical practice was not confined to merchants. Schoolchildren were taught fractions; advocates needed numerical competence; farmers calculated investment returns; surveyors divided land; administrators established loan amounts; architects converted large measurements; and the official responsible for Rome's aqueducts dealt with sophisticated relationships between areas and capacities. What remains uncertain is the exact algorithm used in many individual operations. The surviving evidence does not allow a standard Roman multiplication procedure or Roman long-division method to be written down with the confidence of a modern textbook. Reconstructions demonstrate ways in which the known instruments could produce the surviving answers, and some Roman datasets even provide clues about the order of particular operations, but those reconstructions have to remain separate from what the ancient evidence directly records. Roman numerals may look awkward to modern eyes, but the calculations preserved in Roman literature, inscriptions and administration show a society perfectly capable of performing the practical arithmetic its schools, markets, farms, courts, surveyors and engineers required. 💡 ****Sources Used**: J. Hilton Turner, “Roman Elementary Mathematics: The Operations,” The Classical Journal 47, no. 2 (1951), pp. 63–74, 106–108. David W. Maher and John F. Makowski, “Literary Evidence for Roman Arithmetic with Fractions,” Classical Philology 96, no. 4 (2001), pp. 376–399. Charles Stewart, “Fractional Arithmetic in the Tabula Alimentaria of Veleia,” Journal of Roman Studies 109 (2019), pp. 89–102. Flip de Bree, “Aes Excurrens and the Abacus,” Ancient Society 48 (2018), pp. 115–145. Horace, Ars Poetica. Plautus, Miles Gloriosus. Cicero, Letters to Atticus and Against Verres. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria. Varro, De re rustica. Columella, De re rustica Petronius, Satyrica. Vitruvius, De architectura. Frontinus, De aquaeductu urbis Romae. Pliny the Elder, Natural History. ### 2026 August Full Moon is coming. How did Romans “see” the Moon? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/2026-august-full-moon-is-coming-how-did-romans-see-the-moon/ Last updated: 2026-08-25T17:22:23.000Z The moon played a foundational role in the local calendars of the Greeks, as evidenced by documents and literature from the Late Bronze Age through the Imperial Roman period. Additionally, there are indications that the earliest Roman calendar also acknowledged the moon in its monthly divisions. The full moon of August in 2026 will reach its peak on August 28th and has been named the "Sturgeon Moon." After sunset, if you look towards the southeast, you'll see the "Sturgeon Moon" rising in the night sky. The August full moon is called the "Sturgeon Moon" due to the Native Americans, who used to fish for this particular fish around this time of year. During the summer months, especially in August, the Moon appears larger than it does during the rest of the year. It often takes on a deeper and redder hue. This occurs because, during this period, the Moon is positioned low on the horizon, causing its light to refract, which gives it a darker shade. This effect is even more pronounced during moonrise, which happens around the same time as sunset. Compared to [eclipses](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-beliefs-and-practices-surrounding-solar-eclipses/), people tend to favor admiring the full moon. ### The Roman goddess Luna In [Sabine](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-truly-happened-with-the-sabine-women/) and [ancient Roman religion](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/), Luna is the divine representation of the Moon and is often considered the female counterpart to Sol, the Sun god. She is sometimes part of the Roman triple goddess along with Diana and either Proserpina or Hecate. Luna isn't always seen as a separate goddess but can be an epithet used for other goddesses like Diana and Juno, who are also associated with the moon. In Roman art, Luna is depicted with a crescent moon and a two-yoke chariot (biga). Horace, in his Carmen Saeculare, calls her the "two-horned queen of the stars." Varro classified Luna among the visible gods and considered her one of the deities that secretly protected[ Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/). In the Imperial cult, Sol and Luna symbolized Roman rule's global reach and the peace it sought to maintain. Luna's Greek equivalent is *Selene*, and Roman culture adapted many of Selene's myths, such as the story of Endymion, under Luna's name. ![Statuette of the goddess Luna from the Macon treasure. The goddess is recognized thanks to her hat, a crescent of Moon. Originally, Luna held a torch in the right hand, which allowed her to see and know everything. 150-220 AD. Now in the British Museum, inv. 1824.0426.5. Picture taken at the Oog in oog met de Romeinen (Eye to Eye with the Romans) Exhibition in the Gallo-Romeins Museum of Tongres.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/08/Statuette_of_the_goddess_Luna_from_the_Macon_treasure_150-220_AD_-51234440760-.jpg) Statuette of the goddess Luna from the Macon treasure. The goddess is recognized thanks to her hat, a crescent of Moon. Originally, Luna held a torch in the right hand, which allowed her to see and know everything. 150-220 AD. Now in the British Museum, inv. 1824.0426.5\. Picture taken at the Oog in oog met de Romeinen (Eye to Eye with the Romans) Exhibition in the Gallo-Romeins Museum of Tongres. Credits: TimeTravelRome, CC BY 2.0 ### The importance of the Moon in Roman farming City dwellers may did not have fully appreciated the beauty and practical value of a full moon, but for those living in the countryside, where a moonless night was illuminated only by a lantern, the moon was much more significant. For them, and the ancient Roman farmer, the moon's phases—from crescent to full and back—were a source of wonder, anticipation, aesthetic pleasure, and practical usefulness. The Roman farmer used the moon's cycle as **the basis for his calendar**, creating a simple almanack that guided activities like planting, harvesting, and other farm tasks according to the moon's phases. Although much of this moon-related knowledge wasn't written down, enough has been preserved in Latin literature to show that Roman farmers, like their modern descendants, timed their agricultural work by the moon. Their primary concern was ensuring successful crops. Both Greek and Roman farmers believed that the moon played a role in producing the heavy dews essential for their crops. This belief led to the notion that dew gradually increased from the new moon to the full moon, and as a result, many earthly things, including crops, were thought to be influenced by the moon's phases. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/08/Roman-farmers-sowing-forage-crops-under-moonlight.jpg) ## As Palladius put it, "all planting should be done when the moon is increasing." Roman farmers sowing their forage crops under the moonlight. Illustration: Midjourney Columella, *(Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella was a prominent Roman writer on agriculture in the Roman Empire)*, added that beans should be planted on the fifteenth day after the new moon, as long as "the moon was not on the wane," or on the fourteenth day if it was still increasing. He also suggested sowing beans just before or on the full moon and recommended that lentils "should be planted before the twelfth day of the moon," to ensure quick growth. [Pliny](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-the-author-of-the-worlds-first-encyclopaedia-was-roman/) noted that it was "popularly believed" that forage crops should be sown during the dark of the moon, and that hotbeds should be prepared when "the moon is above the earth" (cum luna supra terram sit). Trees were also planted according to the moon, with Cato advising that fig, apple, olive, and pear trees, as well as vines, should be planted "in the dark of the moon" and in the afternoon when there was no south wind. Columella concurred, suggesting that "all trees should be planted when the moon is increasing." These sources consistently agree that planting should occur either during the dark of the moon or while it is waxing, with the reasoning that as the moon increases, so will the crops. However, Vergil, in the Georgics, mentions that the seventeenth day after the new moon is favorable for planting vines, which is during the waning moon and contradicts the other sources. This exception is intriguing as it differs from the commonly accepted practice of planting during the waxing moon. *(The Roman Farmer and the Moon by Eugene Tavenner)* > “All vegetable productions are cut, gathered, and housed to more advantage while the moon is on the wane than while it is on the increase. > > Manure must never be touched except when the moon is on the wane; and land must be manured more particularly while the moon is in conjunction, or else at the first quarter. > > Take care to geld your boars, bulls, rams, and kids, while the moon is on the wane. Put eggs under the hen at a new moon. Make your ditches in the night-time, when the moon is at full. Cover up the roots of trees, while the moon is at full. Where the soil is humid, put in seed at the moon's conjunction, and during the four days about that period. > > It is generally recommended, too, to give an airing to corn and the leguminous grains, and to garner them, towards the end of the moon; to make seed-plots when the moon is above the horizon; and to tread out the grape, to fell timber, and to do many other things that have been mentioned in their respective places, when the moon is below it.” Pliny, *The Natural History, The revolutions of the moon.* ![The Moon-goddess Selene or Luna accompanied by the Dioscuri, or Phosphoros (the Morning Star) and Hesperos (the Evening Star). Marble altar, Roman artwork, 2nd century AD. From Italy.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/08/Altar_Selene_Louvre_Ma508.jpg) The Moon-goddess Selene or Luna accompanied by the Dioscuri, or Phosphoros (the Morning Star) and Hesperos (the Evening Star). Marble altar, Roman artwork, 2nd century AD. From Italy. Public domain ### Man on the moon? A practical joke in Endymiones by Varro One of Varro’s Menippean satires, Endymiones, is widely believed to feature a journey to the Moon. In its plot, Luna had another mythical consort named Endymion. While Endymion might have been an astronomer, he is primarily known as a strikingly handsome young shepherd, blessed by Jupiter with the gift of eternal youth and the ability to sleep as long and as often as he wished. Luna was so captivated by his beauty that she descended from heaven every night to watch over and protect him. Considering that Varro's Menippeans are typically dated between 80-67 BCE, this would make the traveler in Endymiones the earliest "astronaut" in surviving Graeco-Roman literature, predating the lunar adventures in Antonius Diogenes’ *The Incredible Things Beyond Thule* by over a century, and Lucian’s *Icaromenippus and True Storie*s by nearly two hundred years. However, it is likely that the lunar journey in this work was more of a fantasy, placing Endymiones within the tradition of imagined philosophical soul-journeys rather than actual voyages to the Moon. Nonetheless, the satirical context in which this journey appears in Varro’s work is significant. Interpreting Varro’s text is difficult due to its fragmentary state, making the exact theme and plot of Endymiones a subject of debate. Some fragments hint at an evening meal that may have served as the backdrop for a philosophical discussion, a common motif in Varro’s Menippeans. ![Marble representation of Endymion by Antonio Canova in Chatsworth House](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/08/Antonio_Canova-_Endymion_-2--1.jpeg) Marble representation of Endymion by Antonio Canova in Chatsworth House. Credits: Mum's taxi, CC BY-SA 4.0 The title Endymiones is central to the lunar theme, as Endymion, in mythology, was a handsome youth whom the moon goddess Selene loved and visited in secret. The name "Endymion" became associated with deep sleep, leading some scholars to suggest that Endymiones could have been a satire on sleep, perhaps even a response to Naevius’ comedy *Agrypnountes* ("The Sleepless Ones"). However, there is also strong evidence linking Endymion to astronomy and the Moon. For example, Mnaseas of Sicyon, a third-century BCE travel writer, claimed that Endymion was the first to discover "the course of the Moon" (cursus lunae), after which he fell asleep for thirty years because he had no further ambitions. This detail, noted by Germanicus in his commentary on Aratus’ Phainomena and later mentioned by Pliny the Elder and Lucian, suggests that Varro’s title could be a satirical reference to contemporary astronomers. The plural form "Endymiones" is also intriguing and not unique. In his treatise *On the Soul*, Tertullian uses it to mockingly refer to the souls of the wise, who, according to [the Stoics](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/), inhabit the space around the Moon [after death](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/). This implies that the title might have been appropriate for a satire on eschatological beliefs. While there is no direct evidence that Varro used the term in this way, Augustine’s writings indicate that Varro was aware of beliefs connecting the Moon with such doctrines. Thus, it is possible that Varro’s Endymiones was a satire on Platonic and Stoic eschatology and soul journeys, a theme that fits with other elements in the surviving fragments. This interpretation is further supported by Lucian’s Icaromenippus, where the lunar traveller Menippus, upon encountering the philosopher Empedocles on the Moon, initially fears he is seeing one of these lunar spirits. Empedocles then swears an oath "by Endymion," underscoring Endymion’s connection to the divine, making him a fitting figure for such a satire. *(The moon in the Greek and Roman imagination by KAREN NÍ MHEALLAIGH, University of Exeter)* ![Varro writing his satire “Endymiones,” inspired by the crescent moon](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/08/Roman-poet-Varro-writing-Endymiones-under-crescent-moon-luna.jpg) Varro writing his satire “Endymiones,” inspired by the crescent moon. Illustration: Midjourney ### Timekeeping with the help of the Moon Greek and Roman interest in the moon and planets was largely driven by the need for precise timekeeping, which was crucial for coordinating activities on land and at sea. They relied on the positions of celestial bodies to determine the best times for farming, sailing, holding religious festivals, conducting political activities, and other daily tasks. Although these astronomical cues were not the only factors influencing decisions, they served as valuable guides. Initially, the primary focus was on understanding the movements of the sun and moon for calendar purposes. However, from the 4th century BCE onward, the Greeks began paying more attention to the motions of the other planets. Their goal was not only to calculate and predict planetary positions but also to explain their irregular paths. By combining older Babylonian arithmetic methods with geometric models, the Greeks developed mechanisms and tables that accurately tracked planetary positions for their time. ![The three fragments of the Antikythera Mechanism, also known as the Antikythera Astrolabe](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/08/three-pieces-of-the-antikythera-mechanism-17690.jpg) The three fragments of the Antikythera Mechanism, also known as the Antikythera Astrolabe. Credits: Weekend Wayfarers, CC BY 2.0 The moon, along with the sun and stars, was central to timekeeping in ancient times. The sun's movement marked the seasons and the agricultural year, while the rising and setting of stars indicated seasonal changes and guided human activities both on land and at sea. With its regular phases, the Moon measured the months and influenced religious, political, and agricultural activities. While the sun tracked short time through the day and long time through the seasons, the moon provided a clear measure of intermediate time within the year through its monthly cycles. Evidence from the Mycenaean period (around 1400–1200 BCE) suggests that the calendar was at least partly lunar, with months named after gods or local places. In the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, the Homeric poems used the moon's phases for timing events, though the overall calendar was more solar and agricultural. Hesiod, in Works and Days, referred to the sun and stars for timing agricultural tasks. The full moon was often linked to love-making in the works of Greek and Roman poets like Pindar and Plautus, who connected it to mythological stories of divine and mortal unions. Even by the 2nd century CE, some people believed that the waxing moon was the best time to conceive a child, although this belief was not universally accepted. The names of our current months, from January to December, come from the Roman Republican calendar, which is traditionally credited to Numa, the legendary second king of Rome. Numa is believed to have organized the year into months and days, categorizing them into festival days, working days, and days shared between sacred and secular activities. He is also thought to have made the calendar lunar, first extending the year to 354 days, then to 355, and dividing it into twelve months by adding January and February at the start. To keep the calendar aligned with the solar year, an additional month, "Mercedinus" or "Mercedonius," was inserted every second year. ![Roman King Numa, a man of simple taste that banished lavish lifestyle, contemplating around the idea of creating a new, improved Roman Calendar, based on the Moon phases.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/08/Roman-Second-King-Numa-staring-at-the-moon-lunar-calendar.jpg) Roman King Numa, a man of simple taste that banished lavish lifestyle, contemplating around the idea of creating a new, improved Roman Calendar, based on the Moon phases. Illustration: Midjourney Numa's preference for odd numbers led him to give each month, except February, an odd number of days. For instance, months like January, April, and June had 29 days, while March and May had 31; February was given 28 days. In 44 BCE, the month Quintilis was renamed July [in honor of Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/), and Sextilis was later renamed August for [Emperor Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/). The Roman calendar's lunar origins are hinted at by how months were divided into three parts: *kalendae* (the first day), *nonae* (around the 5th or 7th day), and *idus* (the 13th or 15th day), which corresponded to the moon's phases: new moon, first quarter, full moon, and last quarter. In 46 BCE, Julius Caesar reformed the calendar, establishing a solar year of 365¼ days with a leap year system, based on advice from the Greek astronomer Sosigenes. This reform kept the calendar in line with the seasons, preventing the misalignment that had caused earlier Roman and Egyptian festivals to drift out of sync with their intended times. Despite previous Egyptian attempts to address similar issues, the Julian calendar successfully synchronized the Roman calendar with the solar year, and is used in Western Civilisation, to this day. *(The Moon and the Planets in Classical Greece and Rome by Robert Hannah)* ### Did the Romans Really Massacre the Defenders of Maiden Castle? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/did-the-romans-really-massacre-the-defenders-of-maiden-castle/ Last updated: 2026-08-23T18:07:54.000Z On a chalk ridge outside Dorchester in Dorset stands Maiden Castle, one of the largest Iron Age hillforts in Britain. Its massive banks and ditches surround a site occupied and reshaped over many centuries, long before Roman armies arrived in Britain. Yet Maiden Castle became famous above all for one particular episode: the supposed destruction of the hillfort by Roman troops during the conquest of southern Britain in the first century AD. That interpretation emerged from the excavations directed by Mortimer Wheeler between 1934 and 1937\. Near the eastern entrance, archaeologists uncovered a cemetery containing [men](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-thought-made-a-man-weak/) and [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) with severe injuries. One man had an iron projectile embedded in his spine. There was evidence of burning around the entrance, and the graves appeared to Wheeler to belong to the final period of the independent hillfort. He connected these discoveries with the Roman invasion of AD 43 and with the campaigns of the future emperor [Vespasian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/) in southern Britain. Later excavations and re-examinations produced different interpretations of several parts of Wheeler’s reconstruction. They did not remove the evidence for violence at Maiden Castle. Modern examination of the skeletons actually identified substantially more trauma than had originally been recognized. The debate concerns when that violence occurred, how many episodes may be represented, and how securely any particular group of deaths can be associated with the Roman conquest. ## The Fortress Above Dorset Maiden Castle had already existed for centuries before the period that produced the famous burials. During the Iron Age, its fortifications were enlarged repeatedly until the enclosed settlement covered a substantial part of the ridge. Its ramparts and elaborate entrances were accompanied by houses, storage pits, streets, agricultural activity and craft production. Niall Sharples’s excavations of 1985–86 placed the hillfort within a wider landscape rather than treating it simply as an isolated fortress. His reconstruction presents Maiden Castle as becoming the dominant settlement in part of southern Dorset during the Iron Age. Nearby communities changed as the hillfort expanded, while its enormous defences may increasingly have expressed the status and cohesion of the community as well as serving a defensive function. In the later Iron Age, Sharples regarded Maiden Castle, Hod Hill and South Cadbury as political centres associated with the developing Durotriges. The character of Maiden Castle was already changing before the Roman conquest. Sharples found that during the last century BC the organized occupation that had filled much of the interior began to break down. Streets ceased to structure the settlement as they had previously, and occupation became more dispersed and increasingly concentrated towards the eastern part of the hillfort. Changes were also occurring outside its ramparts. Small settlements appeared or reappeared in the surrounding landscape, some of them developing into substantial Late Iron Age and [Romano-British](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-life-really-like-in-roman-britain/) farmsteads. Within Maiden Castle itself, continuous occupation across the interior was no longer apparent, although the site retained importance and some of its defences continued to be maintained. The Maiden Castle of the first century AD was therefore different from the densely organized settlement of several centuries earlier. Domestic occupation had contracted, while the eastern entrance had become an important area for other activities, including metalworking. ## The Cemetery at the Eastern Gate Wheeler’s excavations revealed numerous burials around the eastern entrance. He divided the Iron Age remains according to the archaeological framework then used for British prehistory, including a group that became famous as the “Belgic war cemetery.” ![Entrance to Maiden Castle](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Entrance-to-Maiden-Castle--1--1.jpg) Entrance to Maiden Castle. Margaret Anne Clarke, CC BY-SA 4.0 That terminology reflected the chronological and cultural model within which Wheeler worked. Sharples later explained that the old Iron Age A, B and C system interpreted changes in British material culture partly through successive movements or invasions from continental Europe. Wheeler connected these archaeological phases closely with military and historical developments known from Gaul and [Roman Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-leave-britain/). The cemetery appeared particularly dramatic. Wheeler recorded 34 individuals in the group he regarded as the war cemetery, while other Iron Age burials were found in and around the eastern entrance. Some of the dead had suffered unmistakable injuries. The appearance and arrangement of the graves led Wheeler to characterize them as burials carried out in haste and anxiety. One skeleton appeared especially significant. An iron projectile remained embedded in the lumbar vertebra of an adult male. It was interpreted as a Roman *ballista* bolt and consequently became one of the most memorable pieces of evidence associated with the proposed Roman attack. Other discoveries seemed to fit the same reconstruction. Structures near the entrance had been covered by a thick layer containing ash, which Wheeler associated with destruction during a Roman assault. The elaborate eastern gateway therefore became the setting for his reconstruction of the hillfort’s final battle. Wheeler envisaged Roman artillery being used against the defenders before legionaries moved through the entrance works. He associated the fighting with the Roman campaigns in southern Britain following the invasion of AD 43 and, more specifically, with Vespasian, then commander of the Second Legion. ## Vespasian’s Campaign in Britain The ancient sources establish that Vespasian fought extensively in Britain, although neither surviving account identifies Maiden Castle. [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) records that Vespasian was transferred to Britain during the reign of [Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/), where he: > “fought thirty battles with the enemy. He reduced to subjection two powerful nations, more than twenty towns” Suetonius continues by adding the island of Vectis, modern Isle of Wight, and says that Vespasian operated partly under Aulus Plautius and partly under Claudius himself. [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) also places Vespasian among the commanders involved in the Claudian invasion. In Book 60, Dio describes Aulus Plautius sending Vespasian and his brother Sabinus across a river during fighting against the Britons; they crossed and killed many of the enemy by surprise. Dio then continues with the campaign towards the Thames and Claudius’s later arrival in Britain. He does not identify Maiden Castle. Wheeler’s identification of Maiden Castle with Vespasian’s campaign was therefore a reconstruction made by bringing the archaeological evidence together with what was known from the literary sources about Vespasian’s operations in Britain. Neither Suetonius nor Cassius Dio specifically records an assault on Maiden Castle. ## What the Skeletons Show Rebecca Redfern returned to Wheeler’s human remains for a major bioarchaeological study published in 2011\. She examined the surviving skeletons using clinical, forensic and osteological methods, looking for fractures, projectile wounds, sharp-force injuries and trauma sustained both before and around the time of death. Her results strengthened the evidence for serious violence. Trauma was identified in 74.2 percent of the individuals available for study, compared with 27.7 percent in the original analysis. Among the group Wheeler had classified as the war cemetery, 87.5 percent showed trauma. The Iron Age C group also produced a high rate, at 75 percent. The injuries were varied. Some people had suffered blunt-force trauma to the head. Others had been struck or cut with edged weapons or hit by projectiles. Injuries to forearms and hands were interpreted in several cases as defensive wounds. Cuts on ribs and vertebrae indicate penetrating injuries to the torso, while repeated blows to the head show that some individuals were struck several times. One man from the war-cemetery group had at least five cuts to different parts of his head as well as cranial fractures, projectile wounds and injuries elsewhere on his body. Another had cuts to the arms consistent with attempts to protect himself, together with wounds to the head. ![An aerial view of Maiden Castle in Dorset.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/aerial-image-of-Maiden-s-castle-1.jpg) An aerial view of Maiden Castle in Dorset. Public domain Women were also among the injured. One woman had sharp-force injuries to the lower leg that would have caused severe damage and major blood loss. Other women had cranial wounds, fractures and evidence of projectile injuries. An adolescent of about 15 also suffered severe cranial trauma. Some injuries had healed before death. Redfern therefore found that several individuals had survived previous violent incidents before eventually dying in later conflict. She also identified repeated and excessive blows in some of the dead and compared the overall pattern with archaeological populations associated with warfare, raiding and massacres. Redfern did not assign all these deaths to one event. She concluded that the people had died because of conflict, but emphasized that identifying the particular events in which the injuries were sustained remained difficult. She considered the concentration of trauma among burials dating broadly from the first century BC to the first century AD compatible with multiple episodes connected with the violent social and political conditions of the Late Iron Age and early Romano-British period. At that stage, however, Redfern still accepted the embedded projectile as being of Roman manufacture. She therefore regarded its presence, together with the dating then assigned to the cemetery, as supporting the possibility that part of the sample derived from an encounter with the [Roman army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/). ## Sharples and the Cemetery Reconsidered Sharples had already questioned several aspects of Wheeler’s interpretation in the 1991 excavation report. The cemetery extended beyond the particular cluster Wheeler had called the war cemetery. Sharples suggested that the apparent division between burials inside and outside the inner hornwork might partly result from the areas that happened to have been excavated. He also noted that, according to the evidence available to him, fewer than half of the burials in the war-cemetery group could demonstrably be shown to have met violent deaths. [The funerary practices](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) also presented a different picture from one of hurried disposal after [battle](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-battle-of-lake-trasimene-hannibals-devastating-ambush/). Bodies were carefully positioned according to recognizable Durotrigian practices. Some graves contained pottery, jewellery, animal remains or other objects. The cemetery included unusually rich graves and a notable number of double burials, but Sharples regarded Wheeler’s description of their “slovenly” character and the supposed haste and anxiety of burial as a subjective impression that fitted his historical interpretation. Rebecca Redfern and Christine Hamlin examined the funerary evidence again in 2022\. They found a mixture of local Durotrigian burial traditions and practices also known from other Iron Age hillforts. After comparing body position, grave goods, multiple burials, possible bindings, animal remains, seasonality and isotope evidence, they concluded that the results strongly suggested that the majority of burials had been undertaken by the Durotrigian community. They allowed for a minority having been buried under stressful circumstances associated with inter-community or ritual violence. The evidence for burning at the eastern entrance was reconsidered as well. Sharples’s excavations identified substantial ironworking immediately in front of the gates. Layers containing charcoal and slag, together with evidence for welding and forging, demonstrated repeated industrial activity in the area. He consequently suggested that the thick ash over nearby structures, which Wheeler had associated with the Roman attack, could instead derive from this industrial activity. These findings formed part of Sharples’s reassessment of the archaeological context. They did not amount to an identification of what, if anything, happened militarily at Maiden Castle during the Roman conquest. ## The Changing Interpretation of the Projectile The iron projectile embedded in one man’s vertebra remained an important part of the Roman interpretation for decades. Redfern’s 2011 study still described it as an iron *ballista* bolt believed to be of Roman manufacture. Martin Smith, Miles Russell and Paul Cheetham revisited the object in their 2025 reassessment. They identify the supposed *ballista* bolt as a spear or javelin head, describing native manufacture as the most likely explanation. Elsewhere in the paper they say that the object is more convincingly interpreted as a spear or javelin head than as a Roman artillery projectile. ![Maiden castle footpath ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/path-to-maiden-castle-1.jpg) Maiden castle footpath. Credits: Tom Jolliffe, CC BY-SA 2.0 That interpretation differs directly from the one still followed in Redfern’s 2011 analysis. For Wheeler, and later for Redfern, the object provided a potential connection between one of the violently killed individuals and Roman weaponry. In the 2025 study, Smith, Russell and Cheetham no longer identify it as Roman artillery. The identity of the projectile does not by itself establish the circumstances in which the man was killed. Its significance lies in the different interpretations given to the same object as the cemetery has been reassessed. ## New Dates for the Dead Smith, Russell and Cheetham also returned to the chronology of the cemetery in 2025 with a new programme of radiocarbon dating. Twenty-two individuals were selected from different burial types and locations and included both sexes and people with and without evidence of weapon trauma. Their results placed the burials into temporal clusters of lethal violence that they consider capable of spanning multiple generations, with most falling within the early and middle decades of the first century AD. They describe the pattern as suggestive of increasing social stress in the decades leading towards the Roman invasion rather than violence produced by the invasion itself. The different forms of burial did not form a simple chronological progression. Flexed and extended forms overlapped in time, leading the authors to consider whether differences in burial could instead reflect [social status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/), kinship, personal circumstances or changing cultural practices. When the dates were considered alongside the evidence for injuries, the authors identified three chronological groupings around the east gate which they suggest could represent relatively brief outbreaks of lethal violence. They consider episodes such as skirmishes or raids among the possibilities and note that the three groupings could have occurred approximately a generation apart. The double burials are particularly prominent in their discussion. Eleven of the twelve individuals represented in the surviving double burials had weapon injuries. Most were male, although both women represented in this group also showed violence-related injuries. Smith, Russell and Cheetham discuss several possible explanations for these deaths. Among them are episodic raiding, revenge between groups and internal dynastic struggles involving people who may have been related. They also consider whether selection for burial at Maiden Castle involved high social status and discuss recent genetic evidence for kinship and inheritance patterns among the Durotriges. The extreme injuries among some of the extended and double burials form another part of their interpretation. They describe combinations of injuries far beyond what would have been required simply to incapacitate or kill and consider whether such repeated violence may have served as a deliberate display connected with social control. They suggest that this pattern adds weight to the possibility of episodic dynastic conflict, while presenting that explanation as an interpretation rather than an identified historical event. Their radiocarbon programme leads them to explain the unusual cemetery as containing people who died at different times, and possibly from different causes, rather than requiring all the burials to be associated with a single historical event. ## Violence Before and During the Roman Conquest The different studies therefore provide different reconstructions of the deaths discovered around Maiden Castle’s eastern entrance. Wheeler associated the cemetery with a Roman assault during the conquest and connected it with Vespasian’s campaigns. Sharples questioned several elements used in that reconstruction, including the interpretation of the ash and the characterization of the graves as hurried burials. Redfern’s re-examination confirmed extremely high levels of violence among many of the dead while allowing for multiple episodes of conflict. Redfern and Hamlin concluded that most of the burials were probably carried out by the Durotrigian community itself. Smith, Russell and Cheetham’s radiocarbon programme placed the burials within several chronological clusters and proposed a variety of possible contexts for the violence. The ancient literary evidence forms another part of the discussion. Suetonius records Vespasian fighting thirty battles, subduing two peoples and taking more than twenty towns in Britain, while Cassius Dio describes him fighting under Aulus Plautius during the Claudian invasion. Neither author names Maiden Castle. Sharples also found evidence of activity on the hilltop during the early Roman period. He noted that its character was itself open to interpretation. Continued native settlement had traditionally been proposed, while Roman military occupation had also been suggested, and Sharples cautioned against assuming that the situation necessarily involved a simple choice between the two. The interpretations have therefore changed substantially since Wheeler published his reconstruction. Wheeler connected the cemetery with the Roman conquest; Redfern identified multiple episodes of serious violence while retaining a possible Roman connection through the projectile; and Smith, Russell and Cheetham now interpret the projectile differently and place the violent deaths within several chronological episodes, which they associate with possible raiding, disputes or dynastic conflict in the period surrounding the end of the Iron Age. The question of a Roman attack on Maiden Castle remains separate from what each of these studies argues about the cemetery itself. 💡 ****Sources Used:** R. E. Mortimer Wheeler, **Maiden Castle, Dorset* (1943) N. M. Sharples, **Maiden Castle: Excavations and Field Survey 1985–6* (1991) Rebecca C. Redfern, “A Re-appraisal of the Evidence for Violence in the Late Iron Age Human Remains from Maiden Castle Hillfort, Dorset, England” (2011) Rebecca C. Redfern and Christine Hamlin, “Burying the Fallen at Maiden Castle Hillfort, Dorset” (2022) Martin Smith, Miles Russell and Paul Cheetham, “Fraught with High Tragedy: A Contextual and Chronological Reconsideration of the Maiden Castle Iron Age ‘War Cemetery’” (2025) English Heritage, “History of Maiden Castle” Suetonius, **Vespasian*, 4 Cassius Dio, **Roman History*, Book 60 ### Tiberius Claudius Nero: Caesar’s Officer, Livia’s Husband, Tiberius’s Father URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-claudius-nero-caesar-officer-livia-husband-tiberius-father/ Last updated: 2026-08-21T21:59:36.000Z Tiberius Claudius Nero belonged to one of Rome’s oldest patrician families. His career never reached the prominence later achieved by his wife and sons, but it carried him through many of the political struggles that brought the Roman Republic to an end. He served [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) during the civil war, supported Caesar’s assassins after the [Ides of March](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-are-the-ides-of-march-why-are-they-important/), opposed Octavian during the struggles that followed Philippi, and fled Italy with his wife Livia Drusilla and their young son [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/). His family became much more important after his death. Livia became the wife of [Octavian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), the future [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/augustus-secret-syracuse-the-mystery-of-the-emperors-private-room/). Nero’s elder son became the emperor Tiberius, while his younger son, Nero Claudius Drusus, became one of the leading commanders of the Augustan period and the father of the future emperor [Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/). Nero himself died before the final struggle between Octavian and [Mark Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/). ### Born into an Old Roman Name The Claudii had been prominent at [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) since the early Republic. The patrician family contained several branches, including the *Claudii Pulchri* and the *Claudii Nerones*, which traced their descent through different sons of Appius Claudius Caecus. By the first century BCE, however, Nero’s branch had lost much of its former prominence. No Claudius Nero had held the consulship since Tiberius Claudius Nero in 202 BCE. ![Cesare Maccari. Appius Claudius Caecus in the Senate. Fresco. 1881–1888. Palazzo Madama (Rome)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Appius-Claudius-Caecus--1--1.jpg) Cesare Maccari. Appius Claudius Caecus in the Senate. Fresco. 1881–1888\. Palazzo Madama (Rome), Public domain Nero’s immediate ancestry is less certain. An earlier Tiberius Nero had served [Pompey ](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/)during the campaign against the pirates in 67 BCE and later opposed the summary execution of the associates of Catiline. He was probably the father of Livia’s husband, although the relationship cannot be established securely. Livia herself was also a Claudian by birth. Her father had been born into the Claudii Pulchri before being adopted into the Livii Drusi and taking the name Marcus Livius Drusus Claudianus. Livia and Nero therefore came from different branches of the wider Claudian family, although their precise relationship is uncertain. Nero appears in Roman political life by 54 BCE, when he competed for the right to prosecute Aulus Gabinius, the former governor of Syria, on charges of extortion. He did not obtain the prosecution, but [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) regarded him favourably. A few years later Nero was travelling in Asia, where he had clients and family connections, and [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/stoic-in-the-sauna-why-a-baiae-bathhouse-linked-to-cicero-is-deliciously-ironic/) recommended his interests to Publius Silius Nerva. Cicero’s correspondence presents Nero at this stage as a young [aristocrat](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) of good birth and ability whose connections in the eastern provinces were worth cultivating. He was also considered a suitable marriage prospect for Cicero’s own family. ### Before the Civil Wars Around 50 BCE Nero proposed marriage to Cicero’s daughter Tullia. Cicero approved and sent messengers to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/), but the arrangements had already moved in another direction. Cicero had left Tullia and her mother Terentia with authority to settle the [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/) during his absence, and before his representatives arrived Tullia had been betrothed to Publius Cornelius Dolabella. The proposed marriage therefore came to nothing. Nero nevertheless remained a patrician from an old family with useful political and social connections. When the struggle between [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/caesar-comet-how-a-seven-day-star-helped-found-an-empire/) and Pompey became civil war, he joined [Caesar.](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/) ![Caesar Defeats the Troops of Pompey from The Story of Caesar and Cleopatra by Justus van Egmont](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Caesar-Defeats-the-Troops-of-Pompey--1--1.jpg) Caesar Defeats the Troops of Pompey from The Story of Caesar and Cleopatra by Justus van Egmont. Public domain He was among the patrician aristocrats [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/) succeeded in attracting to his side even though much of the established nobility supported Pompey. ### With Caesar at Alexandria In 48 BCE Nero served [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/) as quaestor and received a naval command during the Alexandrian War. The account of the campaign records Caesar placing him in command of [ships](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-navy-the-forgotten-force-that-helped-rule-the-sea/), while [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) later credited him with making an important contribution to the victory. Suetonius writes: > “Nero, the father of Tiberius, as a quaestor of Julius Caesar during the Alexandrian war and commander of a fleet, contributed materially to the victory. For this he was made pontiff in place of Publius Scipio and sent to conduct colonies to Gaul, among them Narbo and Arelate.” His service therefore brought substantial rewards. Nero entered the College of Pontiffs and was entrusted with establishing Caesarian colonies in Gaul, including Narbo and Arelate. His political position changed sharply after Caesar was assassinated in March 44 BCE. At the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) meeting of 17 March, when [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-client-kings-how-the-empire-ruled-without-annexing/)’s leaders were deciding how to deal with Caesar’s [murder](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/) and its consequences, Nero proposed special honours for the tyrannicides. Antony opposed the proposal and instead supported a compromise under which Caesar’s official acts would remain valid while the assassins received an amnesty. Suetonius likewise records that Nero went beyond those who merely supported an amnesty and favoured rewarding Caesar’s killers. Nero’s reason for changing his position is not recorded. It has been suggested that he may have become dissatisfied with Caesar’s failure to restore Republican government. This remains a proposed explanation rather than something Nero himself is known to have said. ### From Family Life to Political Conflict The precise date of Nero’s marriage to Livia is unknown. Their first son, Tiberius, was born in Rome on 16 November 42 BCE, so the marriage had taken place before then. Different dates within the preceding few years have been proposed. Tiberius was born on the Palatine Hill in Rome. The place of his birth has been taken to suggest that Nero owned property there, although that is an inference rather than something directly recorded. ![View of the Palatine Hill from across the Circus Maximus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Palatine-Hill-from-across-the-Circus-Maximus--1--1.jpg) View of the Palatine Hill from across the Circus Maximus. Credits: Lil Herodotus, CC BY-SA 4.0 The year 42 BCE also brought the defeat of Brutus and Cassius at Philippi. After the battle, Antony and Octavian had to fulfil promises made to their soldiers. Octavian took responsibility for settling veterans in Italy, which required extensive confiscation and redistribution of land. The settlements created widespread resentment. Landowners and their families travelled to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) to protest, while other communities feared that their own property might also be taken. [Soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/) and civilians clashed, and some towns began arming themselves for protection. Opposition to Octavian drew together resentment over the confiscations with existing political and regional tensions. Lucius Antonius, Mark Antony’s brother, and Fulvia, Antony’s wife, became involved in this opposition. They appealed both to Antony’s veterans and to people who had lost, or feared losing, their property. Republican opponents of the triumvirs were also drawn towards the movement. Nero joined them. He appears in the conflict among the Republican and aristocratic opponents of Octavian who supported the effort led by Lucius Antonius and Fulvia. [Velleius Paterculus](https://romanempiretimes.com/velleius-paterculus-and-the-history-of-rome-new-order/) connects Nero directly with the people affected by the confiscations: > “At the same period war broke out in Campania at the instigation of the ex-praetor and pontiff, Tiberius Claudius Nero, father of Tiberius Caesar, and a man of noble character and high intellectual training, who now came forward as the protector of those who had lost their lands.” ### The Road into Exile The fighting eventually centred on Perusia, where Lucius Antonius and many of his supporters were trapped by Octavian’s forces. Other armies were operating across Etruria, Umbria, the [Sabine](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-truly-happened-with-the-sabine-women/) country and Campania, but Octavian’s opponents lacked unified command and disagreed over how far they should support Lucius. One reconstruction places Nero himself among those who fought at Perusia before he joined the resistance in Campania. During the siege, rebellion broke out in Campania, where several veteran colonies had been established, and Nero joined that effort after his involvement at Perusia. Nero is also placed among the Republican forces attempting resistance in Campania while Perusia was under siege. ![Ancient Roman Herculaneum, Campania, Italy.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Ancient-Roman-Herculaneum--Campania--Italy_jpg-1.jpg) Ancient Roman Herculaneum, Campania, Italy. Credits: Norbert Nagel, CC BY-SA 3.0 The expected relief never arrived. The Antonian commanders hesitated and disagreed among themselves, and Perusia eventually surrendered early in 40 BCE. Nero continued his opposition after the capitulation. Suetonius says that Nero escaped first to Praeneste and then to Naples, where he unsuccessfully attempted to enlist slaves by promising them freedom. He then fled towards Sicily with Livia and the infant Tiberius. One of the men associated with Nero was Gaius Velleius, grandfather of the historian Velleius Paterculus. He had served Pompey, Brutus and later Nero as *praefectus fabrum*. When age and poor health prevented him from continuing the escape from Naples, he killed himself. Nero and his family reached Sicily, where Sextus Pompeius had become a refuge for many of the triumvirs’ opponents. Proscribed Romans, Republican survivors and others displaced by the wars had gathered around him. Relations between Nero and Sextus did not last. Suetonius says Nero was not immediately granted an audience and was refused permission to continue using the fasces associated with his former praetorship. Nero then crossed to Achaea and joined Mark Antony. Suetonius also preserves several stories from the family’s flight because Tiberius was travelling with his parents. At Naples, the child’s crying reportedly almost betrayed the fugitives as they tried to escape to a ship. During their later travels in [Greece](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-greece-is-restoring-a-roman-monument-to-its-former-glory/), a fire near Sparta surrounded the party and Livia escaped after part of her clothing and hair had been scorched. Sextus’s sister treated the young Tiberius more generously than her brother treated Nero. She gave the child a cloak with a clasp and gold studs, objects which were still being displayed at Baiae in Suetonius’s day. ![Tiberius Claudius Nero bust in Drottningholm Slot](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Tiberius-Claudius-Nero-bust-in-Drottningholm-Slot--1--1.jpg) Tiberius Claudius Nero bust in Drottningholm Slot. Credits:ItsNyoty, CC BY-SA 4.0 By the time Nero and Livia reached Greece, Antony was dealing with the consequences of the Perusine War. He met Fulvia and other supporters in Athens, gathered forces and looked for allies. Nero and Livia arrived in Greece during this period. ### Returning to Italy Open war between Antony and Octavian was avoided by the Pact of Brundisium in 40 BCE. Their agreement divided responsibilities between them and was reinforced by Antony’s marriage to Octavian’s sister Octavia. Sextus Pompeius remained outside the agreement. His control of Sicily and his naval strength allowed him to interfere with the grain supply to Italy, while shortages caused serious unrest at [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/). Pressure from the population eventually forced Antony and Octavian to negotiate with him. The settlement reached with Sextus in 39 BCE allowed many exiles and refugees to return. Those who had fled Italy in fear were to recover their property. Those who had been formally proscribed, among them Nero, recovered only one quarter. Nero had already left Sextus for Antony before the agreement was reached, but its terms allowed him, Livia and Tiberius to return safely to Italy. The same settlement brought back other aristocrats who had been scattered by the proscriptions and civil wars. Some remained associated with Antony, while others gradually established themselves within Octavian’s circle. ### When Livia Left Nero for Octavian Soon after Nero and Livia returned to Italy, Octavian became involved with Livia. She was pregnant with Nero’s second son. The marriage that followed has been interpreted in both personal and political terms. Octavian appears to have been genuinely attracted to Livia, but marriage to her also connected him with two important aristocratic lines through the Claudii and Livii. One interpretation therefore sees his attraction and the political advantages of the match operating together. ![Parian marble bust from Crete of Livia Drusilla, wife to Augustus. Circa 20 B.C. Currently on display in Room 31 of the National Archaeological Museum in Athens](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Parian-marble-bust-from-Crete-of-Livia-Drusilla--wife-to-Augustus--1--1.jpg) Parian marble bust from Crete of Livia Drusilla, wife to Augustus. Circa 20 B.C. Currently on display in Room 31 of the National Archaeological Museum in Athens. Credits: Giovanni Dall'Orto The marriage has also been understood as part of Octavian’s attempt to broaden his appeal beyond the soldiers who had formed the basis of his power and towards aristocrats who had recently returned from [exile](https://romanempiretimes.com/exile-in-ancient-rome-what-happened-when-rome-sent-you-away/). From this perspective, accommodation with the triumviral regime also offered former Republican opponents such as Nero a practical way of rebuilding their lives after years of civil war and exile. Other political possibilities have been proposed. Nero’s cooperation may have helped improve his own position with Octavian after Perusia. Octavian’s divorce from Scribonia also weakened a marriage alliance that had linked him indirectly to Sextus Pompeius, while Nero himself had earlier left Sextus and joined Antony. Nero left no account explaining which, if any, of these considerations influenced his decision. Nero divorced Livia. Suetonius says that he gave her up at Octavian’s request, while Velleius likewise says that Nero himself gave Livia in marriage to Octavian. [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) describes Nero taking a formal part in the arrangements: > “Her husband himself gave the woman in marriage just as a father would.” Dio follows this with the story of a [slave](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) boy who saw Livia reclining beside Octavian while Nero was elsewhere at the feast and pointed out that her husband was sitting in another part of the room. The circumstances attracted considerable gossip, particularly because Livia was pregnant. Later accounts did not always preserve the chronology clearly. Nero Claudius Drusus was born on 14 January 38 BCE, while Livia married Octavian three days later, on 17 January. The literary tradition that presents Livia as six months pregnant at the wedding can be reconciled with the dated evidence by placing the betrothal in the autumn of 39, when she was pregnant, and the actual wedding after Drusus’s birth. The child was recognised as Nero’s son. Dio says that after [Drusus](https://romanempiretimes.com/drusus-the-elder-rome-most-successful-germanic-commander/) was born, Octavian returned him to his natural father. Nero therefore continued to have responsibility for both Tiberius and Drusus after Livia’s marriage to Octavian. ### The Last Years of Tiberius Claudius Nero Little is recorded about Nero’s political career after Livia’s remarriage. The divorce brought him no known advancement. He did not reach the consulship and is not known to have received another major command, nor did he accompany Antony back to the East. For several more years his sons remained with him. Nero died in 33 or 32 BCE. Tiberius was nine years old and delivered the [funeral](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) oration for his father from the rostra. Suetonius records: > “At the age of nine he delivered a eulogy of his dead father from the rostra.” Before his death, Nero entrusted Tiberius and Drusus to Octavian’s guardianship. The two boys were therefore placed under the care of the man whom Nero had opposed during the Perusine conflict and whose wife had once been Nero’s own. 💡 ****Sources Used:** Anthony A. Barrett, **Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome* Robin Seager, **Tiberius* Barbara Levick, **Tiberius the Politician* Josiah Osgood, **Caesar’s Legacy: Civil War and the Emergence of the Roman Empire* Ronald Syme, **The Roman Revolution* Anonymous, **Alexandrian War* (**Bellum Alexandrinum*) Cicero, **Letters to Friends* and **Letters to Atticus* Suetonius, **Tiberius* Velleius Paterculus, **Roman History* Cassius Dio, **Roman History*, Book 48 ### Magnus Maximus: The Roman Commander Who Rose from Britain to Rule the West URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/magnus-maximus-the-roman-commander-who-rose-from-britain-to-rule-the-west/ Last updated: 2026-08-20T19:05:36.000Z In 383 CE, Roman troops in Britain proclaimed one of their senior commanders emperor. Magnus Maximus crossed the Channel, entered Gaul and challenged the western emperor Gratian. Within months Gratian was dead, while Maximus had established an imperial court at Trier and taken control of Britain, Gaul and Spain. What began as an army proclamation in [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-life-really-like-in-roman-britain/) became a government that survived for approximately five years, operated through the institutions of the Roman state and eventually received a degree of recognition from the other imperial courts. The settlement did not last. In 387, Maximus extended his rule into Italy and forced the young Valentinian II to flee east. The following year [Theodosius I](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-theodosius-i-the-man-who-defined-christianity-and-also-massacred-thousands/) marched against him. Maximus suffered two defeats in Illyricum, withdrew to Aquileia and was captured and executed. His son Victor was killed soon afterwards. The victorious government subsequently condemned Maximus as a tyrannus, annulled acts of his government and incorporated his defeat into the political image of the Theodosian dynasty. Yet not all ancient accounts portrayed Maximus in the same way, and his later reputation developed very differently in [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-leave-britain/), where Magnus Maximus eventually became Maxen Wledig. ### A Spanish Commander with Connections to Theodosius The early career of Magnus Maximus is incompletely documented. Ancient testimony identifies him as a Spaniard, while several pieces of evidence connect him with the military circle surrounding Theodosius the Elder, father of the future emperor Theodosius I. The broad association is reasonably strong, although some of the details reconstructed from it remain uncertain. [Ammianus Marcellinus](https://romanempiretimes.com/ammian-or-ammianus-marcellinus-from-a-roman-soldier-to-one-of-the-best-historians-of-all-time/) mentions an officer named Maximus serving during Theodosius the Elder’s African campaign against Firmus in the 370s. Modern reconstruction commonly identifies this man with the future emperor, but Ammianus himself does not call him Magnus Maximus or provide information that makes the identification explicit. Zosimus also associates Maximus with earlier military service in [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-great-conspiracy-of-367-when-roman-britain-nearly-collapsed/) alongside a Theodosius. The evidence has therefore been used to reconstruct a previous connection between Maximus and the military networks from which the Theodosian family emerged, but the surviving ancient texts do not allow every stage of that early career to be recovered with certainty. ![Bust of Roman Emperor Magnus Maximus in the Capitoline Museums](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/magno-maximo-1.jpg) Bust of Roman Emperor Magnus Maximus in the Capitoline Museums. Public domain. Upscale by Roman Empire Times By 383, Maximus held a senior military command in Britain. He has often been identified as comes *Britanniarum*, although that particular title is not certain; even the modern reconstruction that proposes it treats the identification cautiously. What is secure is that Maximus was one of the commanders in Britain and occupied a position from which the troops could raise him to imperial power. The reasons for the proclamation are more difficult to recover. Gratian had not been militarily unsuccessful, but dissatisfaction with his government appears in the surviving accounts. One issue was the emperor’s treatment of Alan soldiers whom he had recruited and favoured. Zosimus provides the most explicit version of this explanation: > “This produced among his soldiers a violent hatred against him, > which being gradually inflamed and augmented incited in them > a disposition for innovation.” Zosimus continues by saying that the troops in Britain were particularly affected, identifying Maximus as a Spaniard and describing him as a former fellow-soldier of Theodosius in Britain. He then assigns Maximus a personal motive, claiming that he resented Theodosius’s elevation to imperial power while he himself remained without comparable advancement. Zosimus also attributes personal resentment to Maximus, claiming that he was angered by Theodosius’s rise to imperial power. No other surviving source confirms that motive. The surviving evidence allows several factors to be considered — dissatisfaction with Gratian’s court, the distribution of military and political favour, resentment among soldiers and Maximus’s own ambitions — but it does not establish that one of them alone caused the revolt. Modern reconstruction therefore remains cautious about both the motives of Maximus and those of the British troops who proclaimed him. ### The Revolt Crosses into Gaul Maximus did not attempt to establish a separate imperial government confined to Britain. After his proclamation in 383, he crossed into Gaul with military support from the island and moved against Gratian. The confrontation between the two imperial forces is generally placed around Paris, although some later accounts compress or confuse the geography of the campaign. For several days there was no decisive pitched battle. Instead, Gratian’s position deteriorated as soldiers began deserting him and transferring their allegiance to Maximus. Zosimus describes five days of minor fighting before first the Mauritanian cavalry and then additional troops changed sides. The collapse of Gratian’s regime was therefore not the result of one great battlefield defeat but of the disappearance of the military loyalty necessary to sustain it. Gratian fled south. On 25 August 383 he was captured and killed at Lyon, with his death associated in the ancient tradition with Andragathius, one of Maximus’s senior commanders. Later authors supplied different details concerning the pursuit and the means by which Gratian was trapped, and those details cannot all be reconciled. The secure sequence is that Gratian lost control of his army, fled and was killed while Maximus took control of his former territories. Maximus established his imperial court at Trier. Britain, Gaul and Spain came under his authority, and his regime operated through the ordinary machinery of Roman government. Officials were appointed, provincial administration continued, judicial proceedings were conducted and orders moved through the established hierarchy of the Gallic prefecture. The evidence also includes administrative activity in Spain, showing that Maximus’s authority extended beyond the army accompanying him in Gaul. This was therefore no longer simply a British army in revolt. Maximus had created a functioning imperial government that would continue for years. He controlled major western provinces, possessed substantial military forces and operated from Trier, one of the traditional centres of imperial government in Gaul. The treatment of Gratian’s former adherents also appears to have been selective rather than a general purge. Some individuals were endangered and some senior figures may have been eliminated, although even the fate of the powerful general Merobaudes has generated disagreement. Martin of Tours was able to intervene on behalf of men threatened after the change of regime, while other members of the Gallic political and aristocratic world continued under Maximus. ### Recognition, Diplomacy and an Uneasy Settlement Gratian’s death did not leave Maximus as sole [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/). Valentinian II, Gratian’s younger half-brother, remained in Italy, while Theodosius I ruled the eastern [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-the-eastern-roman-empire-did-not-collapse/). Maximus consequently needed either to continue the civil war or obtain some form of accommodation with the surviving imperial governments. ![Magnus Maximus coin ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Magnus-Maximus-coin--1.jpg) Magnus Maximus coin. Credits: Ichthyovenator, CC BY-SA 2.5\. Upscale by Roman Empire Times Negotiations began early. Ambrose of Milan travelled to Maximus’s court as an envoy for Valentinian II, and his surviving account gives unusually direct evidence for the exchanges between Trier and Milan. Ambrose was writing in defence of his own conduct and cannot be treated as a neutral observer, but he had personally participated in the negotiations. Maximus accused Ambrose and the Frankish commander Bauto of having prevented him from advancing into Italy. Ambrose responded by arguing that Maximus himself had originally requested peace: > “Wherein then did Valentinian deceive you, > whom you asked to grant you peace > before he himself asked for it?” Ambrose also recalls Maximus proposing that Valentinian should come to him “as a son to a father.” Ambrose rejected the proposal, arguing that the young emperor should not be required to cross the Alps under such circumstances. Troops meanwhile guarded the mountain passes, demonstrating how diplomacy and military precautions continued together. The remains of Gratian themselves became part of the negotiations. Maximus retained the dead[ emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/69-ce-the-year-of-the-four-emperors/)’s body, while Ambrose sought its return. The issue gave Gratian a continuing political significance even after his death and shows the depth of distrust between the two western governments. Relations with Theodosius were similarly complicated. An eastern expedition directed toward the Rhine was contemplated or begun in 384, but the surviving reference is brief. It may have been abandoned or may have ended without producing the confrontation apparently intended. Theodosius had substantial military and diplomatic commitments elsewhere, and war against Maximus was not an unavoidable consequence of the events of 383. By 386, there is firmer evidence that Maximus had acquired a degree of acceptance in the East. His statues were displayed there, and Flavius Euodius, one of the leading officials of his government, was recognised as consul for 386\. A limited eastern coinage for Maximus has also been proposed, although that evidence remains disputed. These developments indicate that Maximus had received a degree of recognition by 386, although the extent and formal character of that recognition remain uncertain. Maximus also created a dynastic arrangement of his own. His young son Flavius Victor was raised to the rank of Augustus, probably in 383 or 384\. Theodosius had likewise elevated his son Arcadius in 383\. The [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-behind-rome-how-society-really-worked/) therefore contained two imperial households openly providing for succession through their sons, while Valentinian II continued to rule Italy. Between 383 and 387, Maximus governed his western territories, continued negotiations with the other imperial courts and obtained a degree of recognition. Relations with Valentinian II remained tense, but diplomacy continued throughout the period. It remains unclear whether Maximus had intended from the beginning to extend his rule into Italy. ### Martin of Tours and the Priscillian Affair Religion occupied a prominent place in Maximus’s government. His surviving correspondence presents him as committed to Nicene [Christianity](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-forbidden-dionysian-mysteries-why-did-the-roman-empire-persecute-christianity/), while accounts concerning Martin of Tours show him dealing directly with bishops and ecclesiastical questions. Religious policy could also operate within imperial politics, especially when Maximus contrasted his position with the religious policies of Valentinian II’s court. Sulpicius Severus provides an important counterweight to the uniformly hostile portrait created after Maximus’s defeat. He regarded the accession as unlawful and did not approve of the [civil war](https://romanempiretimes.com/for-rome-no-war-was-worse-than-civil-war/), but he could still speak positively about Maximus’s character. After making that distinction, Sulpicius added: > “But the fact is, that a great empire can neither be refused > without danger, nor can be preserved > without war.” The passage does not prove the claim that Maximus was forced unwillingly to accept the throne. Reluctance was a familiar element in presentations of irregular imperial accessions. It does show, however, that an ancient author could criticize the means by which Maximus obtained imperial power without portraying the rest of his life and government as uniformly vicious. The most controversial religious episode of his reign concerned Priscillian, an ascetic Christian leader in Spain. The dispute predated Maximus. Priscillian and his supporters had already been condemned by ecclesiastical opponents, subjected to measures obtained from Gratian’s government, appealed to senior churchmen and imperial officials and eventually succeeded in obtaining assistance from figures at Gratian’s court. Maximus inherited a conflict that was already well developed rather than creating it himself. After Maximus took control of Gaul and Spain, the dispute returned to official attention. A council was summoned at Bordeaux. Instantius, one of Priscillian’s associates, was condemned there, while Priscillian appealed directly to the emperor. The case then passed into secular judicial proceedings at Trier. Martin of Tours strongly opposed this development. Sulpicius explains that Martin regarded exclusion from the churches as sufficient punishment and objected to putting the dispute before secular authority: > “it was, besides, a foul and unheard-of indignity, > that a secular ruler should be judge > in an ecclesiastical cause.” Martin initially obtained a promise from Maximus that harsh punishment would not follow. After Martin left Trier, however, Maximus entrusted the proceedings to the praetorian prefect Euodius. The accusations by this stage extended beyond questions of doctrine. Sulpicius reports allegations concerning nocturnal meetings, sexual behaviour and naked prayer, while the wider legal context associated the prosecution with *maleficium* and suspicions of magic and adultery. ![Llanbeblig Book of Hours (held at the National Library of Wales) is traditionally thought to depict the Roman emperor and Welsh legendary figure Magnus Maximus (known in Welsh as Macsen Wledig). ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/a-king-possibly-Magnus-Maximus-1.jpg) **Llanbeblig Book of Hours* (held at the National Library of Wales) is traditionally thought to depict the Roman emperor and Welsh legendary figure Magnus Maximus (known in Welsh as **Macsen Wledig*). Public domain. Upscale by Roman Empire Times By this stage, the proceedings involved charges that extended beyond doctrinal error, including accusations of *maleficium*, nocturnal meetings, sexual misconduct and other offences that could fall under [Roman criminal law](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/). Euodius recommended capital punishment. Ithacius, the principal episcopal accuser, then withdrew from the final prosecution, and a court lawyer named Patricius replaced him. Because a capital prosecution required the proceedings to be repeated, another hearing followed. Priscillian, Euchrotia, Latronianus and several clerical associates were executed, while others were [exiled](https://romanempiretimes.com/exile-in-ancient-rome-what-happened-when-rome-sent-you-away/). The distinction between religious and secular proceedings should not be pushed too far in the opposite direction. The conflict had been driven by bishops, its origins were ecclesiastical, and Martin’s objection arose precisely because the dispute had passed into a judicial process capable of imposing death. Maximus allowed that process to continue and approved the result. He subsequently presented himself to the bishop of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) as a Catholic ruler acting against a movement he identified with Manichaeism. Ambrose also refused communion with bishops associated with seeking the death of accused heretics and states that Maximus reacted angrily to his position. His testimony reinforces the evidence that the executions remained a serious point of controversy among contemporary churchmen. Maximus’s surviving letters provide additional evidence for his involvement in church affairs. One was addressed to Valentinian II during the conflict over religious policy at Milan; another was sent to Siricius, bishop of Rome, and discussed ecclesiastical matters including the Priscillianist controversy. In these letters, Maximus consistently presents himself as a Nicene emperor. That position also served his political rivalry with Valentinian II, although it remains unclear how far political advantage and personal religious conviction can be separated. ### The Invasion of Italy The uneasy settlement ended in 387 when Maximus crossed the Alps and entered Italy. The reason for that decision remains one of the unresolved questions of his reign. Hostility toward Valentinian II and his advisers had existed for years, religious disagreement may have contributed, and Maximus may have sought a final resolution of his position in the West. None of these explanations can be demonstrated as the single cause. Valentinian II did not mount a successful defence. He fled with his mother Justina and members of the court and eventually reached Thessalonica, where he appealed to Theodosius. Maximus took control of Italy and appears also to have controlled Africa, establishing himself at Aquileia. The reasons for Theodosius’s subsequent decision to fight are also presented differently in the ancient accounts. Zosimus gives a prominent role to Galla, Valentinian’s sister, whom Theodosius married. Orosius presents the campaign as vengeance for Gratian. The latter interpretation compresses the difficult years between 383 and 387, during which Theodosius had not avenged Gratian but had tolerated Maximus and eventually granted his regime limited recognition. The political situation itself had changed significantly. As long as Valentinian controlled Italy, his territory stood between the governments of Maximus and Theodosius. Maximus’s occupation of Italy removed that buffer, while Valentinian and his family were now displaced claimants present within Theodosius’s sphere. Continued accommodation with Maximus therefore carried very different consequences after 387. Theodosius prepared before advancing west. He secured affairs on the eastern frontier, made arrangements for the administration during his absence and assembled an army that included Roman forces and Gothic soldiers recruited in the Balkans. The campaign of 388 was relatively short. The first major battle occurred near Siscia on the River Sava, where Theodosius’s forces crossed the river and defeated Maximus’s army. A second engagement followed soon afterwards. It is often located at Poetovio, but Pacatus does not actually supply that location, so it remains a reconstruction rather than a securely stated ancient detail. After these defeats, Maximus’s military position collapsed and he withdrew to Aquileia. ### Aquileia and the End of Maximus Ancient accounts differ over the circumstances of Maximus’s capture and death at Aquileia. Zosimus describes him being stripped of his imperial insignia, brought before Theodosius and then taken away for execution, while Sozomen says that Maximus was seized and killed by his own men. Socrates likewise makes Maximus’s troops responsible for delivering him to the victor: > “instead of fighting for him, they delivered him bound > to the emperor, who caused him > to be put to death.” We cannot combine all the information into a single detailed death scene. What can safely be said is that Maximus fell into enemy hands at Aquileia and was executed in August 388\. Even the exact day varies in the surviving tradition, so the year and circumstances are more secure than attempts to insist upon one precise date. ![Aquileia, Roman Forum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Roman-Forum-in-aquileia--1--1.jpg) Aquileia, Roman Forum. Credits: The Unexpected Guest, CC BY-SA 4.0 His imperial regime did not survive him. Flavius Victor, the young son whom Maximus had elevated to the rank of Augustus, was subsequently killed by Arbogast. Andragathius, the commander associated with Gratian’s death, committed suicide after learning that Maximus had been defeated. Other members of Maximus’s family were treated differently. His mother and daughters were spared and received generous treatment. The destruction of the regime therefore did not mean that every member of Maximus’s family was killed, and accounts that compress their fate into a general slaughter are too broad. Nor was there a comprehensive purge of everyone who had served Maximus. Some senior officials were killed or demoted, others lost favour, and legal measures attacked appointments and judgments made by the defeated government. At the same time, many people who had accommodated themselves to Maximus were subsequently reintegrated. Symmachus was among the most conspicuous examples. He had publicly praised Maximus before the collapse of the regime and consequently found himself politically compromised after Theodosius’s victory. His exclusion was temporary, however. He was rehabilitated and eventually became consul in 391\. The postwar settlement involved punishment and political cleansing, but not the elimination of everyone who had served the defeated emperor. ### How a Defeated Emperor Became a Tyrant After Maximus was defeated, the struggle over his reign continued through legislation, public commemoration and historical representation. Several acts of his government were annulled, his name was removed from inscriptions in some places, and officials associated with him could lose rank or favour. These practices are frequently described as [*damnatio memoriae*](https://romanempiretimes.com/damnatio-memoriae-condemnation-and-eradication-in-the-political-sphere-of-rome/), although the expression itself is modern. The scholarship used here instead describes the measures taken against Maximus as “memory sanctions,” encompassing the removal of his name from inscriptions, the annulment of acts and appointments, and the political commemoration of his defeat. Maximus was not simply erased. His defeat became one of the subjects through which Theodosius represented his own imperial legitimacy. Pacatus’s panegyric, delivered before Theodosius at Rome in 389, provides one of the clearest literary examples. Maximus appears through the conventional characteristics associated with the defeated *tyrannus*: greed, cruelty, cowardice, impiety and illegitimacy. These accusations cannot simply be detached from the genre and treated as neutral descriptions of Maximus’s personality. The contrast was useful because the worse Maximus could be made to appear, the more completely his defeat could demonstrate the virtues of Theodosius. The language of *tyrannus* had already become a standard way of defining emperors who lost civil wars, and the portrait produced after 388 belongs within that political tradition. The postwar narrative also simplified the preceding years. Gratian’s murder could be placed beside Theodosius’s eventual victory, allowing the war of 388 to appear as a direct act of punishment. The four years during which Maximus governed, negotiated and received a measure of recognition complicated that presentation and could therefore be minimized. Later historians wrote under the influence of a political world dominated by the Theodosian dynasty, and some of the language used in the victory panegyrics reappears in their accounts. Hostile descriptions of Maximus in these later works therefore often echo themes already present in the postwar portrayal of him as a defeated *tyrannus*. Other ancient testimony shows that attitudes toward Maximus remained more varied. Sulpicius could criticize his accession and civil war while speaking favourably about him in other respects. Orosius likewise regarded the manner in which Maximus had taken power as unlawful while still describing him as an able ruler. The political category of tyrannus therefore did not erase every alternative assessment. Public commemoration made the same point in another way. Maximus’s name could be attacked while his defeat was remembered extensively. At [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/), inscriptions erected after the victory honoured the imperial family as destroyers of tyrants and restorers of public security. [Constantinople](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-plague-of-justinian-when-death-came-to-constantinople/) also incorporated the victory into Theodosian representation. The obelisk erected in the Hippodrome in 390 referred to defeated tyrants, interpreted in this context as Maximus and Victor, while the monument as a whole presented the dynasty and its victories on one of the most public stages of the eastern capital. The result was not oblivion but a controlled reconstruction of memory. Maximus’s status as emperor was rejected and acts of his government were attacked, while his defeat was repeatedly remembered because it contributed to the political legitimacy of the dynasty that had defeated him. ### How Maximus became Maxen Wledig The consequences of Maximus’s departure from Britain are more difficult to establish than later accounts suggest. British tradition eventually connected him with a major withdrawal of troops from the island, but the end of Roman government in Britain cannot be reduced to the events of 383. Military and administrative change continued for decades after Maximus. Later civil wars drew additional forces from the north-western provinces, political authority in northern Gaul changed substantially, and Britain’s relationship with the imperial government weakened through a longer process. Maximus’s expedition formed part of that history, but the evidence does not justify treating him as the man who single-handedly emptied Britain of Roman troops and caused Roman rule to collapse. ![A 1906 illustration titled The Dream of Macsen Wledig by Thomas Prytherch. Not a portrait of Magnus Maximus. Medieval Welsh tradition](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/The-Dream-of-Macsen-Wledig--1--1.jpg) A 1906 illustration titled **The Dream of Macsen Wledig* by Thomas Prytherch. Not a portrait of Magnus Maximus. Medieval Welsh tradition. Public domain Maximus’s departure was one stage in a longer series of troop movements and military changes in Britain. Roman forces continued to be withdrawn or reorganised in the decades that followed, so the weakening of imperial control cannot be attributed to the events of 383 alone. Gildas, writing much later, explicitly connected Magnus Maximus with the departure of Roman forces. His historical section, however, is strongly rhetorical and moralizing rather than a straightforward chronological record, and attempts to extract a continuous sequence from it create substantial problems. Gildas’s later unnamed *superbus tyrannus*, usually associated with Vortigern, has also been interpreted as another reference to Magnus Maximus. That reading is based on structural parallels within Gildas’s narrative and on the repeated use of tyrant figures. Gildas himself, however, does not explicitly identify Maximus as the ruler who invited the Saxons. The later Welsh tradition developed Maximus in another direction. Magnus Maximus became Maxen Wledig, attached to stories of Wales, dynastic ancestry and the movement of British power onto the continent. These traditions were written centuries after the events and cannot supply missing information about Maximus’s fourth-century career. They do, however, show how differently his memory developed. The Theodosian government remembered a defeated tyrannus. Later British tradition incorporated Maximus into explanations of the end of Roman rule and the ancestry of rulers who came afterwards. In Gaul too, memories of his reign could differ from the official language produced after his defeat. Magnus Maximus was a senior Roman commander in Britain whose soldiers proclaimed him emperor in 383\. He displaced Gratian and established a government that ruled Britain, Gaul and Spain from Trier. Over the following years, his regime negotiated with the other imperial courts, received a degree of recognition and raised his son Victor to the rank of Augustus. In 387, Maximus entered Italy and forced Valentinian II to flee east. Theodosius defeated him the following year, and Maximus was executed at Aquileia. After his death, Theodosian legislation and public commemoration presented him as a defeated *tyrannus*, while later British tradition remembered him very differently as Maxen Wledig. 💡 ****Sources Used**: John Matthews, Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, A.D. 364–425. Adrastos Omissi, Emperors and Usurpers in the Later Roman Empire: Civil War, Panegyric, and the Construction of Legitimacy. Adrastos Omissi, “Damnatio Memoriae or Creatio Memoriae? Memory Sanctions as Creative Processes in the Fourth Century AD.” Adrastos Omissi, “Two Letters of the Usurper Magnus Maximus (Collectio Avellane 39 and 40).” Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376–568. Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae. Ambrose of Milan, Letters. Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle and Dialogues. Zosimus, New History. Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History. Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History. Orosius, Histories Against the Pagans. Pacatus, Panegyric to Theodosius. Collectio Avellana, Letters 39–40. ### The Great Conspiracy of 367: When Roman Britain Nearly Collapsed URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-great-conspiracy-of-367-when-roman-britain-nearly-collapsed/ Last updated: 2026-08-19T22:20:03.000Z In the later fourth century, Roman Britain was struck by a crisis serious enough to force the imperial government to intervene repeatedly. By the time news reached Emperor Valentinian I, the island’s military command had already suffered severe losses. Nectaridus, the officer responsible for the coastal region, had been killed, while Fullofaudes, another senior commander, had fallen into an enemy ambush. Raiders were moving through the provinces, soldiers had deserted, and increasingly disturbing reports were reaching the imperial court. [Ammianus Marcellinus](https://romanempiretimes.com/ammian-or-ammianus-marcellinus-from-a-roman-soldier-to-one-of-the-best-historians-of-all-time/) gave the emergency the name by which it is still known: the *barbarica conspiratio*, the “barbarian conspiracy.” His account opens with the alarming report received by Valentinian: > “Having set out then from Amiens and hastening to Treves, Valentinian was alarmed by serious news which showed that Britain was brought into a state of extreme need by a conspiracy of the savages, that Nectaridus, the commanding general of the seacoast region, had been killed, and that another general, Fullofaudes, had been ambushed by the enemy and taken prisoner.” ![4th century bust of a Greek man of the late Roman Empire, now in the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Greece. Thought to be the historian Ammianus Marcellinus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Ammianus-Marcellinus--1--1.jpg) 4th century bust of a Greek man of the late Roman Empire, now in the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Greece. Thought to be the historian Ammianus Marcellinus. Credits: PGS 1984, CC BY 3.0 The description leaves little doubt that the situation was serious, but the word “conspiracy” has created a problem that remains unresolved. Ammianus describes Picts, Attacotti and Scots devastating Britain, while Franks and Saxons were attacking areas of [Gaul](https://romanempiretimes.com/locusta-of-gaul-the-imperial-poisoner-of-ancient-rome/). He does not describe representatives of these peoples meeting to arrange a common attack, identify a shared commander or agree upon a coordinated strategy. Nor does he explicitly say that the Frankish and Saxon forces operating in Gaul were also attacking Britain. The surviving evidence therefore permits several reconstructions. The attacks may have formed part of a genuinely coordinated assault against Roman territory. They may instead have been overlapping waves of raiding, with different groups exploiting weaknesses created by attacks elsewhere. What can be established much more securely is the scale of the Roman reaction. After earlier attempts failed to resolve the emergency, Valentinian eventually sent Count Theodosius, one of his experienced commanders and the father of the future emperor [Theodosius I](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-theodosius-i-the-man-who-defined-christianity-and-also-massacred-thousands/), together with troops drawn from the imperial field army. ## Britain’s Military Command Was in Serious Trouble The first reports reaching Valentinian revealed how badly the military situation had deteriorated. Nectaridus had been killed, while Fullofaudes had been caught in an enemy ambush. Ammianus does not give enough information to determine where these events occurred or whether they were part of a single attack. Even so, the removal of two senior officers at the height of the crisis indicates that Roman command had been seriously disrupted. The enemy described by Ammianus was not a single people. He divides the Picts into two groups, the Dicalydones and Verturiones, and places alongside them the Attacotti and Scots. The precise origins of the Attacotti remain uncertain, while the Scots were associated with Ireland. Ammianus describes these peoples ranging widely through Britain and causing extensive devastation rather than presenting them as one conventional army moving together through the provinces. Across the Channel, a second wave of attacks was taking place. Frankish and neighbouring Saxon raiders were entering [Gallic](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/) territory by land and sea. Ammianus describes robbery, burning and killing, but his geographical distinction is important: the Picts, Attacotti and Scots are associated directly with Britain, while the Franks and Saxons are associated directly with Gaul. One reconstruction nevertheless considers Frankish and Saxon participation in Britain probable. Southeastern Britain had long been vulnerable to maritime raiding, and the coastal defensive system was an obvious target for forces approaching across the Channel and North Sea. The route taken by Theodosius after landing at Richborough has also been used in support of the possibility that this region had been heavily affected. The argument is plausible, but it remains an interpretation of the evidence rather than something Ammianus explicitly states. ![The remains of the north wall of Richborough Castle a Roman Saxon Shore fort in Richborough, Kent, England, UK.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Richborough-Roman-Fort-north-wall-1.jpg) The remains of the north wall of Richborough Castle a Roman Saxon Shore fort in Richborough, Kent, England, UK. Credits: Ad Meskens, CC BY-SA 4.0 The archaeological record cannot provide a simple answer. Destruction and abandonment have been identified at numerous [villas](https://romanempiretimes.com/domus-romana-the-roman-villa-of-rabat-malta/) and settlements dating broadly to the later fourth century, and several have been connected with the events of 367–369\. Some may indeed have suffered during the raids, but the dating is rarely precise enough to establish the connection securely. Fire might have been accidental, settlements could have been abandoned for unrelated reasons, and a villa that was plundered but later reoccupied might preserve little archaeological evidence of the attack. [Hadrian’s Wall](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrians-wall-the-roman-empires-enigmatic-frontier/) illustrates the difficulty particularly well. Earlier interpretations often linked widespread damage along the northern frontier directly with the conspiracy, yet the archaeology does not provide a straightforward destruction horizon that can confidently be assigned to the crisis. The literary evidence demonstrates a serious military breakdown, but it does not justify using the conspiracy as an explanation for every archaeological disturbance dating to the later fourth century. The condition of the army itself was another problem. Ammianus later refers to deserters scattered through Britain, while the scale of the subsequent recall suggests that the garrison had suffered substantial disruption. The surviving evidence does not reveal whether this followed one major defeat or a succession of smaller disasters, but the British army had clearly lost both manpower and cohesion by the time Theodosius began rebuilding it. ## Valentinian I Escalates His Response Valentinian did not immediately send Theodosius. His first response was to dispatch [Severus](https://romanempiretimes.com/septimius-severus-founder-fighter-and-father-of-a-new-rome/), who at that time commanded the imperial household troops. Severus was soon recalled. Jovinus, one of Valentinian’s most senior military officers, was then involved, but the continuing reports from Britain indicated that stronger support would be necessary. Theodosius was selected only after these earlier efforts. Ammianus describes him as already favourably known for his military service. His appointment was accompanied by the mobilisation of troops from outside Britain, demonstrating that the existing provincial forces could no longer be expected to restore the situation unaided. Exactly when this sequence occurred remains disputed. One reconstruction moves the beginning of the crisis to June 367\. It depends principally upon Valentinian’s movements in Gaul and on the different ranks Ammianus assigns to Severus at different moments. If the first news reached the emperor in June, there was enough time for Severus to be dispatched and recalled, Jovinus to follow him, and Theodosius to reach Britain before the campaigning season of 367 was over. Under this chronology, Theodosius’s first campaign was comparatively short. He landed at Richborough, advanced to London and spent the winter there. The larger restoration then took place during 368, when he pursued the remaining raiders, restored towns and strongholds, dealt with internal unrest and reorganised the defensive system. On this reconstruction, Roman control was recovered in little more than a year. An alternative chronology sees no need to compress the campaign so tightly. Theodosius could instead have reached Britain in 368, with his operations continuing into 369\. The amount of work subsequently attributed to him was considerable. Raiders had to be dispersed, military manpower rebuilt, civil administration strengthened, cities and forts restored, frontier security re-established and territory recovered. A campaign extending across two campaigning seasons is therefore entirely compatible with the scale of the work described in the sources. ![Housesteads fort, section of Wall and vallum between the field boundary west of milecastle 36 and the field boundary west of tur](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Hadrian-s-Wall--1--1.jpg) Housesteads fort, section of Wall and vallum between the field boundary west of milecastle 36 and the field boundary west of tur. Credits: Hadrianus1959, CC BY-SA 4.0 The surviving evidence does not allow the disagreement to be resolved conclusively. What it does show is that the Roman response escalated. Severus did not settle the emergency. Jovinus did not settle it. Theodosius was eventually sent with additional military resources because the situation in Britain required a considerably larger intervention. ## Theodosius Crosses the Channel Theodosius assembled his force at Bononia, modern Boulogne, before crossing the Channel to Rutupiae, modern Richborough. Ammianus names four units associated with his expedition: the Batavi, Heruli, Jovii and Victores. They belonged to the imperial field army rather than simply to [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-leave-britain/)’s existing provincial garrison. Their exact strength cannot be established. An estimate of around 2,000 soldiers has been proposed from the probable size of the four *auxilia palatina*, although the strength of individual units remains uncertain. The estimate should therefore not be treated as a firm figure. What it does suggest is that Theodosius had not brought an enormous army to reconquer Britain. He arrived with a relatively compact and mobile reinforcement force that had to work with whatever Roman military resources could still be mobilised on the island. The enemy he encountered on the road toward London also differed from the image of a great invading army. Ammianus describes predatory bands scattered through the countryside and burdened with captives, livestock and accumulated booty. Theodosius responded by dividing his own troops and striking these groups separately: > “There he divided his troops into many parts and attacked the predatory bands of the enemy, which were ranging about and were laden with heavy packs; quickly routing those who were driving along prisoners and cattle, he wrested from them the booty which the wretched tribute-paying people had lost.” Most of what was recovered was restored to its previous owners, although Ammianus says that a small portion was distributed among the exhausted [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/). The operation therefore appears less like a decisive battle against an invading army and more like the systematic clearing of raiding groups operating between Richborough and London. Theodosius then entered London. Ammianus says that the city had previously been plunged into very serious difficulties but had been restored more quickly than rescue could have been expected. He does not say that London had been captured or that it had undergone a formal siege. Its recovery nevertheless represented an important early stage in restoring Roman control and gave Theodosius a base from which to assess the wider situation. ![Roman Wall, London](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Roman-Wall--London--1--1.jpg) Roman Wall, London. Credits: Peter Trimming, CC BY-SA 2.0 Information obtained from prisoners and deserters showed that the remaining problem was substantial. The enemy was not gathered in one place where a single engagement could end the campaign. Ammianus describes the information reaching Theodosius: > “While he lingered there, encouraged by the successful outcome to dare greater deeds, he carefully considered what plans would be safe; and he was in doubt about his future course, since he learned from the confessions of the captives and the reports of deserters that the widely scattered enemy, a mob of various natives and frightfully savage, could be overcome only by secret craft and unforeseen attacks.” The passage helps explain the character of the campaign that followed. Ammianus does not give us one great battle in which Theodosius destroyed the forces responsible for the conspiracy. He describes ambushes, attacks on dispersed groups and a prolonged effort to restore control over a wide area. The absence of a spectacular engagement should not therefore be confused with an absence of fighting. ## Pardons, Deserters and an Army to Rebuild Theodosius could not restore [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-life-really-like-in-roman-britain/) simply by pursuing the raiders. He also had to rebuild the Roman forces expected to defend the island after his own field units eventually left. Ammianus says that proclamations were issued offering pardon to deserters who returned to service. Soldiers who were absent on furlough were also recalled, and most responded. Rather than beginning the recovery with a large-scale punishment of men who had left their units, Theodosius gave them a way back into the army. The measure shows the scale of the internal military problem. The exact events that had led to so much desertion are unknown, but the evidence has been interpreted as pointing to a disastrous defeat or a succession of defeats sufficiently severe to demoralise and disperse parts of the British garrison. The sources do not allow those missing engagements to be recreated in detail, and they should not be invented simply to explain the later state of the army. Military recovery was accompanied by administrative reinforcement. Theodosius asked Valentinian to send Civilis to take charge of the civil government, while Dulcitius, whom Ammianus describes as distinguished for his knowledge of warfare, was brought into the military command. The recovery of Britain therefore involved more than defeating Picts, Scots and Attacotti. The civil and military structures responsible for governing the provinces had to be repaired together. That instability became particularly clear when another conspiracy developed inside Britain. Valentinus, an exile from Pannonia, began attempting to recruit other exiles and soldiers into a plot against Roman authority. According to Ammianus, he offered rewards to men willing to join his plans, but the scheme was discovered before it could develop into a larger revolt. Valentinus and a small number of close associates were handed over to Dulcitius and executed. Theodosius then deliberately stopped the investigation from spreading any further. Ammianus explains that he feared a wider inquiry would create alarm among large numbers of people and revive disturbances in provinces which had only recently begun to become quiet. The plot was separate from the *barbarica conspiratio*, but its appearance during the recovery is important for understanding the condition of Roman Britain. Theodosius was not operating in provinces suffering only from external raids. Military desertion, administrative weakness and the possibility of internal revolt were all present at the same time. ## The Campaign Beyond London Once Theodosius had gathered additional manpower and strengthened the administrative structure, operations continued from London. Ammianus describes him leaving the city with a force he had assembled and personally participating in the difficult work of the campaign. He selected places suitable for ambushing the enemy and expected no task from ordinary soldiers that he was unwilling to undertake himself. ![William Bell Scott: The Romans Cause a Wall to be Built for the Protection of the South](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/The-Romans-Cause-a-Wall-to-be-Built-for-the-Protection-of-the-South--1--1.jpg) William Bell Scott: The Romans Cause a Wall to be Built for the Protection of the South. The painting shows a centurion supervising the building of Hadrian's Wall. The centurion has been given the face of John Clayton, who was responsible for saving parts of the Wall from loss. The painting is in the collection at Wallington Hall near Morpeth, England. Public domain. Upscale by Roman Empire Times The fighting again appears as a campaign against mobile groups rather than a conventional war against a single concentrated army. Theodosius drove hostile peoples away and began restoring towns and strongholds damaged during the disturbances. Ammianus summarises the process: > “In this way, while he performed the duties of an active common soldier and observed the care of a distinguished general, after having routed and put to flight tribes which an insolence fostered by impunity was inflaming with a desire to attack the Romans, he completely restored the cities and strongholds which had been founded to secure a long period of peace, but had suffered repeated misfortunes.” The surviving account does not identify those cities and strongholds individually. Later attempts to associate specific defensive works with Theodosius’s restoration therefore depend heavily on archaeological interpretation. Changes to coastal defences, signal stations, fortifications and urban walls have all been considered, but many cannot be dated closely enough to attribute them securely to these years. There is nevertheless evidence for significant military reorganisation during the period. Defensive systems on the western and northeastern coasts have been connected with attempts to improve warning and response against maritime raiders. The existing chain of installations in Cumbria may have been strengthened, while signal stations along the northeastern coast have also been associated with increased concern over seaborne attacks. These reconstructions remain more tentative than Ammianus’s broader statement that [cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), strongholds and frontier security were restored. The same caution is necessary when dealing with individual villas and settlements. Numerous destruction levels and abandonments have been proposed as traces of the conspiracy, particularly in western and southern Britain, but even the scholarship discussing these sites repeatedly acknowledges how difficult it is to distinguish hostile destruction from accidental fire, economic decline or rebuilding unrelated to the raids. ## Valentia and the Restoration of Roman Control Ammianus becomes clearer when describing the overall result of Theodosius’s work. Once the immediate danger had been removed, the general turned from active campaigning to the wider reconstruction of Britain’s defensive system. Cities and fortifications were repaired, the frontiers were guarded by sentinels and outposts, and territory previously lost to Roman control was recovered. His account of the restoration is one of the most substantial descriptions of what Theodosius accomplished: > “Then, after the danger had been wholly removed, since it was common knowledge that propitious fortune had failed him in none of his undertakings, he turned his attention to making many necessary improvements, restoring the cities and defences, as we have said, and protecting the frontiers by sentinels and outposts. And so completely did he recover a province which had passed into the enemy's hands and restore it to its former condition, that, in the words of his report, it had a legitimate governor; and it was henceforth called Valentia, in accordance with the emperor's wish, who, one might almost say, celebrated an ovation in his joy on hearing the priceless news.” Exactly what Valentia was remains uncertain. It has been placed in different parts of Britain and interpreted in several ways: as a newly created province, as territory separated from an existing administrative unit, as a renamed province, and even as a broader designation rather than a conventional new province. Ammianus provides too little geographical information to decide securely between these possibilities. The statement that territory had passed into enemy hands is nevertheless significant. It indicates that the crisis was not confined simply to raiders entering Britain, stealing property and immediately departing. Some area had ceased to function under normal Roman administration sufficiently for Ammianus to describe its recovery and the appointment of a legitimate governor. ![Late roman Britain map](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Late-roman-britain--1--1.jpg) Late roman Britain map. Public domain What cannot be established is exactly where that territory lay or how long it had been outside effective Roman control. Attempts to identify Valentia with specific northern or western regions remain reconstructions rather than information supplied by the ancient account itself. ## A Compromised Roman Intelligence Network As Theodosius rebuilt Britain’s military and defensive system, he also dealt with a serious failure in Roman intelligence. Ammianus refers to a group called the Arcani, although the alternative reading *Areani* has frequently been preferred. Their role required them to travel over substantial distances and report disturbances among neighbouring peoples to Roman commanders. By the time of Theodosius’s campaign, the system had become compromised. Ammianus says that the men had accepted, or had been promised, booty in exchange for providing information to Rome’s enemies: > “In the midst of such important events the Arcani, a class of men established in early times, about which I said something in the history of Constans, had gradually become corrupted, and consequently he removed them from their posts. For they were clearly convicted of having been led by the receipt, or the promise, of great booty at various times to betray to the savages what was going on among us.” Theodosius removed them from their positions. Ammianus then explains that their proper function had been to move over wide areas and inform Roman commanders about disturbances among neighbouring peoples. The passage provides direct evidence that an intelligence network associated with the frontier had been corrupted. It does not, however, say that these men created the conspiracy, deliberately organised the attacks or arranged for invading forces to cross Roman defences. Their betrayal of information was part of the wider military breakdown, but the surviving source does not allow their role to be expanded beyond what Ammianus actually reports. Their corruption nevertheless adds another element to the conditions Theodosius encountered. Britain’s difficulties involved enemy raids, the loss of commanders, desertion, weaknesses in civil and military administration, an internal conspiracy and the failure of men responsible for gathering frontier intelligence. The recovery described by Ammianus was therefore a reconstruction of the mechanisms of Roman control as much as a sequence of victories over external attackers. ## Was There Really One Great Conspiracy? The familiar modern expression “Great Conspiracy” can make the events sound more clearly organized than the surviving evidence permits. Ammianus unquestionably uses the word *conspiratio*, and he unquestionably presents Roman Britain as suffering an extreme emergency. Several peoples were attacking Roman territory during approximately the same period, while the provincial command structure had suffered serious disruption. What his account does not contain is the mechanism that would turn those attacks into a demonstrably coordinated military coalition. Picts, Attacotti and Scots are explicitly described devastating Britain. Franks and Saxons are explicitly described attacking Gaul. No surviving passage describes representatives of all these peoples negotiating an alliance, choosing common commanders, deciding upon targets or synchronizing their movements. ![John White - A Pictish warrior holding a human head](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Pictish-warrior-holding-a-human-head--1--1.jpg) John White - A Pictish warrior holding a human head. Public domain. This does not mean coordination was impossible. Different groups may have known about Roman weakness and deliberately exploited it. Maritime raiders could have shared information, timed attacks to coincide with pressure elsewhere, or taken advantage of the collapse of coastal and frontier intelligence. A coordinated multi-front assault is therefore one possible reconstruction, and some of the surviving scholarship regards it as the most convincing explanation. Other interpretations are more sceptical. The events may instead have represented several contemporary waves of raiding and military disturbance that became grouped together in Ammianus’s narrative. One reading treats *conspiratio* less as evidence for a formal alliance and more as a way of describing the coincidence of several threats in time and space. The most sceptical interpretations go further, questioning whether the episode later acquired greater prominence because its suppressor became the father of an emperor. That possibility cannot simply be dismissed, because Ammianus’s presentation of Theodosius is conspicuously favourable and the later literary tradition became progressively more celebratory. At the same time, the Roman reaction makes it difficult to reduce the episode to a minor nuisance. Senior commanders had been removed, soldiers had deserted, troops were brought from the continental field army, administrative officials were replaced or reinforced, defences were restored, frontier intelligence was reorganised, and territory was recovered. Whatever degree of coordination existed among the attackers, the Roman authorities were responding to a substantial military and governmental emergency. ## Theodosius Becomes the Hero of the Story A final problem lies in the way the story was remembered. The general who recovered Britain was not merely another fourth-century Roman commander. His son later became Emperor Theodosius I, and the achievements of the elder Theodosius became part of the prestige surrounding the ruling dynasty. Ammianus already presents him admiringly. After describing the British restoration, he compares Theodosius with the celebrated Republican commanders Furius Camillus and Papirius Cursor. The provinces are said to have rejoiced at his departure, and he returned to the imperial court to receive praise and promotion. ![Gerard de Lairesse, The Clemency of Lucius Papirius Cursor, 1688, The Hague, Binnenhof. Oil on canvas](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/The-Clemency-of-Lucius-Papirius-Cursor--1--1.jpg) Gerard de Lairesse, The Clemency of Lucius Papirius Cursor, 1688, The Hague, Binnenhof. Oil on canvas. Public domain. Upscale by Roman Empire Times Symmachus later records senatorial honours commemorating Theodosius’s campaigns in Britain and Africa. By the 380s, the British campaign was therefore already part of his publicly celebrated military reputation. Later panegyric carried the claims considerably further. By 398, Claudian was writing about the achievements of the elder Theodosius while celebrating his grandson Honorius. The result was a much more spectacular version of the British campaign: > “'Twas he who pitched his camp amid the snows of Caledonia, who never doffed his helmet for all the heat of a Libyan summer, who struck terror with the Moors, brought into subjection the coasts of Britain and with equal success laid waste the north and the south. What avail against him the eternal snows, the frozen air, the uncharted sea? The Orcades ran red with Saxon slaughter; Thule was warm with the blood of Picts; ice-bound Hibernia wept for the heaps of slain Scots.” The language is striking, but its context has to be respected. Claudian was writing approximately three decades after the British crisis in a panegyric celebrating a dynasty descended from the commander whose achievements he describes. Caledonia, the Orkneys, Thule and Ireland cannot therefore be converted automatically into a literal itinerary of Roman campaigning. The later evidence has nevertheless encouraged the possibility that some of this language might preserve memories of operations omitted from Ammianus’s compressed account. Punitive action against Pictish groups and maritime pursuit of raiders have both been considered, while the references to Ireland have prompted discussion of whether Roman naval forces may have pursued Scots towards their homeland. Even such interpretations do not provide evidence for a regular Roman invasion or conquest of Ireland. The contrast with Ammianus remains important. Ammianus certainly praises Theodosius, but the actions he actually describes are far more practical. The general divides his forces to attack raiding groups, recovers prisoners and stolen property, recalls deserters, requests new civil and military officials, prepares ambushes, suppresses an internal plot, restores towns and strongholds, reorganises the frontier and removes a compromised intelligence network. That more detailed account gives us a recovery based not upon one spectacular victory but upon a series of military and administrative measures carried out across a province whose mechanisms of defence had badly deteriorated. ## Britain After the Conspiracy By the end of the campaign, Roman government in Britain had survived the emergency. Raiders had been dispersed, military manpower had been restored, administration had been strengthened, towns and strongholds had been repaired, frontier protection had been reorganised and compromised intelligence personnel had been removed. A province described as having passed into enemy hands was again under Roman government and carried the name Valentia. Important questions remain unanswered. The chronology of Theodosius’s operations cannot be established beyond dispute. The exact location and nature of Valentia remain uncertain. The archaeological evidence cannot provide a secure map of every area affected, and the role played by Saxons and Franks inside Britain itself remains a matter of reconstruction rather than explicit testimony. Most importantly, the evidence does not reveal exactly what Ammianus meant by the *barbarica conspiratio*. The crisis involved several different enemies, but no surviving source describes the negotiations or shared command structure that would demonstrate a formal coalition. At the same time, the losses suffered by Roman command and the scale of the imperial response make clear that Britain was facing considerably more than an ordinary season of frontier raiding. The later reputation of Theodosius complicates the picture further. Ammianus already admired him, and writers working under his descendants transformed the British campaign into an increasingly impressive family achievement. Those later accounts cannot simply be rejected, but neither can their panegyrical geography be read as straightforward military reporting. What survives is therefore a serious but imperfectly documented crisis. Roman Britain experienced attacks from several directions at a moment when its military command, manpower, administration and intelligence system were all under severe strain. Theodosius restored Roman control through a mixture of mobile warfare, recruitment, administrative reconstruction and defensive reorganisation. Ammianus called those events the *barbarica conspiratio*. That name is certain. Whether the peoples attacking Rome had actually constructed the single, carefully coordinated “Great Conspiracy” the expression can suggest remains something the surviving evidence does not allow us to establish with the same confidence. 💡 ****Sources Used:** Roger Tomlin, “The Date of the ‘Barbarian Conspiracy’,” **Britannia* 5 (1974), 303–309. R. C. Blockley, “The Date of the ‘Barbarian Conspiracy’,” **Britannia* 11 (1980), 223–225. David Álvarez-Jiménez, “Ammianus and Theodosius I concerning the **Barbarica Conspiratio*,” in **The Theodosian Age (A.D. 379–455): Power, Place, Belief and Learning at the End of the Western Empire* (2013). Ammianus Marcellinus, **Res Gestae* XXVII.8 and XXVIII.3, trans. J. C. Rolfe. Claudian, **Panegyric on the Fourth Consulship of the Emperor Honorius*, trans. Maurice Platnauer. Symmachus, **Relationes* 9 and 43. 📜 For those that want to learn more about The Great Conspiracy, we hope you’ll enjoy [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6bTMVkZNsk&ref=romanempiretimes.com): ### No Fridge? No Problem: How Romans Preserved Food URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/no-fridge-no-problem-how-romans-preserved-food/ Last updated: 2026-08-17T19:58:12.000Z A Roman harvest did not arrive evenly throughout the year. Grain ripened and was cut, grapes came in with the vintage, olives had their season, and many fruits and vegetables were abundant for a limited period. Milk, fresh meat and fish presented a different problem because they deteriorated much more quickly. A large part of Roman food preparation therefore took place long before a meal was cooked, as households, farms and commercial producers turned seasonal or perishable foods into forms that could be stored, transported and eaten later. The methods preserved in agricultural texts and recovered archaeologically were remarkably varied. Grain was threshed, winnowed, dried, stored and milled. Grapes became raisins, [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/), vinegar, preserved sweet must and concentrated syrups. Olives were soaked and pickled for eating or crushed and pressed for oil. Fruit was dried, packed in chaff or bran, immersed in water, covered with [honey](https://romanempiretimes.com/mad-honey-warfare-how-king-mithridates-poisoned-pompeys-legions/) or boiled must, and sometimes enclosed in vessels while still attached to the plant. Milk became cheese; pork was salted, weighted, aired and smoked; vegetables were treated with salt, brine and vinegar. Storage buildings, buried jars and transport amphorae continued the work after the food itself had been processed. The surviving instructions are often more revealing than a simple list of preserved foods. They tell us how strong brine was tested with an egg or a piece of cheese, how figs were trodden with clean feet and made into seasoned fig loaves, how grape juice could be sealed inside an amphora and submerged in water, how hard cheese could survive transport overseas, and why wine and [olive oil ](https://romanempiretimes.com/olive-oil-in-the-roman-empire-how-the-romans-discovered-the-liquid-gold/)were deliberately stored under different conditions. Roman food preservation was not one technique but an entire chain of processing and storage. ### From Stored Grain to Bread Grain was naturally easier to preserve than milk, meat or ripe fruit, but keeping it usable was not automatic. After harvest it first had to be separated from the plant. Threshing loosened the grain, while winnowing allowed the lighter chaff to be carried away. Some cereals required further parching or pounding, and once grain entered storage it had to be protected from damp, rodents and insects. ![Granaries, Corbridge Roman Site](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Granaries--Corbridge-Roman-Site--1--1.jpg) Granaries, Corbridge Roman Site. Credits: David P Howard, CC BY-SA 2.0 Roman writers describe both underground and above-ground storage. Underground pits could preserve grain for long periods, but [Varro](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-terentius-varro-the-polymath-who-catalogued-the-roman-civilization/) records a very practical danger when they were reopened. His warning is worth reading in full: > “Those who keep their grain under ground in the pits which they call sirus should remove the grain some time after the pits are opened, as it is dangerous to enter them immediately, some people having been suffocated while doing so.”— Varro, De Re Rustica 1.63. Varro therefore advised waiting after the pit had been opened before entering and removing the grain. In the same discussion he describes another storage problem: weevils. Infested grain could be brought into the sun, with vessels of water set nearby so that the insects would gather there and drown. The instructions show that storing a harvest successfully required continued attention long after the grain had left the field. Above-ground granaries followed a different logic. [Columella](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) recommended treating parts of the granary with *amurca*, the watery residue left from olive-oil processing, before grain was put inside. He describes turning over the earth floor, soaking it with fresh unsalted *amurca* and compacting it. The material could also be incorporated into floor and wall treatments, and the walls could be sprinkled with *amurca* before the grain entered storage. Varro gives another detailed prescription for above-ground grain storage: > “Wheat should be stored in granaries, above ground, open to the draught on the east and north, and not exposed to damp air rising in the vicinity. The walls and floor are to be coated with marble cement, or at least with clay mixed with grain-chaff and amurca, as this both keeps out mice and worms and makes the grain more solid and firm.”— Varro, De Re Rustica 1.57.1. Raised floors offered another defense. Roman granaries could lift the storage surface above damp ground, while archaeological examples show attention to ventilation and moisture control. At Portus, later warehouses used systems of channels beneath raised floors to help stabilize storage conditions. ![Roman quern (hand mill) found in Sâncrai, Alba (now Aiud), Romania.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/roman-handmill--1--1.jpg) Roman quern (hand mill) found in Sâncrai, Alba (now Aiud), Romania. Credits: Sarazyn, CC BY-SA 2.5 Once grain left storage, milling ranged from household labor to substantial machinery. Mortars, saddle querns and rotary hand mills remained in use. The large animal-driven mills familiar from [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/) had a fixed lower stone and an hourglass-shaped upper stone, the *catillus*. The upper stone could be reversed when one grinding surface became worn, allowing another surface to be used instead of immediately discarding the component. [Commercial bakeries](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) could bring several stages together. Flour was sieved, mixed with water, kneaded and baked. Archaeological remains and relief sculpture provide evidence for rotary kneading machines, while large ovens allowed bread to be produced on a scale beyond ordinary household preparation. The reliefs on the tomb of the baker Eurysaces show several parts of this production process, and archaeological evidence confirms mechanical kneading equipment in Roman commercial settings. Water could replace human or animal power. [Vitruvius](https://romanempiretimes.com/vitruvius-the-roman-who-shaped-modern-architecture/) describes a geared watermill in considerable mechanical detail: > “Water mills are turned on the same principle, and are in all respects similar, except that at one end of the axis they are provided with a drum-wheel, toothed and framed fast to the said axis; this being placed vertically on the edge turns round with the wheel. Corresponding with the drum-wheel a larger horizontal toothed wheel is placed, working on an axis whose upper head is in the form of a dovetail, and is inserted into the mill-stone.” — Vitruvius, De Architectura 10.5.2. He continues by explaining that the teeth of one wheel engage the other, turning the millstones while a hopper supplies the grain. The description corresponds with archaeological evidence for Roman water-powered milling. The complex at Barbegal in southern Gaul famously incorporated sixteen mills, while watermills were also used elsewhere in the Roman world. There is no need to attach uncertain theoretical production figures to them. What the evidence demonstrates securely is that hand mills, animal-driven mills and watermills could all coexist rather than representing neat technological stages in which one immediately eliminated the others. A brief literary glimpse of the labor involved survives in Apuleius, whose fictional account places exhausted [enslaved](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) workers and animals inside a bakery operating mills. It should not be treated as a statistical description of Roman bakeries, but it provides a vivid reminder of the human and animal work behind mechanical milling. Roman cereal processing went beyond ordinary flour. [Cato](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/) describes making starch from wheat through prolonged soaking and repeated handling: > “Clean hard wheat thoroughly, pour into a trough, and add water twice a day. On the tenth day drain off the water, squeeze thoroughly, mix well in a clean tray until it is of the consistency of wine-dregs. Place some of this in a new linen bag and squeeze out the creamy substance into a new pan or bowl.” — Cato, De Agricultura 87. [Bread](https://romanempiretimes.com/panis-quadratus-the-ancient-bread-that-fed-an-empire/) itself could be leavened in several ways. [Pliny](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) records preparations involving grain and must, the use of beer foam in Gaul and Spain, and the much simpler method of retaining fermented dough from a previous batch. The surviving evidence therefore ranges from grain pounded or ground in a household to commercial establishments equipped with animal mills, mechanical kneaders and large ovens. Preservation was only the first stage; storage, milling, fermentation and baking transformed a durable agricultural crop into the bread eaten every day. ### Olives: From Bitter Fruit to Oil and Pickles Olives demanded quicker attention. The agricultural writers repeatedly warn against leaving harvested olives lying around for too long. Cato wanted the crop processed promptly, and Columella describes ways of temporarily handling olives if pressing could not begin immediately. The texts also reveal competing interests during processing. Cato says that the gatherers wanted as many fallen olives as possible, while the press workers preferred the olives to remain on the floor long enough to soften because they were then easier to mill. He rejected the idea that leaving them there increased the quantity of oil, insisting that quicker processing produced more and better oil. Cato's instructions make the emphasis on speed clear: > “Observe the following directions in making green oil: Pick the olives off the ground as soon as possible, and if they are dirty, wash them and clean off leaves and dung. Mill them a day or two days after they have been gathered.” — Cato, De Agricultura 65. Oil production began by crushing the fruit. Devices such as the *trapetum* used heavy stone runners inside a basin, after which the olive paste was transferred to presses. Roman presses employed several mechanisms, including beams, weights, winches and later screws. Older and newer systems could coexist. ![Olive Mill in Pompeii](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Olive-Press-in-Pompeji-1.jpg) Olive Mill in Pompeii. Credits: Heinz-Josef Lücking, CC BY-SA 3.0 DE Both Cato and Columella discuss attempts to adjust crushing equipment so that the flesh of the olive was thoroughly broken down while the pit supposedly remained intact. Columella thought crushing the pit could harm the flavor of the oil. Modern scholarship has questioned whether a *trapetum* could consistently avoid breaking the olive pits and whether doing so would actually improve the oil. The ancient writers therefore regarded keeping the pits intact as desirable, although modern scholarship does not consider it necessary for producing good oil. Pressing, however, did not yield finished clear oil. The liquid coming from the press also contained water, solids and *amurca*. It had to settle and the oil had to be separated from the other material. Cato repeatedly emphasizes cleanliness and prompt handling, while Columella describes cleaning pressing equipment thoroughly between uses. The by-product *amurca* was far from useless. It could be kept and employed in treatments for storage vessels, threshing floors, granaries and other parts of an estate. Roman processing repeatedly turned what looked like waste into another usable substance. Olives intended for eating followed another route. Their bitterness could be reduced through soaking, brining and salting. Green olives might be cracked first so that the preserving liquid penetrated them. Black olives could be salted for weeks and later stored with concentrated grape must and aromatics. One Columella treatment mixed black olives with mastic seed, fennel seed and toasted salt, packed them into amphorae and rolled the vessels daily. Every few days the amurca was poured off. After forty days the salt was washed away and the olives returned to storage. Green olives could be treated differently: cracked, softened in hot water, squeezed, mixed with fennel, mastic and salt, and topped with very fresh must. Roman preserved olives could therefore combine saltiness with fennel, resinous aromatics and the sweetness of grape juice. Cato gives an especially simple test for determining whether brine was strong enough: > “place a small dried fish or an egg in it, and if it floats you have a brine strong enough to pickle meat or cheese or salted fish.”— Cato, De Agricultura 88. The same principle appears in Columella with fresh cheese. If the cheese sank, more salt was required. When it floated, the brine was considered ready. The floating food therefore provided a practical test of the brine's strength. ### Grapes Could Become Much More Than Wine Few crops demonstrate Roman processing as well as grapes. A grape harvest could become fresh fruit, raisins, preserved bunches, must, wine, vinegar, lora (a weak, secondary wine-like drink made from the grape residue left after pressing) or concentrated grape products. Even the material left after the principal pressing could be reused. ![Villa of Mysteries, Pompeii. May 2010. Wooden pole with a ram’s head at one end, part of a winepress or torcularium.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/wine-press-in-villa-of-mysteries--1--1.jpg) Villa of Mysteries, Pompeii. May 2010\. Wooden pole with a ram’s head at one end, part of a winepress or torcularium. Photo courtesy of Johannes Eber. Courtesy of Parco Archeologico di Pompei. Wine began with treading or crushing. Free-running juice could be collected before the remaining grape mass was pressed. Subsequent pressings recovered more liquid, while exhausted grape skins and stems still had other uses. Grape marc could be kept for winter livestock fodder. It could also be mixed with water to produce lora, the much weaker drink. What looked like the remains of winemaking was therefore still useful. Romans also devoted considerable effort to preserving grapes as grapes. Bunches could be hung, packed in dry materials, placed separately into containers or protected within sealed vessels. Varro records pitched vessels and methods involving water, while Columella provides an extraordinary catalogue of procedures. One of the most striking was to construct tiny pitched vessels around individual bunches while the grapes were still attached to the vine. Their lids were made in two parts so that they could fit around the stem and then be carefully sealed. The storage container was effectively brought to the living fruit rather than waiting for harvest. ![Possible representation of the grape preservation method of ancient Romans](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/drying-grapes-1.jpg) Possible representation of the grape preservation method of ancient Romans. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Other grapes could be arranged among completely dry chaff, barley bran or sawdust. Bunches might be carefully spaced so that they did not touch. Some containers were placed inside larger vessels surrounded by wine-press residue, while others were sealed and submerged in cold water. Columella even describes a system in which *defrutum* was poured into the bottom of a pitched *dolium*. A rack was constructed above the liquid and vessels containing grapes were arranged on tiers, or the bunches themselves could be suspended so that they touched neither one another nor the concentrated must below. Raisins required a different process. Columella describes carefully selected grapes briefly dipped in boiling lye-water, not long enough to cook them, and then arranged on hurdles so they did not touch while drying. Cato records Duracinian and large Aminean grapes dried on hurdles and then smoked in a blacksmith's workshop. Romans could also try to keep grape juice sweet instead of allowing it to become ordinary wine. Columella gives one of the most memorable preservation instructions in the agricultural literature: > “… and put it into a new amphora, and daub it and pitch it carefully, that no water at all may enter into it; then sink the whole amphora into a pond of cold and sweet water, so that no part of it may stand out of it; then, after forty days, take it out of the pond; thus it will continue sweet for a whole year.”— Columella, De Re Rustica 12.29, 1745 translation. The claim that it would remain sweet for an entire year belongs to Columella. The method itself is clear enough: fresh must was sealed inside an amphora and completely submerged in cold water for forty days. Cato gives a related method for preserving must, showing that keeping grape juice sweet rather than allowing it to ferment was a recognized goal. ### Boiling Grapes into Sapa and Defrutum Another important destination for the grape harvest was concentrated must. Roman texts use names including *caroenum*, *defrutum* and *sapa*, but their precise definitions and reduction ratios are not entirely consistent. Pliny defines *defrutum* one way and *sapa* another. Columella gives different proportions, and Palladius gives still another set. It is therefore safest to describe them as different concentrations of boiled grape must rather than impose a single universal Roman formula. Pliny's old English translation describes the deliberate manufacture of *sapa* in particularly memorable terms: > “the devise of mans wit, and no worke of Nature”— Pliny, Natural History 14. Columella's instructions show that concentrated must was not necessarily a minor kitchen preparation. On a substantial estate it could involve a dedicated room, the *cortinale*, named for the large cauldrons or *cortinae* in which the must was reduced. ![A possible representation of the grape syrup production process of ancient Romans. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/defrutum-preparation-1.jpg) A possible representation of the grape syrup production process of ancient Romans. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT The scale could be considerable. Columella refers to vessels capable of holding around ninety amphorae, more than two thousand liters. The ripest grapes were preferred, and the must was boiled down slowly, stirred and repeatedly skimmed. These concentrates then appeared throughout Roman food preparation. They could be used to modify wines, accompany preserved olives, sweeten preparations and preserve fruit and vegetables. Concentrated grape must therefore moved between vineyard, winery, storeroom and kitchen. Columella specifies lead cauldrons for boiling concentrated must and rejects bronze because he believed the copper salts, or *aerugo*, produced by bronze would spoil the flavor. Pliny records another curious procedure. Walnuts were sometimes placed into boiling must because they were believed to draw out smoky or unpleasant flavors. Wine itself required attention after fermentation. It could be racked, clarified and transferred between containers. Various substances appear in ancient attempts to alter or stabilize it, including salt or brine, gypsum, chalk, resin, pitch, spices and other aromatics. Some wines were exposed to heat or smoke. Strong odors were regarded as especially dangerous. Pliny advised that cellars be kept away from foul-smelling places: > “there be no muckhils nor privies neare: no roots of trees, nor any thing of a strong and stinking savor: for that wine is of this nature, to draw any smell very quickly into it.” He also warned against crowding the wine vessels: > “they ought to stand a pretie distance one from another: for feare of contagion, for that wine is alwaies most apt to catch infection very soone.”— Pliny, Natural History 14. Fermentation itself could be physically violent. Varro knew that fermenting wine could damage or burst vessels. Roman wine storage was therefore never merely a matter of filling a jar and forgetting it. ### Figs, Vegetables and a Brine Tested with Cheese Vegetables could be preserved with salt, brine, vinegar and combinations of these. Some were salted and weighted first so that moisture drained from them, then washed or pressed before being transferred into their final preserving mixture. Roman texts preserve methods for turnips, onions, lettuce, garlic, herbs and various shoots. The brine tests belonged to this practical environment. Cato used a dried fish or egg; Columella records a similar method using fresh cheese. The object had to float before the salinity was considered sufficient. Fruit generated some of the most inventive preservation methods in the surviving literature. Apples could be separated by variety and carefully arranged in storage. Pomegranates could be enclosed in small ceramic containers while still on the tree. Grapes could be hung, packed, submerged or individually protected. Figs deserve particular attention because Columella describes both simple drying and something much more elaborate. Figs could be spread on reed hurdles in a sunny location with air circulating beneath them. During the night they were protected from dew and rain, then exposed again during the day. ![A possible representation of a setting where figs were left under the sun to dry. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/drying-figs-1.jpg) A possible representation of a setting where figs were left under the sun to dry. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Once partly dried, they could be transformed into an entirely different product. Columella describes them being trodden > “with washed feet, in the manner of flour”, then mixed with toasted sesame, Egyptian anise, fennel and cumin. The fig mass was then shaped, wrapped and dried further. Other versions were fashioned into stars, flowers or bread-like loaves. The preserved mass could eventually become so hard that the earthen vessel storing it had to be broken to remove the contents. These were no longer merely dried figs. The fruit had been dried, crushed, seasoned, shaped and stored as a manufactured preserved food. Raisins likewise involved more than leaving grapes in the sun. Columella's lye-water treatment was intended to prepare selected bunches for rapid drying, while Cato's smoked grapes show that smoke could enter preservation procedures as well. Fruit rooms were ideally cool and dry. Apples could be arranged with varieties kept separate and stems positioned carefully. Pomegranates were sometimes protected while still growing. Roman preservation repeatedly begins before the food entered a pantry. Vinegar offered another solution. Columella records fig vinegar in places where ordinary wine was unavailable. Fully ripe figs could be left to ferment and acidify before the liquid was strained into sweet-smelling pitched vessels. Other fruit vinegars were made from apples, pears and sorbs. Vinegar then re-entered food processing as a preservative for vegetables, olives and meat. ### Cheese, Honey and Pork Fresh milk deteriorated quickly. Cheesemaking changed both its physical form and how long it could be kept. Columella gives detailed instructions. Fresh milk was gently warmed and then made to coagulate. Rennet from lambs or kids could be used, but the ancient texts also record alternatives involving fig sap, thistle and other plant materials. Varro likewise records alternatives to ordinary animal rennet: > “Others use, instead of rennet, the milk from the stem of a fig, and vinegar; they also curdle with various other substances — a thing which, in Greek, is sometimes called ὀπός, and sometimes δάκρυον.”— Varro, De Re Rustica 2.11. The thickened curd was transferred into wicker forms or baskets so that whey could drain away. Country producers could begin pressing the cheese immediately. Hard cheese required additional work. It could be pressed repeatedly, salted, washed and dried, while the individual cheeses were kept apart on wickerwork. The procedure produced a much denser and longer-lived food than fresh cheese. The result could be durable enough for serious transport. The modern study of Roman processing notes that hard ewe's-milk cheese made in this fashion could be shipped overseas. Columella also describes *caseus manu pressus*, hand-pressed cheese. Warm curd was broken up and treated with hot water before being shaped by hand or in molds. The technique can be compared cautiously with later stretched-curd processing, but there is no reason to call the Roman product mozzarella. ![A possible representation of hard cheese produced and ready to be consumed.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/hard-cheese-1.jpg) A possible representation of hard cheese produced and ready to be consumed. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Flavor could be deliberately altered. Pine kernels or thyme might be added, and smoke could be used on finished cheese. Columella even records hard ewe's cheese placed in grape must, bringing dairy production back into contact with the vineyard. Honey processing also produced several grades and by-products. Columella says the combs should be processed while still warm. Honey flowing freely from the opened comb was considered the better quality. The remaining comb could then be pressed to obtain a second grade, kept separately from the first. Even the spent comb still had a use. It could be broken up and soaked in spring water or rainwater, pressed again, and the resulting weak honey liquid boiled down to create mella. Columella recommends mella for pickles and preserves. Pork preservation is documented in unusually practical detail. Cato's ham recipe begins with salt spread in the bottom of a jar or pot: > “Spread salt on the bottom of the jar or pot; then lay a ham, with the skin facing downwards, and cover the whole with salt. Place another ham over it and cover in the same way, taking care that meat does not touch meat. Continue in the same way until all are covered.” After five days, the hams were removed and rearranged so that those previously on top were placed at the bottom. Cato then continues: > “Twelve days later take them out finally, brush off all the salt, and hang them for two days in a draught. On the third day clean them thoroughly with a sponge and rub with oil. Hang them in smoke for two days, and the third day take them down, rub with a mixture of oil and vinegar, and hang in the meat-house.”— Cato, De Agricultura 162. The full procedure shows why it is misleading to describe Roman ham preservation simply as “salting.” The process involved layering, separation, time, rearrangement, airing, oil, smoke and a final vinegar treatment. Columella provides another pork-curing method. Meat could be deboned, rubbed with coarse salt and pressed under weights to remove liquid. Further salting continued over a number of days before washing, drying and smoking. He also describes meat packed into vessels in alternate layers with salt, weighted down and preserved in its own liquid in a manner he compares directly with salted fish. Sausages were another preserved meat product. *Lucanica* involved seasoned meat packed into casing and smoked. Eggs presented a smaller household problem. Agricultural texts record storage in materials such as chaff and bran, as well as salt-based methods. The objective remained the same: prolong the useful life of a food that otherwise deteriorated rapidly. ### Preserving Fish in the Roman World Fish preservation relied heavily on [salt](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/). Fish could be treated whole or divided into pieces, and Roman terminology distinguishes numerous salted fish products. Large processing establishments used waterproof vats and could operate commercially on a substantial scale. [Garum](https://romanempiretimes.com/garum-the-unami-of-ancient-rome/) and related fish sauces formed an important part of Roman fish processing, alongside salted and preserved fish that could be stored and transported over long distances. The scale of Roman-period fish processing is visible both archaeologically and through amphorae distributed over long distances. Preserved fish entered the same commercial networks as oil, wine, cured pork and hard cheese. One archaeological detail is particularly interesting. Sheep and cattle bones have been found in fish-salting vats at Kerobestin and Telgruc in Gaul. This has been interpreted as possible evidence that installations built for fish processing were also used to preserve meat during the fishing off-season. ![MUHBA Barcelona arcaeological underground roman salted fish and garum factory](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/garum-factory--1--1.jpg) MUHBA Barcelona archaeological underground roman salted fish and garum factory. Credits: JosepBC, CC BY-SA 3.0 It does not demonstrate that every Roman saltery operated in this way, but it raises the possibility that expensive vats and processing spaces could be used seasonally for more than one product. ### The Building Could Preserve the Food Too Food did not cease to be vulnerable once it had been salted, dried, pressed or fermented. Containers and buildings became another part of preservation. Amphorae were suited to transport partly because their relatively narrow necks could be stopped and sealed. Archaeological evidence includes closures made from leaves, textiles, papyrus, coiled plant fibers and ceramic pieces. More durable plaster could then be placed over the opening. At a larger scale stood the [*dolium*](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/). These enormous ceramic vessels could hold several hundred liters and, in some cases, more than 2,000\. Many were partly sunk into floors and became effectively permanent elements of a winery or storeroom. Some *dolia* used a surprisingly elaborate double-cover system. A flat inner lid, the *operculum*, fitted directly over the opening and could be sealed with pitch or mastic when wine was stored inside. Above it sat a larger convex *tectorium* supported on three ceramic feet, leaving an air space between the two lids. The food therefore sat within several protective layers: liquid inside a thick ceramic vessel, the vessel partly embedded in the floor, two covers above it and the entire installation inside a room whose orientation could itself be selected according to what was being stored. Large warehouses, or *horrea*, extended this approach to the architecture itself. Storage rooms could have thick walls, high windows and raised floors. At Portus, individual storage rooms used *suspensurae*, floors lifted roughly half a meter to a meter above ground level. Channels beneath them were around thirty centimeters wide and fifty to sixty centimeters high. Large bricks supported the floor surface, which was covered by a substantial layer of *cocciopesto*, a hydraulic lime mortar containing crushed ceramic. ![Harbour of Trajan - Great Horrea of Septimius Severus and Porticus. To the north of the entrance channel leading to Trajan's hexagon and to the west of the Imperial Palace is a very large warehouse known as the Great Horrea of Septimius Severus.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/portus-warehouses--1--1.jpg) Harbour of Trajan - Great Horrea of Septimius Severus and Porticus. To the north of the entrance channel leading to Trajan's hexagon and to the west of the Imperial Palace is a very large warehouse known as the Great Horrea of Septimius Severus. Courtesy of Parco Archeologico di Ostia. The same material could also be applied to walls. The raised floor and waterproof treatment created an air space, reduced damp and moderated temperature changes. Modern computer modelling has attempted to estimate the conditions produced inside the Portus warehouses. Under reconstructed July conditions, exterior temperatures could reach 35°C or higher while interiors remained around 21–24°C. These are modern modelling results rather than measurements taken in antiquity, and they depend considerably on assumptions about windows, ventilation and the reconstruction of the building. The same research suggests that Portus warehouses were probably used mainly for relatively short periods while imported grain was received, documented, organized and then moved onward to Rome and other destinations. A second-century CE grain shipment recovered near Woerden in the Netherlands contained more than twenty different types of insects and mold-feeders, represented at different stages of their life cycles. The grain had already been harvested, threshed, winnowed and sieved and appears to have remained in storage for at least a year before shipment. That cargo is an important counterweight to the sophisticated warehouses and storage instructions. Roman farmers and merchants could reduce risks, but they could not eliminate insects, mold or spoilage. Processing could itself create vulnerability. Grain already threshed and prepared was easier for merchants and consumers to handle but had lost some of its natural protection. The movement toward storing processed grain therefore increased the importance of warehouse conditions and pest management. Smaller shops possessed their own built-in storage. Masonry counters at [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-tavern-inn-wine-bar-the-hospitality-business-of-an-ancient-roman-city/) and [Herculaneum](https://romanempiretimes.com/ancient-roman-beach-herculaneum-reopened/) incorporated large ceramic jars generally capable of holding around 150–300 liters. Encasing them in masonry gave the vessels additional insulation. These jars are often popularly imagined as containers for hot food or drink, but archaeological research has suggested that many may instead have held dry products. Because fixed porous vessels were difficult to clean thoroughly, grain, legumes and nuts were more practical contents than liquids that could soak into the ceramic fabric. ### Wine Wanted Cool, Oil Wanted Warm Storage rooms were not interchangeable. Wine and olive oil benefited from different conditions, and Vitruvius says so explicitly. For wine he recommends a cooler location: > “the cellar, lighted from the north, for if it have any opening through which the heat of the sun can penetrate, the wine affected by the heat becomes vapid.” For oil the instruction is almost the reverse: > “The oil room is to be lighted from the southern and warmer parts of the heaven, that the oil may not be congealed, but be preserved liquid by means of a gentle heat.”— Vitruvius, De Architectura 6.6.2–3. The architecture therefore participated directly in storage. Wine was protected from excessive heat; oil was kept warm enough to remain fluid. Archaeological evidence shows variation rather than a single Roman blueprint, but wine *dolia* were frequently deeply embedded in floors, while containers associated with olive oil could be less deeply sunk or kept above ground. Temperature was only one concern. Moisture, ventilation, insects, rodents and odors all appear throughout the evidence. Roman preservation depended on combining several defenses rather than discovering a single solution that worked for every food. A grape bunch could be enclosed inside a small pitched vessel while still hanging from the vine. An amphora of must could disappear beneath cold water for forty days. Figs could begin on drying hurdles and end as spiced loaves shaped into stars or flowers. Fresh milk could become a hard cheese capable of overseas transport. Pork could spend nearly two weeks in salt before being aired and smoked. Grain could move from threshing floor to granary, mill, kneading machine and bakery. Wine could sit beneath two ceramic lids inside a huge buried jar in a deliberately cool room. These procedures belonged to the practical management of Roman food. Farms, households, workshops, salteries, bakeries and warehouses all had to deal with the same basic problem: bringing in the harvest was only the beginning. Enough of it also had to survive until people were ready to eat it. 💡 ****Sources Used**: David L. Thurmond, A Handbook of Food Processing in Classical Rome: For Her Bounty No Winter Robert I. Curtis, Ancient Food Technology Robert I. Curtis, “Food Processing and Preparation,” in The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World Geoffrey Kron, “Food Production (Expanded Version)” Caroline Cheung, “Managing Food Storage in the Roman Empire” Cato, De Agricultura Columella, De Re Rustica Varro, De Re Rustica Pliny the Elder, Natural History Vitruvius, De Architectura Apuleius, Metamorphoses ### Marcus Agrippa: The Napoleon of Ancient Rome URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-agrippa-the-napoleon-of-ancient-rome/ Last updated: 2026-08-16T21:19:07.000Z Some figures leave their mark not through proclamations or crowns, but through endurance, precision, and an instinct for action at the right moment. They stand close to power without ever claiming it, shaping events while remaining deliberately in the background. In an age remembered for emperors and dynasties, one such presence helped define an era; through loyalty, labor, and a vision that outlasted the men who ruled. 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in December 2025\. It was updated in August 2026.* ### A Battle That Would Decide an Age Out on the open water, the approaching fleet was already visible. The sight was formidable and unsettling. Around two hundred ships advanced directly toward his own, moving fast and clearly intent on annihilation. Their vessels were larger, heavier, and more imposing. Among them stood one ship in particular, marked by a purple sail and adorned with gold, catching the light of the sun. On board was Cleopatra VII, Queen of Egypt. Somewhere within the advancing line sailed the Roman ship carrying his sworn adversary, [Marcus Antonius.](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/) Both sides had committed themselves fully on this second day of September, 31 BCE. Beyond the narrow mouth of the Ambracian Gulf, the waters were unsettled, and the two fleets – matched closely in strength – were about to collide. Only one would emerge victorious. The consequences reached far beyond the men on deck. The battle would decide not only the fate of its commanders, but the future of Egypt as an independent power and the direction of the Roman world itself. Victory would clear the path for his closest ally – [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/)’s adopted heir and bearer of his name – to eliminate his rivals and return to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) as its saviour. Defeat, by contrast, threatened the division of Roman power, the loss of the eastern provinces, alliances with hostile kings, perhaps even Parthia, and the strangling of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) through the denial of grain and revenue. He himself might not survive the day. During the previous decade, he had earned the complete trust of his friend. That confidence had placed upon him the responsibility for this decisive engagement. He was no stranger to naval warfare, yet he understood that experience offered no guarantees. On this day there was no room for error. One certainty remained: he would not relent until the task entrusted to him was finished. As the ship rose and fell with the swell, he felt the wind strengthen over his left shoulder, blowing in from the northwest. It was the breeze he had anticipated; and on which he was counting. Caesar’s commander was ready. His name was Marcus Agrippa. ### An Outsider Shaped by Obscurity and Crisis Marcus Agrippa’s early life emerges from the sources as a study in deliberate obscurity. Even basic facts – his birthplace and exact year of birth – remain uncertain, a rarity for a man who would later stand at the center of Roman power. Ancient authors preserve only conjecture: central or southern Italy is usually assumed, with locations such as Arpi in Apulia or Arpinum in Latium proposed on linguistic grounds alone. What is clear is that he was not born in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/), a fact that marked him as an outsider in a society deeply conscious of pedigree and place. His family background offered little prestige. Agrippa belonged to the gens Vipsania, an obscure clan without a recorded lineage. He himself seems to have actively downplayed this connection, dropping the family name and presenting himself simply as “Agrippa.” Later anecdotes suggest that his father’s humble origins were a source of embarrassment; enough to invite jokes in court and pointed remarks in literary sources. ![Copy of an inscription at the base of a statue of Agrippa. Provenance: Propylaea of ​​the Acropolis, Athens, Greece.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Copy-of-an-inscription-at-the-base-of-a-statue-of-Agrippa.jpg) Copy of an inscription at the base of a statue of Agrippa. Provenance: Propylaea of ​​the Acropolis, Athens, Greece. Photo credits: ColdEel, CC BY-SA 3.0 Even so, Agrippa retained his cognomen with pride. According to [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/), the name “Agrippa” was associated with a difficult birth, feet first, a condition thought ominous in antiquity. That he survived and prospered made him, in Pliny’s words, an exception to the rule. Despite this modest background, Agrippa received a proper Roman education. Like other boys of means, he learned reading, writing, arithmetic, and later advanced literary studies under a *grammaticus*, engaging with [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) and Latin texts that blended [poetry](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/), history, philosophy, and science. He grew up immersed in stories of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s early heroes and republican virtues, even as the political reality around him bore little resemblance to those ideals. The Rome of Agrippa’s youth was unstable and violent. The Republic was increasingly dominated by a small number of powerful individuals who bent institutions to personal ambition. Civil war, political purges, and the use of private armies were no longer extraordinary events but recurring features of public life. Figures such as Marius, [Sulla](https://romanempiretimes.com/sulla-rome-reluctant-tyrant/), Pompeius Magnus, [Crassus](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/), and [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/) reshaped the political landscape through military success, personal wealth, and calculated defiance of traditional norms. For a young man of humble origins, this environment was both dangerous and instructive. Advancement no longer depended solely on ancestry or senatorial tradition but on loyalty, competence, and the favor of powerful patrons. Agrippa’s formative years unfolded against a backdrop of social mobility won through conflict, where “new men” could rise spectacularly; and fall just as fast. These conditions would later shape his career, forging a figure who combined personal discretion with absolute effectiveness, and who learned early that survival in Rome depended as much on restraint as on ambition. ### Growing Up as the Republic Unraveled The year traditionally assigned as the beginning of Agrippa’s life coincided with a moment of extraordinary tension in Rome’s political world. Across the Mediterranean, military victories expanded Roman territory and influence, while within the city the institutions of the Republic strained under the ambitions of powerful men. Triumphs abroad brought immense wealth and prestige, yet they also sharpened rivalries that would soon turn inward. Rome itself was increasingly governed by personal alliances, legal improvisation, and public scandal. Political careers rose and fell through popular agitation, courtroom theatrics, and calculated acts of intimidation. Emergency powers were invoked with growing frequency, executions were carried out without trial, and exile became a common political weapon. The [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) struggled to maintain authority as populist legislation and private armies reshaped public life. ![Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa in military regalia viewing plans for the construction of the original Acqua Vergine aqueduct. In the background workers can be seen clambering on the arches of the aqueduct.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Relief-Agrippa-fontana-di-Trevi-Roma--1-.jpg) Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa in military regalia viewing plans for the construction of the original Acqua Vergine aqueduct. In the background workers can be seen clambering on the arches of the aqueduct. Marie-Lan Nguyen, CC BY 2.5 This was also a period in which extraordinary individuals dominated events. Military commanders accumulated provinces and loyal troops, while others leveraged wealth to control elections and juries. The old balance between Senate, magistrates, and people fractured as civil violence became an accepted means of resolving disputes. By the time Agrippa reached adulthood, the Republic he inherited was no longer the one celebrated in Roman moral tradition, but a state edging toward rule by force and personal loyalty. For a young man of obscure origin, this environment offered both danger and opportunity. Noble lineage mattered less than discipline, reliability, and effectiveness. The values that once defined Roman leadership were being rewritten, and those who would shape the next political order were already learning their lessons in a world where survival depended on choosing the right cause. ### Formed by War and Patronage: Agrippa’s Early Path to Power Agrippa entered adulthood during Rome’s final collapse into civil war. At fifteen, he assumed the [toga](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-toga-to-today-how-ancient-rome-still-echoes-through-modern-culture/) of citizenship just as [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/caesar-comet-how-a-seven-day-star-helped-found-an-empire/) seized control of Italy, placing the city and its institutions under military dominance. Around this time, Agrippa formed a decisive friendship with a boy of similar age: Gaius Octavius, Caesar’s great-nephew and future heir. Their bond, forged early and tested repeatedly, would shape the political future of Rome. While still completing his education – particularly in rhetoric, a skill essential to public life – Agrippa lived through the rapid dismantling of the Republican order. Caesar’s victories over Pompeius at Pharsalus, his campaigns in Egypt, Asia Minor, and Africa, and his return to Rome as undisputed master of the state formed the backdrop of Agrippa’s youth. These events exposed him early to the realities of power: clemency used as strategy, violence as spectacle, and loyalty rewarded selectively. Agrippa’s personal stake in the conflict became clear when his brother Lucius fought on the opposing side in Africa. Through Octavius’ intervention, Caesar spared Lucius; an episode that reveals both the value of Agrippa’s connection and the beginning of his quiet integration into Caesar’s circle. Though Agrippa himself received no formal honors at this stage, he was now visible to the regime. His possible first military experience came during Caesar’s final campaign in Hispania against the sons of Pompeius. Whether Agrippa fought at Munda or arrived too late, the episode illustrates the uncertainty of his early career: opportunity was close, but advancement was not yet guaranteed. Unlike Octavius, who was publicly favored and promoted, Agrippa remained in the background, observing, learning, and waiting. What defines this period is not command or glory, but preparation. Agrippa’s youth unfolded amid relentless warfare, political purges, and the concentration of power in single hands. He absorbed military practice, rhetorical training, and the mechanics of patronage at the highest level. By the time the Republic finally fell, Agrippa was already formed by its violence; and positioned to serve the new order that followed. ### Apprenticeship in War and Power This campaign marked the final war of Julius Caesar’s career. With resistance in Hispania extinguished, there was no reason to linger. Caesar moved swiftly, arranging transport from *Carthago Nova* along the coast toward Massilia and onward to Rome. According to Nikolaos of Damaskos, Octavius was placed aboard Caesar’s own vessel, accompanied by a small household of slaves and, by personal choice, several close companions. Far from resenting this familiarity, Caesar praised his great-nephew for surrounding himself with observant and capable men, noting approvingly his concern for reputation and character. Among those companions were two figures who would shape Octavius’ future: Quintus Salvidienus Rufus, a man of obscure origins already serving in Caesar’s military sphere, and Marcus Agrippa. Their presence signals that Agrippa was already part of an intimate circle forming around the young heir. ![Statues of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa and Augustus at the Council Tower Cologne](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Statues-of-Marcus-Vipsanius-Agrippa-and-Augustus-at-the-Council-Tower-Cologne--1-.jpg) Statues of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa and Augustus at the Council Tower Cologne. Photo credits: © Raimond Spekking, CC BY-SA 4.0 After reaching Rome, the group remained briefly in the city. Octavius’ social standing rose sharply during this period, yet he maintained close ties with his companions. Within months they departed again, this time for Apollonia in Illyricum. There, Caesar intended his great-nephew to continue learning the practical arts of war while preparations were underway for campaigns against the Getae and Parthians. Apollonia proved an ideal setting. A well-governed coastal city with a deep harbor and long-standing Greek and Roman traditions, it offered both military instruction and intellectual refinement. Octavius trained regularly with cavalry units drawn from nearby legions, while senior officers visited him as a relative of Caesar. Through these interactions, he developed early rapport with the army. a familiarity that would later prove decisive. Agrippa almost certainly trained alongside him, absorbing military discipline and command structures firsthand. The city also served as a center of learning. Apollodorus of Pergamum continued to instruct Octavius in rhetoric, ensuring that military preparation was matched by intellectual formation. Between drills and study, the young men lived a life balanced between discipline and leisure. One episode recorded by [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) captures the tone of these months. A celebrated astrologer named Theogenes lived in Apollonia, and Agrippa visited him first. After studying him, the astrologer predicted “great and almost incredible fortunes.” Octavius hesitated to follow, fearing an unfavorable comparison, but was eventually persuaded. Without revealing his identity, he submitted to the same scrutiny. Theogenes reportedly rose and knelt before him in reverence, immediately recognizing his destiny. Whether dismissed as youthful amusement or taken seriously, the moment lingered. The winter passed. After several months in Illyricum, a messenger arrived from Rome bearing a letter from Octavius’ mother. The news was devastating. Julius Caesar had been assassinated. Rome was in turmoil. From that moment, nothing would remain as it had been. ### Standing Beside an Heir in a Dangerous Vacuum In the aftermath of [Caesar’s assassination](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-are-the-ides-of-march-why-are-they-important/), Agrippa remained close to Octavius as events accelerated beyond anyone’s control. His role during these years is difficult to trace in detail, but the sources consistently place him at his friend’s side – as advisor, confidant, and loyal companion – while Octavius began his transformation from private citizen into political actor. When news of the murder reached Apollonia, Octavius faced an immediate choice: accept the protection of loyal legions in Macedonia and march on Italy, or return quietly and assess the situation. Some of those around him – likely including Agrippa – urged decisive military action. Instead, Octavius chose a cautious course. Accompanied by Agrippa and Salvidienus, he sailed for Italy and entered the peninsula discreetly, gauging the mood before committing himself. ![Bas-reliefs of the Ara Pacis. Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa with his sister Vipsania Polla.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Ara-Pacis-relieve-Roma-Marcus-Vipsanius-Agrippa-con-Vipsania-Polla.jpg) Bas-reliefs of the Ara Pacis. Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa with his sister Vipsania Polla. Photo credits: Miguel Hermoso Cuesta, CC BY-SA 3.0 In Rome, power had not passed to the assassins but was being consolidated by Marcus Antonius. Through calculated compromise, Antonius secured an amnesty for the conspirators, took control of Caesar’s papers and estate, and positioned himself as the executor of the dictator’s legacy. His funeral oration ignited popular fury, driving the assassins from the city, while behind the scenes he manipulated appointments and finances to strengthen his grip on the state. Only gradually did Octavius learn the full implications of Caesar’s will. He was not merely a beneficiary, but the dictator’s posthumously adopted son and principal heir, entitled to three quarters of the estate and to Caesar’s name. From this moment, Octavius became Gaius Julius Caesar in law and identity. Agrippa, still barely twenty, now found himself bound to a man whose political weight had changed overnight. The inheritance brought both opportunity and danger. Antonius delayed the formal adoption process, retained control of Caesar’s funds, and openly belittled the young heir. Yet Octavius proved unexpectedly resolute. He committed himself to honoring Caesar’s promises to the people, raising funds through loans and asset sales when Antonius withheld the treasury. [Veterans](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) rallied to him, drawn by Caesar’s name and memory. A turning point came during the games held in Caesar’s honor, when [a comet appeared in the sky.](https://romanempiretimes.com/caesar-comet-how-a-seven-day-star-helped-found-an-empire/) Interpreted as a sign of Caesar’s divinity, it provided Octavius with a powerful symbolic tool. By presenting his adoptive father as a god while portraying himself as a lawful, restrained successor, he began shaping a new political narrative. Agrippa’s precise role in crafting this messaging remains unclear, but his presence within Octavius’ inner circle suggests he was witnessing – if not yet directing – the mechanics of power and propaganda at close range. As tensions with Antonius sharpened, reconciliation proved temporary and fragile. The two men were no longer allies but rivals, competing for legitimacy, loyalty, and control of Caesar’s legacy. When Antonius moved to secure the Macedonian legions and alienated them through brutality and misjudgment, the balance of power began to shift again. For Agrippa, these years marked a silent apprenticeship. He was not yet a commander or magistrate, but he was learning how Rome worked when law collapsed into force, how reputation could outweigh office, and how loyalty to the right man, at the right moment, could shape an entire life. ### From Advisor to Power Broker: Agrippa in the Mutinese Crisis (43 BCE) After Caesar’s assassination, Rome slid rapidly toward another civil war. As tensions between Antony and Caesar’s heir escalated, Agrippa emerged as one of the young Caesar’s most trusted advisers, now firmly embedded within his inner circle. Alongside figures such as Maecenas and Salvidienus, Agrippa helped shape strategy at a moment when political survival depended as much on military loyalty as on senatorial legitimacy. The confrontation culminated in the Mutinese War, sparked when Antony besieged Decimus Brutus at Mutina. The Senate, seeking to contain Antony while underestimating Caesar’s ambition, relied on Caesar’s legions to relieve the city. Agrippa accompanied Caesar during the campaign, which ended in Antony’s defeat and retreat beyond the Alps; but also in the deaths of both consuls, Hirtius and Pansa. With no senior magistrates left alive, real power shifted abruptly. The Senate attempted to sideline Caesar once Antony appeared neutralized, granting honors to Brutus instead and denying Caesar a triumph. The miscalculation proved fatal. Backed by loyal legions and guided by advisers such as Agrippa, Caesar forced the issue: at nineteen, he marched on Rome and secured the consulship by intimidation rather than persuasion. Shortly afterward, his formal adoption into the Julian line was finalized, completing his transformation from private citizen to political force. For Agrippa, the Mutinese crisis marked a decisive transition. No longer merely a companion or junior supporter, he had become a constant presence at the side of a rising ruler, participating in decisions where military force, political maneuvering, and personal loyalty fused into a new kind of power. ### Agrippa Steps Forward: Law, Loyalty, and Power After Caesar After the consolidation of power following Mutina, Agrippa emerged publicly for the first time as a political actor in his own right. Under the *Lex Pedia* of 43 BCE, which formally outlawed Caesar’s assassins, he was entrusted with leading the prosecution of Gaius Cassius Longinus. Although Cassius was tried and condemned in absentia, the case marked Agrippa’s entry into Rome’s political arena, signaling the confidence placed in him by Caesar and his circle. There is strong evidence that around this period Agrippa also held the tribunate, a post that granted him personal inviolability and significant legislative powers. If so, it would explain his ability to shield allies, obstruct hostile measures, and act decisively during a volatile transition in government; functions that directly served Caesar’s interests at a moment when legality and force were tightly interwoven. During the proscriptions initiated by the Second Triumvirate, Agrippa distinguished himself by intervening to save at least one man from execution, successfully securing the removal of a condemned name from the lists. In an era defined by calculated violence and political terror, this episode stands out as a rare example of restraint exercised from within the machinery of power. Agrippa remained at Caesar’s side during the campaigns against Brutus and Cassius, including at Philippi, where later sources record him attending Caesar during a serious illness. With the defeat of the conspirators and the reshaping of the Roman world under triumviral control, Agrippa returned to Italy alongside Caesar. By this point, he was no longer merely a companion or confidant, but a trusted lieutenant whose role blended legal authority, political judgment, and personal loyalty, foundations upon which his later prominence would rest. *(“Marcus Agrippa. Right-hand man of Caesar Augustus” by Lindsay Powell)* --- By the early 40s BCE, Marcus Agrippa had secured a position that owed nothing to ancestry and little to public display. He had moved from obscurity into the inner workings of power, not through office or rhetoric, but through steadiness, judgment, and an instinct for when silence mattered more than visibility. As Rome emerged from the chaos of civil war into a new political reality, Agrippa stood beside its future ruler not as a rival, nor as a figurehead, but as a constant presence; shaping outcomes while remaining deliberately out of sight. In an age defined by ambition, his influence was exercised differently, and it was precisely this quality that made it endure. ### Emperor Theodosius I. The Man who Defined Christianity and also Massacred Thousands URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-theodosius-i-the-man-who-defined-christianity-and-also-massacred-thousands/ Last updated: 2026-08-16T19:16:06.000Z When Theodosius became emperor in January 379, the eastern [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-roman-empire-a-brief-history/) was still trying to recover from the catastrophe at Adrianople. [Emperor Valens](https://romanempiretimes.com/valens-the-emperor-rome-remembered-through-disaster/) had been killed there only months earlier, much of the eastern field army had been destroyed, Gothic groups remained inside Roman territory, and the Danubian provinces were under sustained pressure. The western emperor Gratian needed another emperor capable of taking responsibility for a military crisis that had exposed the weakness of Roman power in the Balkans. Theodosius would rule for almost sixteen years. His reign encompassed the settlement reached with the Goths in 382, the growing importance of [Constantinople](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-plague-of-justinian-when-death-came-to-constantinople/), increasingly forceful imperial intervention in [Christian](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-actually-feed-christians-to-the-lions/) disputes, two major civil wars in the West, the massacre at Thessalonica and the emperor’s subsequent public penance, and legislation that progressively restricted traditional religious practices. Several of the events most closely associated with him, however, survive in later forms that are more dramatic and more certain than the earlier evidence allows. ### From Spain to the Imperial Throne Theodosius was born in Hispania, probably around 347, into a family closely connected with the Roman military establishment. His father, normally known as Theodosius the Elder, became one of the leading commanders under Valentinian I. He campaigned in Britain during the recovery from the Great Conspiracy of 367–368 and later led operations in Africa against the rebel Firmus. The younger Theodosius entered military life within this environment and had already acquired substantial experience before becoming [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-emperor-who-ruled-rome-for-77-days/). By the early 370s he had held an important military command in the Danubian region. The exact stages of his early career are imperfectly documented, but he was not an unknown provincial suddenly summoned to save [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-client-kings-how-the-empire-ruled-without-annexing/) after Adrianople. His military reputation predated his accession. His father’s career nevertheless ended abruptly. Theodosius the Elder was executed around 376 after his African victories. The reason remains uncertain. Political rivalries surrounding the imperial court after the death of Valentinian I have produced several reconstructions, but no surviving source securely identifies the cause of the execution or those principally responsible. Ambrose later referred to enemies who had brought about the elder Theodosius’ death, but his funeral praise of the son does not resolve the question. The younger Theodosius appears to have withdrawn for a period to Spain, although the later picture of a prolonged retirement followed by an emergency recall after Adrianople is difficult to sustain. He had probably returned to military service before the battle, perhaps by 377. The fifth-century historian Theodoret gives a much more dramatic sequence. In his account, Theodosius was recalled after Adrianople, won an important victory over the Goths, and was then rewarded with the imperial title. Earlier evidence instead associates his most notable pre-imperial success with operations against the Sarmatians, and those campaigns appear to predate Adrianople. The disaster at Adrianople of 378 nevertheless transformed his political prospects. Valens had been killed on 9 August together with a large part of his army, leaving the East without an emperor and with Roman forces struggling to contain Gothic groups already inside imperial territory. ![Lodovico Pogliaghi - Battle of Adrianople, 378](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Lodovico-Pogliaghi---Battle-of-Adrianople--378--2--1.jpg) Lodovico Pogliaghi - Battle of Adrianople, 378\. Public domain. Zosimus, who was generally hostile to Theodosius, nevertheless acknowledged the military reputation that helped make him a plausible candidate: > “Finding himself unable to manage affairs, Thrace being ravaged by the Barbarians, as were likewise Pannonia and Moesia, and the towns upon the Rhine being infested by the neighbouring Barbarians without controul, he chose for his associate in the empire, Theodosius, who was a native of a town called Cauca, in the part of Spain called Hispania Callaecia, and who possessed great knowledge and experience of military affairs.” Gratian invested Theodosius with the imperial purple at Sirmium on 19 January 379\. The appointment was not necessarily the inevitable culmination of Theodosius’ career. Adrianople had severely narrowed the range of available candidates, while military competence had suddenly become an urgent qualification. The accession is therefore better understood against the immediate crisis than as the final stage of a carefully prepared rise to imperial power. ### Rebuilding the Eastern Army and the Settlement of 382 Theodosius’ first problem was the state of the eastern army. Adrianople had cost [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) not only thousands of [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/) but a significant part of its experienced leadership. Units were transferred from elsewhere in the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/), while the government sought recruits among veterans’ sons, farmers, miners and other groups. The urgency of the situation forced Theodosius to accept men who under less desperate conditions might have been considered unsuitable for military service. Barbarian recruits also formed part of this rebuilding effort. Goths and other non-Romans had served in Roman armies long before Theodosius, and his government expanded an existing practice rather than creating it. Zosimus later blamed Theodosius for weakening the [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) through excessive reliance on barbarians and described serious disciplinary problems during the early years of the reign. Discipline and corruption were genuine problems. Desertion continued, soldiers could abuse civilians, and officers could exploit both their men and local populations. The legislation of the reign, however, repeatedly attempted to curb such behaviour. Measures were issued against desertion and abuses associated with military billeting, soldiers were restricted from wandering through private estates, and civilians were allowed to resist soldiers attempting robbery. The surviving evidence does not support a simple picture in which Theodosius deliberately abandoned military discipline in order to secure the loyalty of newly recruited troops. The war against the Goths also proved much harder than the traditional language of Roman victory suggested. Theodosius suffered setbacks, western forces contributed to the recovery, and different Gothic groups operated across the Balkans rather than as a single unified enemy. By late 380, the military situation had stabilized enough for Theodosius to leave Thessalonica for Constantinople, but the conflict had not yet been settled. Athanaric, one of the most important Gothic leaders, arrived at Constantinople in 381 and was received with great ceremony. He had previously been a formidable opponent of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-client-kings-how-the-empire-ruled-without-annexing/). When he died shortly afterward, Theodosius arranged an elaborate [funeral](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/). The episode showed how Gothic policy could combine military pressure with diplomacy, honours and the incorporation of former enemies into an imperial framework. In October 382, an agreement brought the main phase of the conflict to an end. Its precise terms are not preserved. There is no surviving treaty document specifying exactly where every Gothic group was settled, what taxes they paid, the precise form of their military obligations or how much authority remained with their leaders. The later picture of a permanently autonomous Gothic state inside the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/), complete with a fixed body of 20,000 independent federate troops, cannot be read directly from contemporary evidence. The settlement did not follow the decisive military destruction of the Goths. The Romans had regained sufficient strength to negotiate from a better position than immediately after Adrianople, but armed Gothic groups remained inside imperial territory. Settlement on Roman land and the provision of military recruits are among the clearest elements that can be recovered from the agreement, although the exact legal status of the settlers remains disputed. Contemporary court rhetoric presented the outcome as a success. Themistius defended the policy by arguing that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) had more to gain from turning former enemies into cultivators and soldiers than from trying to annihilate them. Pacatus later used similar language, presenting Goths as both farmers and military manpower for the empire. Such speeches describe what the government wanted the settlement to become rather than proving that every part of the arrangement worked exactly as advertised. They do show how the policy was publicly defended: the Goths were to contribute to Roman agriculture and military service rather than remain permanently outside the imperial system. The legal position of the settlers is harder to determine. They do not appear simply to have become ordinary tenant farmers, but neither does the evidence establish complete independence from Roman authority. Some privileges and temporary concessions are plausible, but the exact arrangements cannot be reconstructed with certainty. ![Gold Solidus of Theodosius I](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Gold-Solidus-of-Theodosius-I---1--1.jpg) Gold Solidus of Theodosius I. Public domain Theodosius continued to cultivate relationships with Gothic leaders and to recruit Gothic troops into Roman military structures. The settlement was tested in 386 when a new group of Greuthungi attempted to cross the Danube. Roman forces defeated them with assistance from barbarians already serving the empire, showing that troops recruited from groups settled within Roman territory could be used against newcomers attempting to cross the frontier. ### Constantinople and the Reshaping of the Eastern Church Theodosius did not immediately establish his court at Constantinople. Military conditions kept him at Thessalonica, which provided a more suitable base during the Gothic emergency. Constantinople itself had not yet become the inevitable permanent residence of eastern [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), and Valens had spent relatively little time there. A delegation from the Senate of Constantinople travelled to Theodosius while he was still at Thessalonica and urged him to come to the city. He entered Constantinople on 24 November 380 and subsequently spent more than half of his reign there, leaving principally for his western campaigns. The city increasingly became the centre of the dynasty. Imperial anniversaries and ceremonies were celebrated there, Arcadius and later Honorius were proclaimed Augusti in connection with the city, and building projects expanded its political and ceremonial landscape. Work included infrastructure connected with water, harbour facilities and grain storage, as well as palaces, churches, [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/) and monumental public spaces. The Egyptian obelisk erected in the Hippodrome in 390 remains one of the clearest physical survivals of the reign. Its reliefs place the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/) prominently amid members of his dynasty, officials, soldiers and spectators. The precise identity of every secondary figure remains disputed, but the central presentation of Theodosius and his house is clear. Religious policy was closely connected with the city even before the emperor arrived. On 27 February 380, Theodosius, Gratian and Valentinian II issued the constitution normally called *Cunctos populos*. It identified the Trinitarian Christianity associated with Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria as the approved faith and categorized those rejecting that doctrine as heretics. The law is frequently summarized as the decree by which Theodosius made Nicene Christianity the official religion of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/empire-size-comparison-how-did-the-roman-empire-compare-to-alexanders-or-the-mongols/). The surviving document allows a more precise description. Its administrative heading directs it to Constantinople, and its immediate context lies in the religious struggle within that city. Subsequent legislation broadened and intensified imperial intervention, but the process was not completed by one law issued in February 380. The chronology also contradicts the later claim that Theodosius issued the law because of his baptism. He became seriously ill later in 380 at Thessalonica and was baptized by Bishop Ascholius. *Cunctos populos* therefore preceded both the illness and the baptism. After entering Constantinople, Theodosius summoned Demophilus, the Homoean bishop then controlling the city’s churches. Demophilus was required to accept the Nicene position desired by the emperor or relinquish the churches. He refused and left the city with his followers. Homoean worship did not disappear; Demophilus could continue preaching outside Constantinople. ![A possible representation of Demophilus, leaving Constantinople with is followers.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Demophillus-leaving-the-city-1.jpg) A possible representation of Demophilus, leaving Constantinople with is followers. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT The transfer of the city’s principal churches was followed by more explicit legislation in 381\. A law sent to the praetorian prefect of Illyricum restricted the churches and assemblies of several Christian groups classified as heretical. Another measure later that year connected possession of churches with bishops who professed an approved Trinitarian doctrine and belonged to a recognized network of communion. The Council of Constantinople met during the same year. Its surviving synodical material acknowledges that the bishops had assembled at Theodosius’ summons and later sought imperial confirmation of their decisions. The council reaffirmed Nicene doctrine, condemned a series of rival theological positions and attempted to regulate ecclesiastical jurisdictions. The bishopric of Constantinople itself also became a matter of imperial involvement. Gregory of Nazianzus eventually resigned amid disputes surrounding the council, after which Nectarius was selected despite not yet having been baptized. Theodosius accepted the choice, and Nectarius received baptism and episcopal consecration. Over the following years, recognized church buildings increasingly passed into the hands of bishops who conformed to the emperor’s preferred doctrine. Different Christian groups were not treated identically, and some continued assembling outside the official churches, but the government was intervening directly in which doctrines, bishops and institutions received public recognition. This did not produce an administration composed exclusively of committed Nicene Christians. Pagans continued to occupy senior civil and military positions. The emperor’s officials came from different religious and geographical backgrounds, and political usefulness, competence and loyalty continued to play an important role in appointments. ### Magnus Maximus and the Struggle for the West As Theodosius consolidated his eastern position, his relationship with Gratian changed. In January 383, he elevated his young son Arcadius to the rank of Augustus. There is no clear evidence that Gratian approved the move, and Gratian’s coinage did not acknowledge Arcadius. Later that year, Magnus Maximus was proclaimed emperor by troops in [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-life-really-like-in-roman-britain/). He crossed into Gaul, Gratian’s support collapsed, and Gratian was killed in August. Theodosius did not immediately declare a war of vengeance. Instead, Maximus was temporarily recognized within the imperial system while Valentinian II continued to rule Italy and other western territories. Even Pacatus, speaking later in praise of Theodosius after Maximus had been defeated, refers to an agreement that Maximus subsequently violated. Zosimus likewise preserves the reality of an earlier accommodation. The arrangement ended in 387, when Maximus invaded Italy. Valentinian II, his mother Justina and his sister Galla fled to Thessalonica. Ancient sources provide different explanations for Theodosius’ subsequent decision to fight. One tradition presents him as avenging Gratian and restoring legitimate government. Another emphasizes Valentinian’s appeal for help. Pacatus depicts Maximus as having violated the previous settlement. Zosimus gives the decision a more personal dimension, claiming that Theodosius wanted to marry Galla and agreed to intervene as part of that arrangement. Theodosius did marry Galla, linking himself directly to Valentinian I’s family. The marriage was politically significant, but the evidence does not allow it to be identified as the sole reason for war. By occupying Italy, Maximus had also become much more powerful, altering the balance between the rulers of the empire. Strategic and dynastic calculation therefore belonged to the same political setting as the matrimonial alliance and the restoration of Valentinian. ![A possible representation of Galla, wife of Theodosius](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Galla-wife-of-Theodosius-1.jpg) A possible representation of Galla, wife of Theodosius. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Theodosius moved west in 388 with an army containing Roman soldiers alongside Goths, Huns, Alans and other barbarian recruits. Pacatus presents the mixed forces as serving obediently beneath Roman commanders and standards, although the perfect discipline of his description belongs to the rhetoric of panegyric. Maximus was defeated in battles at Siscia and Poetovio before being captured at Aquileia and executed in August 388\. The sources differ over the final circumstances. Pacatus presents Theodosius as inclined to mercy and suggests Maximus was killed before the emperor could spare him, an account particularly suited to the panegyrist’s emphasis on imperial clemency. Valentinian II was restored to western rule, while Theodosius remained in Italy for an extended period. In June 389 he visited [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/), where Pacatus delivered the surviving panegyric before the emperor and [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/). That visit should not be confused with a later story in Zosimus in which Theodosius supposedly returned to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-in-the-empire-last-act-the-western-court-from-455-to-476/) after defeating Eugenius and addressed the Senate on the expense of pagan cults. The later visit is not supported by the contemporary chronology, and the measures described there fit earlier policies associated with Gratian much more closely. Theodosius did not remove pagan senators wholesale from public life after defeating Maximus. Traditionalists continued to hold office, and prominent members of the Roman aristocracy remained useful to the imperial administration. ### Ambrose, Callinicum and Thessalonica The later relationship between Theodosius and Ambrose of Milan became one of the most famous encounters between emperor and bishop in Roman history. Contemporary evidence shows something more complicated than an emperor consistently governed by an ecclesiastical adviser. One important confrontation came at Callinicum in 388\. A Christian group associated with the local bishop had destroyed a synagogue. Theodosius initially ordered punishment and required the bishop to pay for the synagogue to be rebuilt. Ambrose objected forcefully. He argued that a Christian bishop should not be compelled to finance a Jewish place of worship and pressed Theodosius to change the decision. The dispute spilled into Ambrose’s preaching and correspondence before the emperor eventually retreated from his original position. The episode did not establish permanent episcopal control over the imperial court. Relations subsequently deteriorated, and Ambrose’s access to information about the imperial consistory was restricted. The surviving documents instead show an evolving negotiation between the western bishop and an emperor whose political interests did not always coincide with his. That background is important for understanding what happened after Thessalonica. In 390, unrest in the city led to the death of Butheric, a senior military commander. Later accounts connect the disturbance with the imprisonment of a popular [charioteer](https://romanempiretimes.com/fury-on-wheels-the-legendary-chariot-races-of-ancient-rome/) whose supporters demanded his release for public games. The exact circumstances cannot be reconstructed in every detail, but Butheric was killed during serious urban violence. Imperial deliberations followed. The surviving chronology does not support the familiar picture of Theodosius receiving the news and immediately ordering mass slaughter in an uncontrolled moment of anger. Considerable time appears to have separated Butheric’s death from the subsequent punishment, and Ambrose indicates that appeals concerning the situation had reached the emperor. What Theodosius and his advisers finally ordered is unknown. ![Massacre in the Hippodrome of Thessaloniki in 390, 16th century wood engraving](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Massacre-in-the-Hippodrome-of-Thessaloniki-in-390--1--1.jpg) Massacre in the Hippodrome of Thessaloniki in 390, 16th century wood engraving. Public domain Roman troops killed a substantial number of people at Thessalonica. The sources emphasize that individuals who had taken no part in Butheric’s death were among those killed. Theodoret gives the famous figure of 7,000 victims, although even his account introduces the number as something that was reported. One modern reconstruction proposes that the original imperial decision involved a more limited punishment of those believed responsible for the riot and that the operation then deteriorated into indiscriminate killing. Such a reconstruction would explain some otherwise difficult aspects of the surviving accounts, but the imperial order itself has not survived and its precise contents cannot be established. Ambrose’s Letter 51 provides much firmer evidence for what followed. He addressed Theodosius privately and urged him to acknowledge the gravity of the bloodshed: > “I urge, I beg, I exhort, I warn, for it is a grief to me, that you who were an example of unusual piety, who were conspicuous for clemency, who would not suffer single offenders to be put in peril, should not mourn that so many have perished. > > Though you have waged battle most successfully, though in other matters, too, you are worthy of praise, yet piety was ever the crown of your actions.” Ambrose also told the emperor that he could not celebrate the Eucharist in his presence while the matter remained unresolved: > “I dare not offer the sacrifice if you intend to be present. Is that which is not allowed after shedding the blood of one innocent person, allowed after shedding the blood of many? I do not think so.” The letter shows an episcopal challenge, but not the public confrontation familiar from later art and storytelling. Ambrose deliberately approached the matter privately rather than staging a confrontation before the population. Theodosius subsequently performed public penance. Rufinus describes him acknowledging responsibility and doing penance before the church, while Ambrose later recalled the emperor laying aside his imperial insignia, weeping publicly and asking forgiveness. The occurrence of public penance is therefore well supported. The famous scene of Ambrose physically barring Theodosius from the church entrance and keeping him excluded for eight months is much less secure. It belongs principally to later narratives, especially Theodoret, and the contemporary evidence provides no reliable eight-month chronology. ![Alessandro Magnasco - Theodosius Repulsed from the Church by Saint Ambrose ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Theodosius-Repulsed-from-the-Church-by-Saint-Ambrose--1--1.jpg) Alessandro Magnasco - Theodosius Repulsed from the Church by Saint Ambrose. Public domain A second tradition connects the episode with a law requiring a delay of thirty days before unusually severe imperial sentences could be carried out. Such a constitution survives, but the transmitted Theodosian Code dates it to 382\. Some scholars have proposed correcting the date to 390 because Rufinus associates the measure with Thessalonica; others reject that change. The law itself is genuine, but its origin as a direct response to the massacre remains disputed. ### Theodosius, Pagan Worship and the Serapeum Theodosius is often described simply as the emperor who banned paganism. The surviving legislation shows a development over time rather than a single policy imposed from the beginning of the reign. During much of the 380s, the principal targets were sacrifice and divination. A law of December 381 prohibited sacrifice associated with attempts to discover the future. Another constitution in 382 provides an important contrast: a temple was ordered to remain open because of its artistic and civic value even while sacrifice remained prohibited. Traditional worship was therefore being restricted, but suppression of sacrifice did not automatically mean demolition of every [temple](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/). Libanius, a pagan contemporary addressing Theodosius directly in For the Temples, made precisely that distinction while protesting against Christian attacks: > “You, therefore, have not ordered the temples to be shut up, nor forbidden any to frequent them: nor have you driven from the temples or the altars, fire or frankincense, or other honours of incense.” Libanius went on to complain that monks and other Christian activists were attacking temples, removing roofs, pulling down walls, carrying away images and overturning altars. He was petitioning Theodosius and had a strong rhetorical reason to separate the emperor from the actions he condemned, so the speech cannot prove that Theodosius knew nothing about temple destruction or opposed every attack. It does show that a contemporary pagan could distinguish between the restrictions then contained in imperial law and destruction undertaken locally. The same speech also emphasizes that pagans continued to occupy important offices: > “Nor have you excluded those of that sentiment from honours, but have conferred upon them the highest offices, and have given them access to your table, to eat and drink with you.” The legislation became considerably more restrictive in 391 and 392\. In February 391, a law prohibited sacrifice, entry into temples and acts of veneration before cult images. Another law directed to officials in Egypt in June imposed similar restrictions there. Neither surviving constitution orders temples to be demolished. The constitution of November 392 went substantially further in the eastern prefecture. It prohibited animal sacrifice but also extended into private and household rites: incense, lamps, garlands, libations and practices associated with the Lares, Genius and Penates. Property penalties and fines accompanied the prohibitions. The progression is visible in the laws themselves. Practices left untouched or more narrowly regulated earlier in the reign were now subject to broader restrictions. What the legislation does not reveal automatically is how consistently those restrictions were enforced across every province and community. The destruction of the Serapeum at Alexandria illustrates the distinction. Religious conflict intensified under Bishop Theophilus after pagan sacred objects were exposed and publicly mocked. Violence followed, and pagans occupied the Serapeum. Local officials eventually sought intervention from the emperor. ![Alexandria - View of ruins of the Serapeum from Pompey's Pillar.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Ruins-of-the-Serapeum-of-Alexandria-1.jpg) Alexandria - View of ruins of the Serapeum from Pompey's Pillar. Public domain The surviving narratives agree that an imperial response followed, but they do not agree precisely on what Theodosius ordered. Pagan participants in the violence were pardoned, while the Christian dead were treated as martyrs. The emperor also ordered the underlying cause of the conflict to be removed. Later ecclesiastical accounts could present this as a direct order for the destruction of the Serapeum and other Alexandrian temples. Rufinus, the earlier narrative source, is less explicit, speaking instead of removing the cause and roots of the discord. The surviving law of June 391 cannot itself have been an order to demolish the temple because it contains no such instruction. The Serapeum was destroyed, but the evidence does not securely establish an imperial command specifically ordering the destruction of the entire complex. One reconstruction understands the lost imperial response as more limited, followed by local escalation; another rejects a direct demolition order altogether. Similar caution applies to temple destruction elsewhere. Maternus Cynegius, one of Theodosius’ most senior officials, has traditionally been presented as leading a coordinated campaign against eastern temples. Some attacks certainly took place during his prefecture, but evidence that all formed part of a centrally commanded Theodosian programme is much weaker than the later reputation suggests. Monks and local Christian groups frequently appear as direct participants. By the final years of Theodosius’ reign, public traditional cult nevertheless faced restrictions considerably more extensive than those existing when he became emperor. The legislation of 391–392 marked a real expansion in the range of prohibited practices, even though neither the survival of pagan customs nor the destruction of individual temples can be reduced simply to the wording of those laws. ### Valentinian II, Eugenius and the Battle of the Frigidus The political settlement in the West remained unstable. Valentinian II increasingly depended on the powerful Frankish general Arbogast, who commanded the western armies. Their relationship deteriorated, and on 15 May 392 the twenty-one-year-old emperor was found dead at Vienne. The circumstances were disputed almost immediately. Some sources accused Arbogast of arranging Valentinian’s murder. Others said the emperor had taken his own life after becoming frustrated at his lack of political authority. Rufinus, writing relatively close to the events, explicitly preserved both explanations and acknowledged that the cause remained uncertain. Augustine likewise refused to state a single explanation as fact: > “Valentinianus being soon after slain by secret assassination, or by some other plot or accident, Theodosius, having again received a response from the prophet, and placing entire confidence in it, marched against the tyrant Eugenius, who had been unlawfully elected to succeed that emperor, and defeated his very powerful army, more by prayer than by the sword.” Later narratives became more confident in blaming Arbogast, but several modern reconstructions have instead judged suicide more plausible. The disagreement within the ancient evidence means that Valentinian’s death cannot securely be described as murder. For several months Arbogast did not appoint another emperor. On 22 August 392, however, Eugenius was proclaimed Augustus in the West. Eugenius himself was a Christian, despite the later portrayal of his regime as a final pagan reaction against Theodosius. He initially sought recognition from the eastern court, sending embassies before open conflict developed. ![Eugenius gold coin](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Eugenius-1.jpg) Eugenius gold coin. Public domain The evidence for a broad pagan coalition behind Eugenius is weak. Nicomachus Flavianus was an important supporter and openly committed to traditional religion, but he is the only leading pagan supporter who can be securely identified. The claim that the pagan aristocracy of Rome collectively rallied to Eugenius cannot be demonstrated from the contemporary evidence. Claims that Eugenius restored the public subsidies previously removed from traditional cults are likewise uncertain. Ambrose records that pagan requests were initially refused and that Eugenius subsequently made personal gifts to prominent senators. Such gifts were normal instruments of imperial patronage and are not in themselves evidence that public cult funding had been restored. The conflict developed from the political struggle over control of the western imperial office. Christian authors later interpreted the victory through increasingly religious categories, but the sources closest to the events do not present the outbreak of war as a collective confrontation between Christianity and paganism. The armies met at the River Frigidus in the Julian Alps on 5–6 September 394\. The detailed course of the battle cannot be reconstructed confidently from the surviving narratives. Theodosius’ army suffered heavy losses during the initial fighting, with Gothic troops particularly exposed in difficult attacks. Fighting resumed, and defections among Eugenius’ forces appear to have contributed to the collapse of his position. Eugenius was captured and executed. Arbogast escaped but committed suicide shortly afterward. The wind associated with the battle became one of the most famous elements of the later tradition. Augustine reported what he said soldiers who had participated had told him: > “Some soldiers who were at the battle reported to me that all the missiles they were throwing were snatched from their hands by a vehement wind, which blew from the direction of Theodosius' army upon the enemy; nor did it only drive with greater velocity the darts which were hurled against them, but also turned back upon their own bodies the darts which they themselves were throwing.” Augustine presented the story as part of a providential interpretation of Theodosius’ victory. A strong wind may have formed part of early memories of the battle, but the extent of its tactical effect cannot be established from this testimony. Later Christian narratives elaborated the religious interpretation. Rufinus placed prayer and divine aid at the centre of the victory. Sozomen expanded the supernatural elements, while Theodoret eventually presented the battle through an explicit opposition between the Cross and Hercules and included visions of heavenly riders. The closest material is less elaborate. Ambrose interpreted Theodosius’ victory as evidence of divine favour but does not provide the developed battlefield miracle found in the later histories. The description of Frigidus as Christianity’s final military defeat of Roman paganism therefore belongs to the later interpretation of the battle rather than to the clearest evidence for why the war began. Following the victory, supporters of Eugenius sought sanctuary with Ambrose. The bishop appealed for them, and many were pardoned. The episode allowed clemency to be presented publicly while also reintegrating men who had served the defeated regime. ### The Death of Theodosius and his Dynasty Theodosius remained in Italy after the victory. His second wife Galla had died earlier in 394, and by the end of the year his own health was deteriorating. He summoned Honorius to Milan. On 17 January 395, while victory celebrations were taking place, Theodosius became seriously ill. He died that night, most probably from hydropsy. He had not yet reached fifty and had ruled for almost sixteen years. Arcadius now held imperial authority in the East and Honorius in the West. This was not a formal declaration that the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/) had been permanently divided into two independent states. Rule by multiple emperors had existed repeatedly throughout the later empire. The greater difficulty was the age and experience of the two heirs. Theodosius had grown up within the army and maintained a direct relationship with military command throughout his reign. He had personally accompanied the campaigns against Maximus and Eugenius and remained part of the traditional model in which the emperor could appear before the troops as commander. His sons could not fulfil the same role and would depend much more heavily upon powerful generals. The dynasty nevertheless endured. The descendants of Theodosius continued ruling in the East until 450, while the western imperial line connected to his family survived until the death of Valentinian III in 455. Forty days after the emperor’s death, Ambrose delivered his funeral oration before Honorius and the imperial establishment. He praised Theodosius’ faith, clemency and repentance while urging loyalty toward Arcadius and Honorius. The speech also preserves an early stage in the Christian image of Theodosius that later ecclesiastical historians would expand considerably. Theodosius died in Milan, but his body was returned to Constantinople and buried in the city that had become the main centre of his eastern government. During his reign the empire had survived the immediate crisis created by Adrianople, settled large Gothic groups inside its borders, experienced two major western civil wars and seen imperial government intervene with increasing force in both Christian doctrine and traditional religious practice. Later accounts often made those developments appear more straightforward than the earlier evidence shows. The Gothic agreement could become a decisive victory, the penance after Thessalonica an eight-month confrontation at the doors of a church, the war against Eugenius a final battle between Christianity and paganism, and the destruction of individual temples part of a single imperial campaign. The surviving laws, contemporary correspondence and competing historical accounts preserve the same events with greater uncertainty and with important differences over how they unfolded. 💡 ****Sources used**: Mark Hebblewhite, Theodosius and the Limits of Empire. Routledge, 2020. Neil B. McLynn, Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital. University of California Press, 1994. Alan Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome. Oxford University Press, 2011. Ambrose of Milan, Letter 40, 41, 51, De obitu Theodosii. Augustine, The City of God, Book V, Chapter 26. Libanius, Oration 30 : For the Temples. Themistius, Orations 14–16, especially Oration 16 on the Gothic settlement. Pacatus, Panegyric to Theodosius. Rufinus of Aquileia, Ecclesiastical History, Books X–XI. Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, Book V and the opening of Book VI. Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Books VII–VIII. Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, Book V. Zosimus, New History, Book IV. The Theodosian Code, CTh 9.40.13; 16.1.2–3; 16.5.6; and 16.10.7–12. Council of Constantinople (381), surviving synodical letter and canons. ### The Fashion and Textile Industry of Ancient Rome URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-fashion-and-textile-industry-of-ancient-rome/ Last updated: 2026-08-16T19:16:00.000Z Clothing in the Roman world varied greatly in material, quality, colour, decoration, manufacture and price. The tunic was the basic garment for men, women and children, but tunics themselves differed in shape, length, sleeves and decoration. Cloaks and mantles appeared in numerous forms, while particular varieties of the toga were associated with citizenship, age, public office and ceremonial roles. The *toga virilis* was the plain toga of the adult male citizen, the [purple](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/)\-bordered *toga praetexta* was worn by freeborn children and by certain magistrates and priests, and political candidates wore the specially whitened *toga candida*. The evidence for Roman clothing is scattered across long periods and many regions. Names used for garments could vary, and similar terms were not always employed consistently by ancient writers or later translators. Surviving visual and literary evidence can therefore establish broad patterns of dress, but apparent changes in style can sometimes represent regional variation rather than a fashion adopted throughout the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-roman-empire-a-brief-history/). There was nevertheless evidence for changing tastes. [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) preserves an account attributed to Cornelius Nepos describing successive preferences in expensive [purple dyes](https://romanempiretimes.com/tyrian-purple-the-royal-dye-of-the-ancient-world-and-the-secrets-of-murex-extraction/). Nepos recalled: > “When (quoth he) I was a young man, the light violet purple was rife and in greater request” He then describes the later popularity of Tarentine red-purple and, after that, the much more expensive twice-dyed purple of Tyre. Changes also occurred in decoration, garment form and the ways clothing was worn. In Late Antiquity, decorative bands and roundels could include elaborate figures, animals and plants, while some wealthy consumers wore garments made from extensively patterned fabric. Colourful and decorated clothing was not limited entirely to elites: [mosaics](https://romanempiretimes.com/asarotos-oikos-mosaic-unswept-floor-roman-elite/) and paintings also depict servants in brightly coloured dress. ![Augustan Age, marble statue of a dignitary wearing a toga](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/marble-statue-of-a-dignitary-wearing-a-toga--1--1.jpg) Augustan Age, marble statue of a dignitary wearing a toga. Francesco Bini, CC BY-SA 4.0 The Edict on Maximum Prices issued under [Diocletian](https://romanempiretimes.com/diocletian-architect-of-the-roman-empires-renewal/) in AD 301 gives an unusually detailed picture of the range within the textile market. Of its more than one thousand listed goods and services, hundreds relate to clothing and textiles, encompassing raw materials, [dyed fabrics](https://romanempiretimes.com/purple-pollution-how-rome-lust-for-luxury-stained-the-ancient-seas/), textile labour and finished garments. Garments could be distinguished by their colour, decoration, quality and place of origin. ### From Fleece to Fashion Wool occupied a central position in Roman textile production. Linen was also widely used, while silk and cotton reached Roman markets through trade networks extending beyond the Mediterranean. Producing woollen cloth involved preparing and cleaning the fleece, spinning the fibres into thread, weaving and finishing the resulting textile. Flax likewise required preparation before it could be spun and woven. The occupational record preserves a large number of specialists involved at different stages. Among them were fullers, spinners, wool workers, linen weavers and other weavers, dyers, purple specialists, clothiers, embroiderers, felt-makers, cloak makers and menders. Footwear production was divided among still more specialists, including makers of boots, slippers and other particular forms of [shoe](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-used-more-than-stone/). Other occupational names refer to people making fringes, decorative borders and specialised garments. Weaving could require formal training. Apprenticeship documents from Roman Egypt show that the skill could be taught under contracts applying to free and [enslaved](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) workers and to [men](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-thought-made-a-man-weak/) and women. One second-century agreement from Oxyrhynchus placed the enslaved Thermuthion in a four-year apprenticeship to learn weaving. The length and formal character of such arrangements show that weaving could be treated as a commercially valuable skill. Some garments could be woven substantially to shape rather than cut from a large finished piece of cloth. The surviving evidence for tunics includes examples woven from sleeve end to sleeve end as a single textile. Other garments required cutting and sewing, while trousers, socks and similar fitted items required pieces to be shaped and joined. Professional tailoring is also recorded in Diocletian's Edict. Professional tailors could make garments from cloth supplied or purchased by customers. Evidence from papyri and the Edict also allows for alteration and repair, including the possibility that worn adult garments were remade for children. Archaeological evidence for some stages of the industry survives at [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/). Excavated textile-working premises contain boilers and installations connected with cleaning and dyeing wool. One complex contained equipment for cleaning wool together with nine boilers used for dyeing fibres, while another workshop combined wool preparation with an adjacent dyeing area. ![Ancient Roman Weaving Loom Photograph taken with permission at Museo Gruppo Storico Romano Museum in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/ANCIENT-ROMAN-WEAVING-LOOM-1.jpg) Ancient Roman Weaving Loom Photograph taken with permission at Museo Gruppo Storico Romano Museum in Rome. Credits: Notafly, CC BY-SA 3.0\. Editing by Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT The organization of production was not uniform. Evidence exists for work carried out within households, in small workshops and in businesses involving several different textile activities. Letters from fourth-century Kellis in Egypt include accounts concerning weaving, tailoring and textile trading and discuss wool and dye prices, weaving payments and charges for cutting garments. The documents have been interpreted as belonging to a business that may have been operated by one family. ### The People Behind Roman Fashion Textile work also possessed a strong place in Roman ideals concerning the household. Wool-working was traditionally associated with the respectable Roman matron, and [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) was presented as maintaining that practice within his own family. [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) says: > “In bringing up his daughter and his granddaughters he even had them taught spinning and weaving” Suetonius also reports that [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/augustus-secret-syracuse-the-mystery-of-the-emperors-private-room/) wore ordinary household clothing made by his sister, wife, daughter or granddaughters. Household production continued alongside the commercial clothing trade. The household of the Statilii included enslaved weavers, spinners, dyers and fullers, while Roman legal sources refer to enslaved women producing clothing on rural estates. At the same time, evidence assembled from [Cato](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/), Roman Egypt and the Edict of Diocletian indicates that clothing for ordinary workers and [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) could also be bought rather than manufactured on an estate. Men and women both appear among professional textile workers. Inscriptions associated with the Statilii preserve female spinners, two male weavers and a female weaver, and women are also attested as [wool supervisors](https://romanempiretimes.com/businesswomen-ancient-rome-business-woman-roman-empire/). Female clothes-menders and tailors occur elsewhere in the epigraphic record. These inscriptions cannot be used to calculate the proportions of men and women working in textiles. Occupational commemoration favoured some workers more than others, while women were often commemorated through family identities rather than occupations. Supervisory positions appear more frequently than low-status spinning and weaving, even though those activities must have required many workers. ![From a drawing of André Castaigne. Livia, the wife of Augustus, superintending the weaving of robes for her family.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/livia-supervising-weaving-1.jpg) From a drawing of André Castaigne. Livia, the wife of Augustus, superintending the weaving of robes for her family. Public domain ### Rome’s Market for Ready-Made Clothes A commercial market in clothing can be documented during the Republic. Cato advised estate owners to buy inexpensive clothing in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) for enslaved agricultural workers, while [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) preserves two unusually large examples of clothing procurement for [Roman armies](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/). These episodes do not identify the individual producers, but they demonstrate that finished garments could be obtained in very large numbers. In 204 BC Roman forces in Africa needed clothing. Livy describes arrangements made in Sardinia and records the result: > “The matter was promptly attended to and in a short time 1200 togas and 12,000 tunics were sent off.” The preceding sentence explains that the army lacked clothing and that officials had been instructed to determine whether the garments could be made and dispatched from the island. The source does not describe the organization of the producers who fulfilled the order. In 169 BC another military requirement was larger: 6,000 [togas](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-toga-to-today-how-ancient-rome-still-echoes-through-modern-culture/) and 30,000 tunics were contracted for shipment from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) to Roman forces in Macedonia. The modern source analysis explicitly notes that neither Livian episode identifies the workers who manufactured the garments. The evidence therefore establishes large-scale procurement without establishing large centralized factories. Elsewhere the surviving material points toward small shops, household production, apprentices, hired workers and enslaved labour. Older attempts to reconstruct large textile factories at [Pompeii ](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-tavern-inn-wine-bar-the-hospitality-business-of-an-ancient-roman-city/)remain debated, and the evidence can also fit commercial textile production operating from households or relatively small premises. Manufacture and retail could also overlap. Occupational terms such as *vestiarii,* *centonarii* and *purpurarii* do not always produce a clear modern separation between a person who made a product and one who sold it. Evidence from the clothing and footwear trades shows that production and sale could take place through the same business. Shoemaking provides particularly clear evidence. Shoemakers could acquire leather, manufacture footwear and sell it from relatively small premises. Shops associated with shoemakers are known from several areas of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-burned-books/), including the *Argiletum* and *Vicus Sandalarius*, as well as locations in the Subura and elsewhere in the city. ![Some amazingly preserved roman shoes; the black ones are the originals, and the brown ones the modern copies.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Roman-shoes---1--1.jpg) Some amazingly preserved roman shoes; the black ones are the originals, and the brown ones the modern copies. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 Roman legal texts also recognize commercial agents acting for merchants. The Digest refers to *circitores* connected with clothing and linen businesses and to agents employed in textile-related trade. Clothing could therefore circulate beyond the workshop in which it was manufactured. ### Rome’s Famous Textile Regions Some garments and textiles were identified with particular places. Diocletian's Edict lists clothing described as Britannic, Noric, Numidian, Laodicean and Phrygian. Other entries associate cloth and garments with centres including Byblos, Laodicea, Scythopolis and Tarsus. A papyrus refers to a garment made in Egypt “after the Tarsic fashion.” The wording shows that a style connected with one centre could be reproduced elsewhere. Regional names could also reflect reputations for wool or particular types of textile. The surviving evidence names a wide range of production regions, but it does not mean that most Roman clothing was manufactured only in a small number of major centres. Egyptian documentation and other evidence indicate widespread local and small-scale production alongside garments and materials whose place of origin carried a specific reputation. Late Roman evidence provides an indication of the scale that textile production could reach even in centres not famous enough to be named in the Edict. A third-century customs register from Oxyrhynchus has been used to estimate an annual textile output of more than 100,000 items, although Oxyrhynchus itself does not appear among the Edict's named textile centres. ### When Colour Meant Status Roman textiles were produced in many colours. Papyri refer to coloured garments, surviving textiles preserve dyed wool and decoration, and Roman literary sources describe a wide range of colours available for dress. In Book 3 of the *Ars Amatoria*, [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/) advises women on choosing colours, mentioning blue like a clear sky, golden yellow, sea-green, saffron, myrtle, amethyst and pale rose before comparing the available range with the flowers appearing in spring. He writes: > “As fields you find, with various flowers o'erspread, > When vineyards bud, and winter's frost is fled; > So various are the colours you may try, > Of which the thirsty wool imbibes the dye.” Some colours were substantially more expensive to produce than others. Shellfish purple and brilliant scarlet derived from kermes were particularly costly, while purple also became associated with social and political [status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/). Other purplish colours could be obtained with different dyes, including combinations of indigo and madder, and therefore did not necessarily represent the most expensive shellfish purple. Pliny gives extensive descriptions of shellfish purple, its preparation, its different shades and the prices associated with them. He also records successive fashions in purple during the late Republic and early imperial period, including the move from a lighter violet purple to Tarentine red-purple and then to the costly double-dyed Tyrian variety. ![Dino-Lite digital microscope photos of purple-dye residue on miscellaneous pottery vessels.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Dino-Lite-digital-microscope-photos-of-purple-dye-residue-on-miscellaneous-pottery-vessels.jpg) Dino-Lite digital microscope photos of purple-dye residue on miscellaneous pottery vessels. Credits: PLOS, Photos by Golan Shalvi and Maria Bukin The production of purple left [archaeological remains](https://romanempiretimes.com/purple-pollution-how-rome-lust-for-luxury-stained-the-ancient-seas/). Substantial deposits of shells used for dye manufacture at Andriake in southwestern Asia Minor indicate local purple production, with comparable deposits found at other Mediterranean sites, including North Africa. People identified as *purpurarii* are recorded in inscriptions from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) and other Italian cities, including Puteoli, Capua, Parma, Chiusi, Sarsina and Aquileia. The occupational term is not entirely precise. It has been interpreted as referring to producers or dealers in purple dye, purple cloth or other purple products, and the evidence should not be reduced to one fixed occupation. By Late Antiquity some purple dyes and garments became subject to imperial restrictions. Laws also regulated silk, gold-and-silk borders and workers attached to imperial textile production. The repeated legislation demonstrates continued official attempts to restrict particular luxury products and their manufacture or distribution. ### From India to the Roman Wardrobe Silk became a fashionable material in imperial [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-client-kings-how-the-empire-ruled-without-annexing/). Inscriptions from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) and its vicinity identify specialists associated with silk, including *sericarii*, while at least one woman, Thymele, is described as a *sericaria*. Aulus Plutius Epaphroditus is identified in inscriptions from Gabii as a negotiator *sericarius*, a silk merchant. Silk formed only one part of Roman trade in eastern textiles. Egypt connected Mediterranean markets with Red Sea routes leading to Arabia and India. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea records textile goods moving through these networks and distinguishes between different qualities and kinds of cloth. The *Periplus of the Erythraean Sea* gives a glimpse of the textiles moving through Red Sea trade. Among the goods it lists were: > “undressed cloth made in Egypt for the Berbers; robes from Arsinoe; cloaks of poor quality dyed in colors” ![The opening of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/The-Periplus-of-the-Erythraean-Sea-1.jpg) **The opening of the* Periplus of the Erythraean Sea **in Codex Palatinus Graecus 398*, copied in Constantinople in the late ninth century. Heidelberg University Library. Public domain. Edited by Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT These goods were listed for trade at Adulis, an important Red Sea port. The same passage continues with double-fringed linen mantles and, among goods arriving from across the sea, Indian cotton cloth, different broad cloths, mallow-coloured cloth and muslins. The text therefore records both higher-value and ordinary textile goods within eastern commerce. At Malao it lists tunics and cloaks from Arsinoe that had been dressed and dyed, while elsewhere Egyptian garments and fabrics were exported to other markets around the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. Evidence assembled for the eastern trade also includes merchants and shipowners operating between Egypt, Arabia and India. A papyrus documenting a voyage associated with Muziris preserves the commercial and customs arrangements of a high-value cargo, although a word formerly interpreted as cloth in that document has subsequently been reread and should not be used as certain evidence for textiles in that particular cargo. The evidence for cotton is important because imported textiles cannot all be classified as luxury goods. Cotton fragments found at Red Sea ports and the cotton products listed by the Periplus belong to the same broad trading system as more expensive textiles, without possessing the same status or value as luxury silk. ### Fullers, Dyers and Clothing Maintenance Newly manufactured cloth could undergo further treatment before sale. Fulling was used in preparing cloth, but fullers also cleaned worn garments. Dyers likewise worked with textiles at different stages, including the treatment of older clothing. Fulleries and dyeing establishments are among the textile workplaces that leave relatively visible archaeological remains. Fulling could be harsh on clothing. Late antique evidence indicates that repeated professional cleaning could damage textiles, particularly highly decorated garments, while the treatment of worn clothing nevertheless remained worthwhile because cloth retained substantial value. ![The fullonica of Stephanus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/fullery-of-stefanus--1--1.jpg) The fullonica of Stephanus is one of the most important and complete laundries found in Pompeii with large masonry tanks to rinse fabrics, fed by a continuous flow of water, stone basins for washing and cleaning with special types of clay and urine, upstairs terraces for drying and brushing clothes after washing, and finally, as a sign of top service, a pressing machine (torcular) to stretch and light up garments and fabrics. Photo courtesy of Robert Hanson. Courtesy of Parco Archeologico di Pompei. Surviving garments preserve evidence for extensive wear. Frayed edges, patches, darning, re-hemming and other repairs show that many pieces remained in use for long periods rather than being discarded after damage. Documentary evidence also records repairs as paid work. A Vindolanda account refers to repairs and re-hemming, while an Oxyrhynchus household account records the cost of mending a cloak shortly after its purchase. The sequence has been interpreted as suggesting that the cloak may have been bought second-hand and needed repair. The quality of surviving repairs varies considerably. Some stitching displays highly skilled workmanship consistent with professional repair; other examples are much rougher. Professional tailors and menders therefore existed alongside household repair. ### Second-Hand Clothing, Repair and Reuse Clothing could retain economic value after prolonged use. Documentary evidence records garments among dowries and wills and as goods that could be pawned or used as security. Used clothing also entered commercial circulation. The Periplus provides direct evidence for the sale of used garments. In one instance clothing is described as having been cleaned by fulling, while another entry refers to cloaks from Arsinoe that had been cleaned and dyed. Garments could also be altered for different wearers. Wide waist tucks preserved on some tunics have been interpreted as alterations required when a second-hand or handed-down garment did not fit its new wearer. Children's clothes in particular could be made from recycled textiles or altered from older garments. Decoration could be reused separately from the garment itself. Tapestry-woven bands and panels were sometimes removed from older clothing and attached to another textile. Radiocarbon dating has confirmed several cases in which decorative elements were substantially older than the garment carrying them. One tunic in Brussels has ornamental roundels at least a century older than the tunic itself, while another example preserves silk trim older than the wool garment to which it was attached. Woollen textiles could also be cut into smaller pieces, felted and reused in new objects. Archaeological examples include children's clothing assembled from reused material and smaller textile objects made from older pieces of cloth. The role of the *centonarii* remains disputed. They have traditionally been connected with rags and second-hand textiles, but *cento* and *centones* could also describe patchwork, heavy woollen clothing, blankets, protective clothing and felt-like textiles. ![Workers putting up clothes for drying. Roman fresco from the fullonica (fuller's shop) of Veranius Hypsaeus in Pompeii](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Roman-fresco-from-the-fullonica--fuller-s-shop--of-Veranius-Hypsaeus-in-Pompeii_jpg-1.jpg) Workers putting up clothes for drying. Roman fresco from the **fullonica* (fuller's shop) of Veranius Hypsaeus in Pompeii. Public domain. A broader interpretation identifies *centonarii* with the manufacture or distribution of low- and medium-quality woollen textiles and clothing, and that interpretation does not exclude involvement with reused material. ### What Your Clothes Said About You The clothing available within the Roman world ranged from coarse garments for common people and enslaved workers to expensive dyed wool, silk and highly decorated luxury textiles. Diocletian's Edict lists a coarse linen tunic specifically as being for “common people or slaves,” while other entries distinguish much more expensive qualities of cloth and finished clothing. Material and decoration contributed to those distinctions, but the meanings attached to clothing were not always exclusive. Purple-coloured textiles, for example, are found archaeologically outside elite contexts, even though particular grades of shellfish purple were closely associated with high status. Less expensive dyes could produce related colours, while reused high-quality clothing and decorative textiles could pass to different owners. Roman clothing also carried distinctions connected with legal and social position. Different forms of the toga identified adult citizens, magistrates, priests, candidates and freeborn children in particular contexts, while other garments and forms of dress could be associated with occupation, gender or region. The surviving evidence records household textile production alongside professional weaving; large orders for finished garments alongside very small workshops; local production alongside textiles identified with famous centres; luxury silk and shellfish purple alongside coarse garments; and new clothing alongside repair, alteration, resale and reuse. The organization of these activities varied according to place, period, product and the status of those producing and consuming the textiles. --- 💡 ****Sources used**: Alexandra Croom, Roman Clothing and Fashion. Faith Pennick Morgan, Dress and Personal Appearance in Late Antiquity: The Clothing of the Middle and Lower Classes. A. H. M. Jones, “The Cloth Industry under the Roman Empire.” Marjorie Jerrard, “Organisation of the Roman Clothing and Textile Industry: Skill, Occupation, and the Gender-Segmented Workforce.” Lena Larsson Lovén, “Female Work and Identity in Roman Textile Production and Trade: A Methodological Discussion.” Lena Larsson Lovén, “Women, Trade, and Production in Urban Centres of Roman Italy.” Kerstin Droß-Krüpe, “Textiles and their Merchants in Rome’s Eastern Trade.” Pliny the Elder, Natural History Livy, History of Rome Cato the Elder, De Agricultura Suetonius, Augustus Columella, De Re Rustica The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea The Digest Diocletian's Edict on Maximum Prices. Ovid, **Ars Amatoria* ### Forget Concrete: The Bricks That Built Ancient Rome URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/forget-concrete-the-bricks-that-built-ancient-rome/ Last updated: 2026-08-16T19:15:54.000Z The brick walls that survive across Rome are the visible end of a much larger industry. Before a brick reached a bath complex, warehouse, apartment building or imperial project, clay had to be found and worked, bricks had to be shaped and dried, kilns had to be loaded and fired, production had to be organized, and immense quantities of heavy material had to be transported from the countryside into the city. By the height of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/), brick and tile production around [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-client-kings-how-the-empire-ruled-without-annexing/) involved landowners, contractors, workers, specialized production sites and transport networks extending through the [Tiber](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/) Valley. Yet even the word “brick” requires some caution. Roman writers knew both unfired bricks made from earth and fired ceramic building material, and the two should not be confused. The instructions [Vitruvius](https://romanempiretimes.com/vitruvius-the-roman-who-shaped-modern-architecture/) gives for brickmaking concern primarily sun-dried brick rather than the fired ceramic products that became so characteristic of imperial Roman construction. The terminology reflects that distinction: later and related terms generally refer to the unfired tradition, while *testa* and *testaceus* are associated with fired ceramic material. ### Before the Fired Brick Industry Vitruvius gives detailed advice about selecting earth for bricks. He rejects sandy, pebbly and gravelly material and prefers earth that will hold together properly. He also stresses that drying had to be controlled carefully. > “Bricks should be made in Spring or Autumn, so that they may dry uniformly. Those made in Summer are defective, because the fierce heat of the sun bakes their surface and makes the brick seem dry while inside it is not dry.” Vitruvius continues by explaining that moisture trapped inside could cause shrinking and cracking after the exterior had already dried. [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) preserves closely related advice and discusses several brick sizes, including the so-called Lydian brick used by Romans, a foot and a half long and one foot wide. ![In the period of Domitian (81-96 AD) a brick temple was erected in the centre of the Piazzale delle Corporazioni, facing the theatre.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/brick-temple--1--1.jpg) In the period of Domitian (81-96 AD) a brick temple was erected in the centre of the Piazzale delle Corporazioni, facing the theatre. Credits: DGJ\_0291,CC BY-SA 2.0 Both writers, however, are principally describing the tradition of unfired earthen brick, and their recommendations about lengthy drying should not simply be transferred to the fired-brick industry of imperial [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/). The development of fired ceramic construction was different. By the first and especially the second century AD, fired brick and tile had become extremely important in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) and Ostia. Ceramic material could be used with [concrete](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-concrete-stronger-self-healing-and-built-to-last-forever/) in wall construction and was also employed for floors, pavements and structural elements. At the same time, dated brick stamps and building sequences at Ostia indicate that fired material did not necessarily have to remain stockpiled for years before being used. Some bricks certainly could be stored, but prolonged ageing was not a universal requirement. ### Where Rome Found Its Clay Much of the material supplying [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) came from its hinterland, particularly the Tiber Valley. Archaeometric comparison of ancient bricks and clay sources has connected production with several areas north of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/). The resulting picture is not of one enormous industrial suburb making the capital’s bricks, but of numerous clay sources and production areas distributed across a broad landscape. This evidence has also complicated the meaning of the Latin term *figlina*. It is tempting to translate it simply as “brickyard” and imagine one identifiable factory with its own clay pit, workshops and kiln. The physical evidence is less tidy. Bricks carrying the name of the same *figlina* can come from different clay sources, while one clay source could apparently be exploited by more than one *figlina*. The name therefore did not always correspond to one compact production site. The evidence instead allows for production connected with estates or groups of landholdings that might be geographically dispersed. One production organization could use more than one source of clay, and individual producers could operate from more than one kiln site. Analysis of the Tiber Valley material identifies several possible arrangements: bricks from one source moving through a common distribution route, one producer operating at several kiln sites, and different producers exploiting the same or closely related clay resources. ![Multistory red brick buildings at Ostia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Multistory-red-brick-buildings-at-Ostia--1--1.jpg) Multistory red brick buildings at Ostia. Credits:Ethan Doyle White,CC BY-SA 4.0 This made access to suitable land particularly important. Clay extraction required space, while the production process itself needed working areas, places for bricks to dry, kilns and access routes for moving the finished material. The brick industry therefore remained strongly connected to the rural landscape even though its largest market lay in the city. ### Shaping and Drying the Bricks Clay was only the beginning. Experimental work based on Roman brick and tile production shows how much preparation could take place before anything resembling a finished brick existed. Raw material had to be cleared of unwanted matter and worked with water until it reached a usable consistency. Sand or other material could also be introduced according to the nature of the clay and the product being made. The experimental work is particularly useful because it showed that preparing the raw material could require considerably more labor than forming a simple flat brick. Once the clay was ready, shaping itself could be relatively straightforward. In the reconstruction, prepared clay was pressed firmly into a wooden frame resting on a sanded surface. The corners were filled, excess material was removed from the top, and the frame could then be lifted away. Ancient production vocabulary provides a useful parallel. The verb *radere*, meaning to shave or smooth, occurs in evidence associated with ceramic production and fits the operation of trimming excess material from a moulded brick. The point is not that every Roman workshop necessarily used precisely the same tools or gestures, but that moulding could involve a recognizable sequence of filling, levelling and finishing. Drying was equally important. A freshly moulded brick still contained too much moisture to be fired safely. Production records and [graffiti](https://romanempiretimes.com/whispers-on-the-walls-graffiti-as-a-voice-of-ancient-rome/) indicate that large quantities of bricks and tiles could be arranged while drying, and one record refers to hundreds of tiles left to dry in structures interpreted as sheds or covered storage areas. Another records thousands of large bricks in what appears to have been an organized production sequence. ![The House of the Lararium was built in brick aound120 A.D](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/House-of-the-Lararium--1--1.jpg) The House of the Lararium was built in brick aound120 A.D. Credits: Dennis G. Jarvis,CC BY-SA 2.0 Experimental archaeology helps illustrate the practical scale of this problem. At Saalburg, a Roman fort in modern Germany, researchers reconstructed a Roman-style brick kiln based on remains excavated there and produced Roman-type bricks and tiles as part of a full-scale experiment. The products were left drying on shelves under cover for several weeks before firing. This does not establish a standard Roman drying period, and it is not evidence for the precise routine followed by the workshops supplying [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-burned-books/). It does, however, show why drying required substantial space, protection and time when large quantities were being produced. Archaeometric evidence from the Roman city of Romula, in the Lower Danube region, provides another useful comparison. Excavations there found both unfired and fired bricks as well as evidence for a substantial ceramic-production area. Local clay deposits close to the industrial quarter were investigated as possible sources for the excavated material, supporting the possibility that nearby soils were used for production. The example is geographically distant from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/), but it illustrates how closely Roman ceramic industries could be tied to accessible local raw materials. ### Into the Kiln Once sufficiently dry, the bricks could be fired. This stage transformed the clay into durable ceramic material, but it also introduced the possibility of cracking, uneven firing and complete failure. The experimental kiln reconstructed at Saalburg helps show what the process could involve. In this type of kiln, the fire burned beneath the ceramic load, while hot gases rose through openings in a raised floor. Bricks and tiles had to be arranged so that they did not obstruct the flow of heat through the kiln. Loading was therefore part of the firing process rather than simply a matter of filling whatever space was available. ![The Roman brick kiln of Mamer-Capellen after its recovery.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Roman-brick-kiln--1--1.jpg) The Roman brick kiln of Mamer-Capellen after its recovery. Public domain. The experimental load included several forms of ceramic building material, among them hundreds of flat bricks and hollow ceramic heating tiles known as *tubuli*. Firing continued for more than 30 hours. The experimenters had to manage the fuel, airflow and temperature throughout the process. Ash accumulated, some areas of the kiln remained cooler than others, and part of the firing floor eventually failed. Even so, most of the products survived intact. Problems of this kind are also archaeologically useful. Concentrations of warped, cracked, overfired or otherwise defective ceramic material can help identify ancient production sites because such waste was unlikely to have travelled far from the place where it was fired. Scientific analysis of a fired Roman brick from Romula gives an indication of the temperatures that could be involved. The mineralogical changes in that particular brick suggest firing at approximately 800–850°C, while evidence associated with firing above about 900°C was absent. In the experimental kiln at Saalburg, much of the firing chamber reached a broadly comparable range. These examples do not establish one standard temperature used throughout the Roman world, but they illustrate the sustained high heat that successful brick firing could require. ### Who Made Rome’s Bricks? The people behind the industry are harder to reconstruct than the bricks themselves. Brick stamps preserve names and relationships, but interpreting exactly what those names meant has generated considerable debate. Two terms are especially important: *dominus* and *officinator*. In the stamp evidence, the *dominus* is associated with ownership of the land or property from which production derived, while the *officinator* stands closer to the actual organization of brickmaking. This does not mean that every *dominus* was simply a factory owner or that every *officinator* was an enslaved foreman working directly beneath him. A detailed study of the stamp evidence found that nearly 80% of the identified *officinatores* were legally independent of the *dominus* with whom they were associated. The surviving evidence therefore allows for independent producers, tenants and contractors alongside workers who were legally dependent on others. The precise economic relationships between these groups remain more difficult to reconstruct. One possible model is that some *officinatores* leased access to clay-bearing land or production facilities from landowners. Terms connected with leasing or contracting occur in some stamps, and the word conductor can appear in connection with production. The interpretation that such arrangements formed a broader tenancy system is plausible within the evidence but should not be treated as though surviving Roman contracts describe the system explicitly. ![A possible representation of brick workers in action](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/brick-workers-1.jpg) A possible representation of brick workers in action. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Enslaved people certainly participated in the industry. In one large analysis of the stamp evidence, somewhat less than 19% of the people appearing on brick stamps were identified as [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/). In cases where an enslaved *officinator* appears alongside a *dominus*, that individual could belong either to the named *dominus* or to somebody else entirely. The evidence therefore does not support reducing the Roman brick industry to a simple model in which wealthy estate owners controlled gangs of enslaved brickmakers. There were other forms of production as well. Military units produced brick and tile in several parts of the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/), and inscriptions preserve supervisors and organized groups of soldiers connected with figlinae. Production graffiti also associate personal names with quantities, indicating that output could be counted and assigned within individual operations. Evidence from southern Tuscany adds another complication. A study of stamped bricks from the territory around ancient Rusellae, near modern Grosseto, compared the names impressed on bricks with the physical composition of the clay. It found that bricks connected with the same owners or contractors could belong to different ceramic groups, while contractors could apparently operate with more than one production source. The authors therefore allow for producers and contractors moving between different kilns or working within a flexible network of production locations rather than remaining permanently attached to a single workshop. ### When a Brick Became a Record Some Roman bricks preserve far more than traces of their manufacture. Before firing, stamps could be impressed into the wet clay. Depending on their period and form, they might identify a *figlina*, a *dominus,* an *officinator*, a consular date, or include additional symbols and abbreviated information. These stamps are one reason so much can be reconstructed about Roman brick production. They connect otherwise ordinary building material with named people, estates and periods of manufacture. Yet stamped bricks were only part of total production. Attempts to determine what proportion of bricks received stamps have produced widely differing estimates, and there is no secure universal percentage. Nor does the name appearing on a stamp necessarily identify the person who physically moulded the brick. Evidence from one major production group shows numerous different stamp matrices carrying essentially the same information during individual years. In 114, five such matrices are known; in 115 there are twelve, in 116 ten, and in 117 five. The pattern is consistent with simultaneous production involving several people using different dies. ![Legio XIII Gemina Roman Stamped Brick](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Legio-XIII-Gemina-Roman-Stamped-Brick--1--1.jpg) Legio XIII Gemina Roman Stamped Brick. Credits: CristianChirita,CC BY-SA 3.0 A stamp is also not automatically the exact date on which a wall was built. Individual dies could continue in use for several seasons, while finished bricks could sometimes remain in storage before being incorporated into a building. Stamp chronology is enormously valuable, but it has to be combined with the archaeological context in which a brick was found. The place named or implied by a stamp does not necessarily reveal the exact kiln either. The study from southern Tuscany shows why archaeologists increasingly combine inscriptions with examination of the brick fabric itself. Bricks connected through names and stamps could nevertheless have different physical compositions, indicating different sources of clay or production locations. Conversely, apparently different producers could sometimes exploit the same source. The stamp records the organization surrounding production, but the clay can tell a different and complementary part of the story. ### From the Tiber Valley to the Building Site After firing came another fundamental problem: bricks are heavy. Whatever their value, moving large quantities required access to suitable transport. The Tiber was therefore central to the brick industry supplying [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-cities-rome-punished-what-happened-when-communities-defied-the-republic/). As long as producers could reach the river system, material from different parts of the valley could be moved toward the capital without relying entirely on expensive overland hauling. Producers without convenient access to the river faced greater transport costs. The evidence points to several overlapping systems rather than one centrally controlled chain of supply. Individual producers could operate from multiple kiln sites; several producers could exploit related clay deposits; and consumers could sometimes choose between different suppliers. The industry depended not only on access to clay but also on the ability to move the finished material into larger distribution networks. Bricks and tiles could travel much farther than [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-went-dark-life-after-sunset-in-the-ancient-city/) itself. Finds from the Italian coast, islands and other parts of the Mediterranean show that material associated with the Tiber Valley did move over substantial distances. Shipwreck evidence also challenges the assumption that bricks found overseas must simply have been carried as ballast. Cargoes consisting substantially or entirely of bricks and tiles are known, including one wreck carrying roughly 5,000 tiles. In the shipwreck sample discussed in the research, proper brick and tile cargoes were substantially better represented than cases in which ceramic building material could plausibly be identified merely as ballast. The surviving brick walls of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) consequently preserve only the final stage of a much larger process. Behind them lay clay deposits scattered through the countryside, landowners and independent operators, [enslaved](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-zoninus-collar-the-iron-collar-that-spoke-for-the-silenced/) and free workers, moulding and drying areas, kilns that had to be managed for many hours, stamps recording parts of the organization, and river routes carrying the finished products toward the capital. The bricks themselves may appear ordinary. Producing and moving them on the scale required by imperial Rome was anything but simple. 💡 ****Sources used**: Shawn Graham, Ex Figlinis: The Network Dynamics of the Tiber Valley Brick Industry in the Hinterland of Rome Tapio Helen, Organization of Roman Brick Production in the First and Second Centuries A.D.: An Interpretation of Roman Brick Stamps Eva Margareta Steinby, I Bolli Doliari Romani dell’Italia Centro-Occidentale Veronica Testolini, Alessandro Sebastiani and Elena Chirico, “Roman Bricks off the Wall: New Data for Understanding Production Centres and the Distribution of Building Materials in the Ager Rusellanus (Tuscany, Italy)” P. Badica et al., “Mud and Burnt Roman Bricks from Romula” Tim Clerbaut, Thomas Hauck, Anna Langgartner and Rüdiger Schwarz, “Mind the Gap(s): Theoretical and Hands-on Approaches to the Production of Roman Brick and Tile” Vitruvius, De Architectura, Book II Pliny the Elder, Natural History, Book XXX ### The Businesswomen of Ancient Rome URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/businesswomen-ancient-rome-business-woman-roman-empire/ Last updated: 2026-08-16T19:15:49.000Z Women appear throughout the surviving evidence for the Roman economy. They lent money, bought and rented property, sold food and luxury goods, worked in skilled trades, managed workshops, owned productive land, participated in long-distance commerce and supervised agricultural estates. Some were wealthy freeborn women whose capital and businesses could be administered through slaves and freedpeople. Many of the working [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) identified in inscriptions were freedwomen who had learned their trades while enslaved. [Enslaved](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) women themselves could also be entrusted with [money](https://romanempiretimes.com/credit-loans-and-risk-how-ancient-rome-handled-money-without-a-central-bank/) and commercial responsibilities, even though the assets they managed legally belonged to their owners. The evidence cannot tell us what proportion of Roman businesses were operated by [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/). Among roughly 2,500 surviving occupational inscriptions from Roman Italy, fewer than 200 commemorate female professionals, but that figure cannot be converted into a percentage of female employment. Freeborn women were much less likely to have occupations recorded on their tombs; rural and unskilled workers are poorly represented; wives could work in family businesses without receiving an occupational title; and masculine plural terms could describe mixed groups of [men](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-thought-made-a-man-weak/) and women. What does survive is enough to establish a wide range of female economic activity. Women appear in loan documents and property disputes, on commercial [amphorae](https://romanempiretimes.com/monte-testaccio-the-roman-hill-composed-of-53-million-amphorae-fragments-2/), in legal petitions, on brick and pipe stamps, in shop scenes and in inscriptions naming occupations. Some belonged to relatively modest urban businesses. Others supplied significant amounts of capital or controlled productive property. The evidence ranges from women selling [fish](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/), seeds and cloth to women financing maritime commerce and supervising industrial workshops. Recent research has also reopened the role of the Roman *vilica* (a female overseer, estate manager, or the wife of a farm manager in Latin), traditionally understood mainly as the housekeeper of a rural [villa](https://romanempiretimes.com/domus-romana-the-roman-villa-of-rabat-malta/). When the agricultural texts are read alongside inscriptions and archaeological evidence from productive villa complexes, her responsibilities appear considerably broader. In particular, the evidence places her within the processing of [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/) and [olive oil](https://romanempiretimes.com/olive-oil-in-the-roman-empire-how-the-romans-discovered-the-liquid-gold/), two of the most commercially important products of Roman agriculture. ### Could a Roman Woman Conduct Business? Roman society and Roman law gave men privileges that women did not possess. Women could not hold magistracies or serve as judges, and the jurists restricted their ability to act formally on behalf of other people. An adult free woman could also remain subject to *tutela mulierum*, a form of guardianship under which a male tutor was required to authorize certain legal acts. The second-century Roman jurist Gaius, however, makes clear that this formal institution should not be confused with a guardian routinely controlling an adult woman's property. He rejects the conventional claim that women needed guardianship because they were supposedly too easily deceived. His description of actual practice is much more revealing: > “women of full age administer their own property, and it is a mere formality that in some transactions their guardian interposes his sanction” ![Papyrus excerpt of Gaius Institutiones IV](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Gaius-_Institutiones--1--1.jpg) Papyrus excerpt of Gaius Institutiones IV. Public domain. He then explains that the guardian could frequently be compelled to give that authorization against his own wishes. In the following section, Gaius contrasts adult female guardianship with guardianship of children, whose guardians actually administered their property and could later be required to account for what they had done. A woman who was *sui iuris* — legally independent rather than under a father's *patria potestas* — could own property and conduct transactions to a considerable degree. Marriage did not necessarily transfer that property to her husband. [Marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/) involving *manus*, in which the wife entered her husband's legal family, became increasingly uncommon from the late Republic onward and exceptional during the Principate. In marriage without *manus*, husband and wife retained separate estates, and a legally independent wife remained owner of her property and the gains accruing to it. The decreasing practical importance of guardianship can also be seen in business documentation. Guardians appear only rarely in transactions involving women preserved in the first-century CE Sulpicii archive from Puteoli. Roman law gradually reduced the transactions for which a guardian's authorization was necessary, while adult women gained greater influence over the appointment and replacement of guardians. Women also made extensive use of the imperial legal system. Among some 2,500 surviving imperial responses concerning private legal matters between approximately 117 and 305 CE, about 650 — roughly a quarter — were addressed to female petitioners. These cases include family and inheritance disputes, but also sales, leases, debts and loans. Roman commercial organization further allowed ownership and daily management to be separated. An owner could appoint another person to manage a shop, workshop or shipping enterprise. Legal rules dealing with such arrangements explicitly contemplate women both as principals appointing managers and as managers themselves.[ Ulpian](https://romanempiretimes.com/ulpian-the-roman-lawyer-who-helped-define-justice/) even states that, for the relevant commercial action, it made no difference whether a manager was male or female, free or enslaved. Roman law was therefore unequal in important respects, but there was no general prohibition preventing adult women from owning property, lending money, entering contracts or operating commercial enterprises. ### Women Who Lent Money Finance supplies some of the clearest evidence because women appear not only in legal theory but in records produced by actual business transactions. The Sulpicii archive from Puteoli is particularly important. Twenty-three surviving tablets — around a quarter of the preserved archive — record business transactions involving women. This was not therefore a commercial world in which women appear only once or twice as curiosities. Caesia Priscilla appears as a principal in loans, deposits and remittances amounting altogether to 24,000 sesterces. Lollia Saturnina made two financial advances, one of 2,000 sesterces and another whose amount is no longer recoverable. Magia Pulchra supplied 30,000 sesterces to a male borrower. Another transaction, for 1,600 sesterces, involved both a female lender and a female borrower. Evidence from Roman Egypt provides a broader quantitative indication of women's participation in credit. In a collection of 349 loans dating from 30 BCE to 284 CE, women represented about 22% of borrowers and approximately the same proportion of lenders. Around 42% of loans made by women went to female borrowers. These figures belong specifically to the surviving Egyptian evidence and cannot simply be projected across the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/), but they show that female lending and borrowing were not confined to a handful of exceptional cases. Women could operate at very different financial levels. [Graffiti](https://romanempiretimes.com/whispers-on-the-walls-graffiti-as-a-voice-of-ancient-rome/) from [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/) record a woman named Faustilla making several loans secured against property of limited value. The amounts involved were modest compared with some of the transactions at Puteoli, but the graffiti preserve the same basic activity: a woman advancing money to borrowers and taking security against repayment. ![Inscription CIL IV 8203, which states: "On July 15th, I pawned the earrings to Faustilla for two denarii. She deducted the wear and tear on a bronze aste as one-thirtieth of the sum."](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/CIL-IV-8203-1.jpg) Inscription CIL IV 8203, which states: "**On July 15th, I pawned the earrings to Faustilla for two denarii. She deducted the wear and tear on a bronze aste as one-thirtieth of the sum.*" Photo courtesy of Portale Numismatico dello Stato & Ministero della Cultura. Other evidence reaches much larger sums. In the late Republic, Otacilia Laterensis claimed that Gaius Visellius Varro owed her 300,000 sesterces, although Varro disputed the nature of the transaction and claimed that the supposed debt concealed a private arrangement between them. The dispute itself nevertheless depended on the underlying possibility that a Roman woman could credibly claim to have advanced such a large amount. Roman law treated female lending as an ordinary legal possibility. Gaius specifically addresses the situation in which a woman lends money without her guardian's authorization and states that the transaction creates an obligation upon the recipient because ownership of the money passes to the borrower. Women also participated in [maritime](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-navy-the-forgotten-force-that-helped-rule-the-sea/) finance. A maritime loan financed a commercial voyage while assigning defined maritime risks to the creditor. Because the lender could lose the capital if the voyage failed under the agreed conditions, such arrangements could justify returns above those permitted on ordinary loans. Two imperial rulings concern female maritime lenders. In 286 CE, Aurelia Cosmiana sought the enhanced return associated with maritime finance, but the ruling denied it because she had not actually accepted the relevant risk of loss at sea. Another lender, Aurelia Iuliana, had accepted maritime risk, but her borrower's cargo was lost because he had acquired unlawful merchandise and the state seized it. Since the loss did not arise from the maritime hazards covered by the agreement, the ruling held that it could not be transferred to her. The *senatus consultum Velleianum*, introduced around the middle of the first century CE, imposed an important limitation upon women but was not a general prohibition against female finance. It concerned *intercessio*: becoming responsible for another person's debt, whether through guarantee or by assuming the liability. Its protection operated through a legal defense rather than automatically invalidating every transaction, and the surviving legal discussion shows extensive debate over which arrangements qualified. A woman could therefore lend her own money, borrow on her own account and participate in commercial finance despite the existence of the *senatus consultum Velleianum.* ### Were There Female Bankers? The evidence becomes less certain when the question is narrowed from lending and finance to the formal profession of *argentarius*. A passage attributed to Callistratus has conventionally been understood as saying that women were excluded from the office of banker because the occupation was considered masculine. The occupational sourcebook follows that interpretation and explicitly distinguishes women's active participation in finance from formal work as bankers. A different interpretation challenges the conventional translation of Callistratus. It argues that the Latin *remotae videntur* describes women as appearing removed from the public-facing practice of banking rather than legally excluded from it. Evidence offered for this position includes women who owned [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) engaged in banking and a possible inscription identifying a woman named Helena as an *argentaria*. The surviving evidence does not require us to choose between those interpretations. Whether women formally practiced the profession of *argentarius* remains disputed. Women's participation in finance more broadly is much more securely established: they lent money, supplied capital, appeared as creditors and borrowers, entered maritime loans and used dependants to conduct transactions on their behalf. ### Women in Shops, Workshops and Family Businesses The inscriptions of [Roman cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) put names and occupations to women operating in very different parts of the urban economy. Abudia Megiste was a freedwoman described as a *negotiatrix* of grain and vegetables at a location in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-client-kings-how-the-empire-ruled-without-annexing/) called the Middle Stairs. Aurelia Nais sold fish in or near the Horrea Galbae beside the [Tiber](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/). Pollecla sold barley on the Via Nova. ![A possible representation of Abudia Megiste, negotiatrix of grain and vegetables at a location in Rome called the Middle Stairs.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/negotiatrix-of-grain--1.jpg) A possible representation of Abudia Megiste, negotiatrix of grain and vegetables at a location in Rome called the Middle Stairs. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Atinia Tyrannis sold seeds near the triumphal gate together with her husband and daughter. Paulla Sergia Chrysis dealt in honey on the Via Sacra, while Aulia Hilaritas and her husband sold preserved foods around the barracks of the [Praetorian Guard](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/). Women also worked in specialized [luxury](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-fear-of-luxury/) trades. Sellia Ephyre was an *aurivestrix* on the Via Sacra, producing or repairing garments decorated with gold thread. Babbia Asia belonged to a group of five jewelers working on the same street. Domitia Philematio worked with pearls, while Data was a *sericaria*, associated with silk. Female [perfumers](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-aroma-of-rome-perfumes-of-power-pleasure-and-prestige/), [incense](https://romanempiretimes.com/incense-in-ancient-rome-smoke-ritual-and-power/) dealers and [purple](https://romanempiretimes.com/tyrian-purple-the-royal-dye-of-the-ancient-world-and-the-secrets-of-murex-extraction/) workers also appear in occupational inscriptions. Aulus Septicius Apollonius and Septicia Rufa were both explicitly described as gold-leaf beaters. Their shared tomb and occupational titles suggest that the freed couple worked together in the same workshop producing and selling gold leaf. Women were not confined to trades conventionally associated with feminine labor. Cornelia Venusta was explicitly a *clavaria*, a nail-maker, while her husband was a *clavarius*. Laturnia Januaria was a lime burner. Septimia Stratonice at Ostia is associated with [shoemaking](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-used-more-than-stone/). Her [funerary](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) monument depicts her seated and holding a shoe-last, while the reconstructed inscription identifies her as a *sutrix*. The visual evidence is especially important here because the surviving stone is incomplete. Her high-backed chair has also led to the suggestion that she may have supervised shoe production and sale rather than necessarily carrying out every stage of manufacture herself. Family businesses could be considerably more complicated than a husband owning a workshop in which his wife merely assisted. Cassia Domestica was herself a freedwoman and a *linaria*, working in linen. She was also the patroness of Gaius Cassius Sopater, another linen worker. Two other freedwomen appear in the same inscription and may also have belonged to the working group. The monument therefore places a freedwoman inside a commercial hierarchy in which she herself possessed freed dependants. Cameria Iarine presents another revealing arrangement. She commissioned a monument for her patron, her patron's patron and Lucius Camerius Onesimus, a man who had formerly been her own slave. She freed Onesimus and married him. All four were associated with the production or sale of fine clothing on the Vicus Tuscus, one of the important commercial streets leading toward the Forum. Pollia Urbana worked as a [hairdresser](https://romanempiretimes.com/beauty-in-ancient-rome/) in the Aemilian district beside Marcus Calidius Apollonius, a [barber](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-ancient-romans-shave-barber-grooming-rituals-in-the-roman-empire/). Nostia Daphne and Nostia Cleopatra were hairdressers on the Vicus Longus, where Marcus Nerius Quadratus, possibly connected to Daphne as her husband, worked as a goldsmith. Urbanilla's epitaph is particularly valuable because it explicitly combines identities sometimes treated as opposites. Her husband commemorated her through traditional marital virtues but also as his companion and partner in business while they were in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/). The same monument praises her household management, frugality and advice. Commercial partnership and domestic responsibility are presented together rather than as mutually exclusive roles. ### Why Women's Work Is So Difficult to Count The surviving occupational evidence cannot simply be divided into male and female job titles and treated as a census. Roman commemorative practices themselves make women less visible. A husband's profession could be carved onto a family monument while his wife's economic activity was omitted. A mixed group of workers could also be described using a masculine plural occupational term. Veturia Flora provides a clear example. She belonged to a group identified as *purpurarii*, [purple](https://romanempiretimes.com/purple-pollution-how-rome-lust-for-luxury-stained-the-ancient-seas/) workers or traders. The masculine plural includes her despite its grammatical form. Without the individual names preserved beside the occupational term, the workforce could easily appear exclusively male. ![A possible representation of Veturia Flora, a purpurarii, a purple textile trader.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/purple-textile-worker.jpg) A possible representation of Veturia Flora, a **purpurarii*, a purple textile trader. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Another textile workshop contains Avillia Philusa among four freedpeople identified collectively by masculine plural terms. Again, the grammar alone would obscure the presence of a woman. Textile production exposes the problem more broadly. Roman cultural ideals strongly associated spinning, wool preparation and textile work with women, yet surviving female occupational inscriptions account for only a small part of the labor that must have supported this enormous sector. Low-status workers were less likely to receive occupational monuments, while respectable women could be commemorated as wives and mothers without any mention of economic activity. Working wives are therefore particularly difficult to identify. Their participation cannot simply be assumed, but the absence of an occupational title cannot be treated as proof that they did not contribute to the family business. The sources record social identity selectively. Images require similar caution. A painting on the facade of the Pompeian workshop associated with Marcus Vecilius Verecundus shows a woman behind a counter selling goods produced by the workshop. Her identity is unknown. She may have been a wife, relative, slave or another worker. The scene therefore establishes female retail activity but cannot establish that the woman owned the shop. Another Roman relief shows a butcher cutting meat while a better-dressed seated woman holds wax tablets, apparently connected with accounts. She may have been the proprietor or manager, but the image does not identify their relationship. The possibility is worth preserving precisely because the uncertainty is preserved with it. ### Recent Research Is Changing What We Know About the Roman *Vilica* Recent research is changing the picture of one of the Roman countryside's most overlooked working women. The *vilica*, traditionally described as the [villa](https://romanempiretimes.com/villa-jovis-the-secret-lair-for-the-dark-pleasures-of-an-old-emperor/)'s housekeeper, may also have supervised parts of the production of two of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/)'s most important commodities: wine and olive oil. The *vilica* was a female supervisor on a rural estate, and her title is attested across centuries of Roman evidence. Inscriptions record actual women occupying the position, independently of the agricultural writers. ![A possible representation of a vilica.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/A-vilica-1.jpg) A possible representation of a vilica. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Cania Urbana was commemorated as a *vilica* and lived to the age of 55\. Her inscription identifies her as the manager of an agricultural estate. Flora, another *vilica*, was married not to a *vilicus* but to Ursus, an actor responsible for the financial administration of estates. Saturnina was a *vilica* of the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) [Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/) and died at the age of 30\. At Atina, the freedman Gaius Obinius Epicadus and the freedwoman Trebia Aphrodisia are recorded as having managed an estate for fourteen years. The inscriptional evidence already complicates the older assumption that a *vilica* was simply the wife of a male *vilicus*. The occupational evidence instead describes *vilicae* as professional agricultural managers in their own right, often freedwomen, with administrative and supervisory functions. The newer research therefore does not discover that the *vilica* could be a manager. Its more important contribution is the reassessment of what that management involved. [Cato](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/), writing in the second century BCE, provides one of the earliest descriptions of her duties. The older English translation renders vilica as “housekeeper,” and Cato certainly assigns her responsibilities involving the household, food and personal conduct. Yet these duties also extend into storage, preservation, poultry production and ritual connected with the working estate. Cato expects her to keep the farmstead orderly, ensure that food is available and preserve agricultural produce for future use. Among the instructions are: > “She should have plenty of chickens and an abundance of eggs. > She should diligently put up all kinds of preserves every year.” The surrounding instructions include drying and preserving fruits, grapes and nuts, grinding grain and maintaining stores. This is still household provisioning, but on a working agricultural estate where preserved production mattered throughout the year. Cato's staffing calculations add another dimension. In his model for a 240-iugera olive estate, the *vilicus* and *vilica* appear among the thirteen people required to operate the property. His model 100-iugera vineyard again includes both positions as part of its workforce. The lists concern the personnel and equipment necessary for productive agricultural estates rather than a catalogue of domestic servants. Cato also assigns the *vilica* ritual responsibilities. She is expected to maintain the hearth appropriately on [religious days](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-religion-of-ancient-rome-how-roman-worshipped-their-gods/) and to observe prescribed rites connected with the household gods and the prosperity of the estate. Agricultural production and religious practice were not separate spheres in Roman farming. [Columella](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/)'s *De Re Rustica*, written roughly two centuries later, provides much fuller evidence. Book 12 is devoted to the responsibilities of the *vilica*. Its opening has greatly influenced the traditional interpretation because it presents a gendered division between men's outdoor activity and women's work under cover. ![Columella's De Re Rustica](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/columella-de-re-rustica-1.jpg) Columella's De Re Rustica. Credits: Sailko, CC BY 3.0 That introduction, however, depends heavily upon Xenophon's *Oeconomicus*, written in a very different Athenian context more than four centuries earlier. Columella himself identifies Xenophon as the source. The practical Roman agricultural material that follows, especially chapters 4–59, presents a considerably broader working environment. The *vilica* moves through the productive areas of the estate. She supervises workers associated with storage, wine and oil facilities. She visits sheepfolds, cattle stalls and stables. Her responsibilities involve milk, wool, breeding and the care of animals. She is expected to count fleeces, a duty implying at least practical numeracy. The agricultural text also indicates that female workers could perform outdoor agricultural labor when weather permitted and return to wool work when rain, frost or cold prevented such work outside. Columella organizes much of the *vilica*'s activity seasonally. She oversees the preservation and processing of fruits, vegetables, herbs and other produce so that crops harvested at one point in the year remain usable later. Such preservation supplied the estate but could also protect goods intended for storage, transport and sale. Wine and olive oil form the strongest part of the new argument. Twenty-six of the 59 chapters of Book 12 deal with duties connected with those two products. Columella explicitly places the olive harvest under the *vilica*'s management, comparing the responsibility with her role during the vintage. He also assigns her the vintage operations performed *sub tecto*, under cover. When Books 11 and 12 are read together, the division is clearer: the *vilicus* is principally responsible for cultivation in the fields, vineyards and orchards, while the work performed *intra villam* can be delegated to the *vilica*. That *intra villam* work included the transformation of harvested grapes into wine. Columella's instructions cover preparation for the vintage, pressing, treatment of the must, substances used in preservation and fermentation, and continued attention to the wine after the harvest itself had ended. The olive harvest follows a similar pattern. The *vilica*'s responsibilities extend into preparation of equipment and vessels, processing olives and producing different grades of oil. Columella even discusses what she should do with oil containers after merchants have emptied them, evidence that the process is being described within an economic context that includes sale beyond the estate. This is where archaeology substantially changes the interpretation of apparently “indoor” female work. A Roman agricultural villa was not simply a country residence. Large estates could be divided between residential quarters and extensive productive areas containing wine presses, olive presses, storage rooms, animal buildings, workshops, courtyards and other working installations. Something taking place *intra villam* or *sub tecto* was therefore not necessarily taking place inside the owner's domestic living quarters. Wine installations demonstrate how substantial these spaces could become. At Pisanella, the wine cellar contained more than 80 [*dolia*](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/) and has been associated with production of roughly 80,000 liters. Large villas in Hispania could contain approximately 75–190 *dolia*. At Vareilles in southern Gaul, an exceptional complex with hundreds of storage vessels had a maximum theoretical capacity of around 650,000 liters. The exceptional size of Vareilles should not be treated as representative of an ordinary Roman villa, but it illustrates what the productive section of a large estate could encompass. ![ Dolia for storing wine in the ancient roman Villa Rustica in Boscoreale in Italy](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Dolia-for-storing-wine-in-the-ancient-roman-Villa-Rustica-in-Boscoreale-in-Italy--1--1.jpg) Dolia for storing wine in the ancient roman Villa Rustica in Boscoreale in Italy. Credits: AlMare, CC BY-SA 3.0 Olive-oil production could also require considerable infrastructure. At the Roman villa complex of Milreu, near modern Faro in southern [Portugal](https://romanempiretimes.com/felicitas-lulia-olisipo-lisbon-in-the-roman-times/), the agricultural installations included five olive presses occupying more than 200 square meters of working space, together with substantial storage facilities. These installations cannot be reduced to kitchens preparing meals for a household. Their scale, combined with evidence for the commercial sale of agricultural produce, demonstrates that “inside the villa” could mean inside a substantial production complex. The new interpretation therefore depends upon three distinct bodies of evidence that need to remain separate: \-First, Cato and Columella assign real productive and supervisory responsibilities to the *vilica*, with Columella giving her especially detailed duties in wine and olive-oil processing. \-Second, inscriptions independently demonstrate that she was an occupational title borne by real women who could serve as agricultural estate managers. \-Third, archaeology shows that the physical environments described as within or under cover in Roman villas could contain substantial wine and oil installations capable of commercial production. Bringing these bodies of evidence together changes the older image of the *vilica* primarily as a housekeeper. It does not prove that every *vilica* throughout the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/) managed a large commercial winery or olive-oil operation. Columella wrote a prescriptive agricultural manual, not a census of Roman farms, and villa estates varied enormously in scale and organization. The stronger conclusion is narrower and better supported: on some productive estates, she could supervise workers and processes involved in converting harvested produce into wine, oil and other commodities on which the estate's income depended. There may also have been a ritual dimension to this productive role. Columella places sacrifices to Liber and Libera before the vintage within his book on the *vilica*'s duties. Archaeological wine-production areas at several villas preserve altars, dedications or imagery associated with Bacchus-Liber. The evidence cannot prove that a named *vilica* performed any particular surviving ritual, but it places agricultural ritual within the same productive spaces for which she was assigned responsibility. The reassessment therefore does more than replace the word “housekeeper” with “manager.” It changes the economic environment in which her apparently domestic responsibilities are understood. ### Women Who Managed Roman Industry The evidence for female management is not confined to agriculture. Roman brick production provides unusually strong evidence because stamped bricks can identify the owners of clay-producing estates and the managers responsible for individual workshops. Within the surviving dataset summarized in the occupational evidence, women represent approximately 30–50% of identified owners, many belonging to senatorial families, while female workshop managers account for only about 6% of known managers. Most of the material belongs to the second and early third centuries CE. These percentages should not be extrapolated across Roman industry as a whole. They belong to one body of surviving stamped material. What they demonstrate is that women could be highly visible at the level of ownership while remaining much less common among those recorded as day-to-day managers. Some brick stamps preserve women at both levels. In 123 CE, Julia Albana, a woman from a senatorial family, owned the estate from which bricks were produced, while Procilia Phila managed the workshop. ![Fragment of a Roman building brick, with a brick stamp bearing the inscription " NVM(erus)B(oiodurensium) ", recovered in 1961 during the excavation of a Roman military brickworks in St. Marienkirchen near Schärding.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Fragment-of-a-Roman-brick--with-number-brick-stamp--1--1.jpg) Fragment of a Roman building brick, with a brick stamp bearing the inscription " *NVM(erus)B(oiodurensium)* ", recovered in 1961 during the excavation of a Roman military brickworks in St. Marienkirchen near Schärding. Credits: Aberynn, CC BY-SA 4.0 Around 134 CE, Memmia Macrina owned clay deposits whose workshop was managed by Procillia Gemella. Between approximately 190 and 210 CE, Aemilia Severa owned the *figlinae Publilianae*, a brick-producing estate with clay deposits, and employed Junia Antonia and Junia Sabina in managerial roles. The terminology used with them may indicate responsibility for distribution of the products as well as manufacture. Caecilia Amanda provides especially valuable evidence because her career can be followed over time. Fifteen identical stamps identify her as manager of the Domitianae Veteres clay deposits, and other stamps allow her activity in imperial brick production to be traced for roughly twenty years, from approximately 193–198 to 212–217 CE. Lead-pipe manufacture provides another group of female managers. Annea Jucunda appears on pipes produced for Trajan in 116–117 CE. Aemilia Formiana appears on another lead-pipe stamp in the early third century, while Vetrania Zosime is identified as the female manager responsible for manufacture on property belonging to Claudia Vera, a woman of senatorial rank. Aurelia Vernilla at Salona explicitly called herself a *plumbaria*, a female lead-worker or workshop manager. Fish-sauce production supplies another case. Painted inscriptions on jars associate *Umbricia Fortunata* with the production of [fish sauce](https://romanempiretimes.com/garum-the-unami-of-ancient-rome/) connected with the famous Pompeian producer Aulus Umbricius Scaurus. The occupational evidence interprets her as a freedwoman managing production and distribution in one of the workshops. The jars themselves securely establish her involvement in production; the precise structure of her relationship to the larger Scaurus business depends upon reconstruction from the group of inscriptions. These stamps and painted labels are particularly valuable because they were created by productive processes themselves. Unlike funerary monuments, their purpose was not primarily to celebrate a socially ideal identity. They record people associated with ownership, manufacture and management. ### Women in Wine, Olive Oil and Maritime Commerce Women also participated in commercial networks connecting provincial producers with [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-burned-books/). A second-century inscription commemorates an unnamed woman explicitly described as a *negotiatrix* dealing in olive oil from Baetica as well as wine. Her daughter, Coelia Mascellina, erected the monument. A commercial [amphora](https://romanempiretimes.com/monte-testaccio-the-roman-hill-composed-of-53-million-amphorae-fragments-2/) stamp bearing the daughter's name raises the possibility that she subsequently participated in or continued the family trade, although the identification remains uncertain. ![Ancient Roman amphoras in Pompeii, in the Peristyle of the Casa della Nave Europa](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Ancient-Roman-amphoras-in-Pompeii--1--1.jpg) Ancient Roman amphoras in Pompeii, in the Peristyle of the **Casa della Nave Europa*. Credits: ΟστCommonists, CC BY-SA 4.0 Other amphora evidence preserves women's names directly. Antonia Agathonica and Sempronia Epagatho appear together on a commercial amphora dated to 149 CE. Cornelia Placida and Maria Postumina occur on other containers, while Calvia Crispinilla's name appears on wine amphorae from more than one location. The precise commercial meaning of individual names can differ, so a woman identified on an amphora should not automatically be described simultaneously as producer, merchant, shipper and owner. Roman law explicitly contemplated women operating shipping enterprises. Ulpian states that it made little difference whether the *exercitor* of a ship was male or female. Another passage dealing with commercial managers likewise envisages a woman appointing a ship's captain or commercial manager. The law therefore did not construct maritime enterprise as something that could only have a male principal. Imperial policy provides further evidence. When Claudius sought to encourage investment in merchant shipping and [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-cities-rome-punished-what-happened-when-communities-defied-the-republic/)'s food supply, [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) records benefits offered to those who constructed merchant vessels. The privileges differed according to legal [status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/) and explicitly included women, who could receive the privileges associated with mothers of four children. The measure cannot tell us how many female shipowners existed. It does demonstrate that the imperial government regarded female investment in merchant shipping as sufficiently plausible to include women specifically in the incentive scheme. Combined with female maritime lenders and women's names in wine and olive-oil commerce, the sources place women at several different stages of Mediterranean trade: financing, productive ownership, shipping and distribution. ### Slavery, Manumission and Business Many of the women whose occupations survive were slaves or freedwomen, and their status is essential to understanding what their economic responsibilities meant. An enslaved woman could administer a *peculium*, a fund or group of assets entrusted to her even though ultimate ownership remained with her master or mistress. Roman legal texts explicitly apply the relevant commercial actions to female slaves as well as male slaves. A female slave could therefore manage assets and conduct transactions without legally owning the capital she controlled. Economic responsibility and legal freedom were separate questions. Roman businesses relied extensively on slaves and freedpeople as commercial agents. Owners could provide capital, workshops, merchandise, ships or commercial connections while dependants handled production and transactions. Manumission did not necessarily end those relationships. A freedperson often continued working in the profession learned during slavery and could remain commercially connected to the former owner. That background helps explain why freedwomen appear so frequently in occupational inscriptions. Sellia Ephyre, Cornelia Venusta, Cameria Iarine, Cassia Domestica and many others worked inside networks created by slavery, training, manumission, patronage and family relationships. Trosia Hilara from Aquileia illustrates one possible trajectory. She was a freedwoman identified professionally as a *lanifica circulatrix*, a street vendor of woollen cloth. She had acquired sufficient resources to purchase a burial plot, and her monument provided for her freedmen and freedwomen. ![A possible representation of Trosia Hilara from Aquileia, a lanifica circulatrix.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Trosia-Hilara--1.jpg) A possible representation of Trosia Hilara from Aquileia, a **lanifica circulatrix*. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT The evidence does not reveal the full organization or size of her business, but it records a formerly enslaved woman with a professional identity, property and dependants of her own. Freeborn women appear differently. Wealthier women did not need to perform the visible daily labor of their businesses themselves. Roman commercial organization made it possible for property owners to provide capital and productive assets while slaves and freedpeople handled management, manufacture or distribution. This distinction helps explain why women can appear prominently as owners in industries such as brick production while being much less frequent among named workshop managers. Female economic participation could exist at the level of manual labor, management, investment or ownership, and those roles should not be treated as interchangeable. ### The Place of Women in the Roman Economy Roman women did not participate in economic life on equal terms with men. Men held political office, exercised extensive authority within the family and dominate the surviving occupational record. A wealthy freeborn property owner, an urban freedwoman and an enslaved business manager also occupied profoundly different legal and social positions. Nor can the surviving evidence tell us the percentage of Roman commerce controlled by women. Occupational inscriptions are selective. Documentary archives survive by accident. Legal texts preserve individual problems rather than statistical samples. Even the striking female representation among owners in Roman brick production belongs to a particular body of evidence and cannot be projected across the Empire. The evidence securely establishes something more limited but still substantial. Women supplied credit and made loans. They owned and administered property. They sold food, textiles and luxury goods. They worked as artisans and managed workshops. They appear among the owners of productive industrial property, in Mediterranean wine and olive-oil commerce and within shipping and maritime finance. The reassessment of the vilica adds an important rural dimension. Her duties had long been preserved in Roman agricultural writing, but understanding work intra villam or sub tecto primarily as domestic work obscured the character of the spaces in which Columella placed those responsibilities. Roman villas could contain substantial wine presses, olive presses, storage buildings, animal facilities and working courtyards within the villa complex. The distinction between a male vilicus working across the fields and a female vilica supervising processing inside that complex was therefore not simply a distinction between economic work and housework. The same caution applies to urban evidence. A wife without an occupational title cannot automatically be turned into a business partner, but the absence of that title cannot prove that she performed no work. A woman holding tablets in a shop relief may have been an owner or manager, but the image cannot identify her. A woman's name on an amphora establishes involvement without necessarily revealing exactly where she stood within production and distribution. Other evidence requires much less reconstruction. Abudia Megiste was explicitly a trader of grain and vegetables. Aurelia Nais sold fish. Cassia Domestica worked in linen and was herself patroness of another linen worker. Urbanilla was remembered as her husband's business partner. Caecilia Amanda can be followed through roughly two decades of industrial management. Women appear as substantial lenders and maritime financiers. Cania Urbana, Flora and Saturnina bore the professional title *vilica*. These women did not belong to a separate female economy. They appear inside the same systems of property, credit, agriculture, slavery, patronage, manufacturing and long-distance trade that organized Roman economic life more generally. Their numbers cannot be recovered, but their participation can. The surviving evidence places Roman women at levels ranging from street selling and craft production to lending, industrial management, property ownership, maritime trade and the supervision of commercially important agricultural production. 💡 ****Sources used:** Edward E. Cohen, Roman Inequality: Affluent Slaves, Businesswomen, Legal Fictions. Oxford University Press, 2023. Emily A. Hemelrijk, Women and Society in the Roman World: A Sourcebook of Inscriptions from the Roman West. Cambridge University Press, 2021. Lena Larsson Lovén, “Women, Trade, and Production in Urban Centres of Roman Italy,” in Andrew Wilson and Miko Flohr, eds., Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World. Oxford University Press, 2016. Wim Broekaert, “Freedmen and Agency in Roman Business,” in Andrew Wilson and Miko Flohr, eds., Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World. Oxford University Press, 2016. Verena Halbwachs, “Women as Legal Actors,” in Paul J. du Plessis, Clifford Ando and Kaius Tuori, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Roman Law and Society. Oxford University Press, 2016. Tamara Lewit, “Not just a housekeeper: a new look at the work of the Roman vilica,” Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2026. Gaius, Institutes, especially 1.190–192 and 2.81\. Edward Poste trans., 4th ed., Oxford, 1904. Cato the Elder, De Agricultura, especially 10–11 and 143\. Fairfax Harrison trans., Roman Farm Management, 1918. Columella, De Re RusticaBooks Suetonius, Claudius 18–19. Digest, 2.13.12, 14.1.1.16, 14.3.7.1, 15.1, 16.1 and 50.16. ### A Roman’s Manual for Survival URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-manual-for-survival/ Last updated: 2026-08-10T11:17:29.000Z Some voices rise in times of crisis only to fade with the centuries; others endure, whispering lessons long after empires have fallen. Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus was such a voice — a Roman thinker who wrote when discipline was failing and power was slipping away. His ideas bridged the battlefield and the book, the stable and the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/), shaping the way generations would understand not just how to fight, but how to preserve the very idea of civilization. Vegetius composed his *Epitoma rei militaris* sometime between 383 and 450 CE. The work survives today in no fewer than 220 manuscripts intended as complete copies, including around a dozen produced in the ninth century. The earliest printed editions, however, were based on inferior textual witnesses, and subsequent publishers largely relied on what is arguably the poorest version of all—the Roman edition of 1487. By the eighteenth century, the situation had not improved: the oldest and most reliable manuscripts were scattered or inaccessible, preventing any of them from gaining the prominence they deserved in shaping the text’s modern transmission. 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in November 2025\. It was updated in August 2026.* ### The Forgotten Face of Vegetius: Rome’s Master of Horses and the Roads that Held the Empire Together Vegetius, known from manuscript notes as a *vir illustris and comes*, 💡 **Both* ***vir illustris** *and* ***comes** *were* ***official honorific titles** *used in the* ***late Roman Empire** *to denote high social and administrative rank,* ***Vir illustris** *(literally “illustrious man”) was among the* ***highest tiers of the senatorial hierarchy** *, above vir spectabilis (“admirable man”) and vir clarissimus (“most renowned man”).* **It signified someone of great distinction — typically* ***a senior imperial official, governor, or high court dignitary** *. By the 4th–5th centuries CE, this title was* ***a marker of elite service to the state** *, not just noble birth.* ***Comes** *(plural comites) originally meant “companion” — as in comes Augusti, a “companion of the emperor.” By Vegetius’s time, it had become a* ***formal rank** *used for imperial counselors, generals, and administrators — for instance, comes sacrarum largitionum (Count of the Sacred Largesses) or comes rei militaris (Count of Military Affairs). In short, it meant he was part of the emperor’s trusted inner circle or held a* ***commanding role in the imperial bureaucracy** *.* **So when Vegetius’s manuscripts describe him as Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus vir illustris comes, they’re essentially identifying him as a* ***high-ranking imperial official — an “Illustrious Count” — of noble or quasi-ministerial standing** *. That’s why scholars believe he wrote the Epitoma Rei Militaris in an* ***official capacity** *, possibly as a* ***defense or reform proposal for the army** *, rather than as a private intellectual exercise.* appears to have added the honorific Flavius to his name once his position in the higher ranks of the imperial administration — whether civil or military — allowed it. The use of Flavius alongside his *Epitoma Rei Militaris* but not his *Mulomedicina* suggests that the former was composed under official authority, while the latter was written privately. ![Vegetius, Epitoma rei militaris, mid-9th century, in a manuscript written for Lupus Servatus, in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus Palatinus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Vegetius-Epitoma-rei_militaris.jpg) Vegetius, Epitoma rei militaris, mid-9th century, in a manuscript written for Lupus Servatus, in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus Palatinus. Public domain From Vegetius’s own words we learn that the first book of the *Epitoma* was offered voluntarily to an unnamed emperor; its positive reception led him to prepare the remaining three. This sequence indicates that the work may have begun as a smaller treatise, later expanded and adorned with dedications and rhetorical polish suitable for presentation. Vegetius reveals himself as a man deeply acquainted with the practical machinery of [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) — taxation, recruitment, corruption, and the law. He possessed wide learning in geography, anatomy, history, and mathematics, and he spoke from firsthand familiarity when describing the Hunnish horse or the ailments of mules and oxen. His knowledge of horses was not literary but lived; he was a man who had traveled widely, cared for his mounts, and remembered the traits of the breeds he encountered. This dimension of his character — the horseman, the observer of animal endurance — has been largely overlooked, eclipsed by the infantry focus of the *Epitoma Rei Militaris*. Yet the key to understanding Vegetius lies in his *Mulomedicina*, where his identity emerges more vividly than in any military manual. The *Mulomedicina* shows that Vegetius was intimately familiar with the hardships and logistics of the *cursus publicus* — Rome’s vast network of military and state transport. His descriptions speak of > “inflammation of the feet resulting from wear and tear of the road,” of > “harmful and excessive galloping,” and of horses trained for > “smooth riding.” He writes of wounds > “caused by carelessness of the attendant,” and of animals > “forced to gallop beyond the limits of their strength,” suffering from > “broken bones struck by wheels and axles” or > “abnormally large loads.” He notes the benefit of > “clean stables with dry plank floors” and the importance of tending to > “worn hooves and hocks after a journey.” Vegetius understood these conditions from direct experience. His comment that horses, mules, and donkeys perform their duties > “with their backs alone under saddles or pack saddles” shows close familiarity with the daily grind of transport animals. He distinguished between the *cursus publicus* — which he called the > “more mundane services” — and the nobler functions of horses used for war, racing, or sport. He spoke of > “back damage done by riders,” > “falls caused by fatigue from long journeys or winding roads,” and of diseases brought on by > “being driven by the lash in rain, snow, hail, and cold.” He even observed the effects of > “denying horses the chance to urinate because of long hours of galloping.” His attention to detail, including the use of “old axle-grease” in remedies, contrasts with other Roman veterinary authors such as Pelagonius or [Columella](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/), who favored bitumen or pitch. ![Tuscany, Vegetius, Mule Medicine, Administration of Potion on Horseback. By Rinaldo da Siena, Italian painter and illuminator, 13th century ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Miniature-in-Tractate-of-Mulomedicina--by-Vegetius.jpg) Tuscany, Vegetius, Mule Medicine, Administration of Potion on Horseback. By Rinaldo da Siena, Italian painter and illuminator, 13th century. Public domain This practical vocabulary identifies Vegetius as a man who knew both branches of the imperial courier system — the fast *cursus velox (the “fast post” branch of the cursus publicus, the imperial courier and transport system that carried official communications and goods across the Roman Empire)* and the slower *cursus clabularis (the “wagon course” — the slow branch of the cursus publicus, the Roman Empire’s state-run transportation and postal system.* *The word clabularis comes from clabula, meaning a four-wheeled cart or wagon used for carrying heavy loads.)*. He understood the brutal attrition of the *veredi* and *muli*, the saddle and pack animals used by dispatch riders, and he knew the heavy wagons (*currus*) that carried military and state supplies. In Book IV of the Mulomedicina, devoted entirely to draft animals, he advises, > “When they return covered with mud from the road, take special care not to tire them by too much running or long journeys, nor distress them with loads too heavy.” Oxen, he warns, > “suited for labor rather than speed, lose their bowels or suffer fevers if forced to actions to which they are unaccustomed.” Such passages reveal his awareness of the abuse of animals requisitioned by the army or state for transport — a problem deeply familiar to someone involved in supervising the *cursus publicus*. Vegetius refers to animals, > “exhausted by carrying their load,” made ill > “from being drenched or chilled by rain.” Agricultural references are minimal — just two brief mentions in Book IV — underscoring that his focus was transport, not farming. His knowledge of the *cursus publicus* also extended to its personnel: *muliones* (muleteers), *carpentarii* (wagon-makers), *hippocomi* (horse-handlers), *vehicularii* (teamsters), and *custodes* (guards). In his Epitoma, he lists *carpentarii* \-coachmen and *fabri ferrarii* \-blacksmiths among the trades useful for recruitment and mentions *calones-military servants* and g*alearii-military slaves who fought* within the baggage train. He was also well acquainted with the *mansiones* and *mutationes* — the rest stations and changing posts that formed the backbone of the [Roman road](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/) system. He speaks of stables, byres, and even[ baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), and records a singular image: a horse being led into the caldarium of the baths to induce therapeutic sweating. Such a scene could not have occurred in an urban bathhouse, but rather at a rural *mansio*, where travel, rest, and care converged. These details dispel the long-standing notion that the *Mulomedicina* was written for the idle amusement of aristocratic readers. Vegetius himself protested this misconception: > “Foolish popular opinion gives rise to the belief that every person of high rank should be ashamed to have knowledge of the art of healing draft animals.” He wrote instead for those who worked — the *paterfamilias* and the *mulomedicus,* the men responsible for the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/)’s beasts of burden. As he wrote, > “But in case a longer book might bring more confusion than instruction, I think I should make an end, while urging you again and again to cure the earliest stages of disease with care.” His aim was to equip those who labored, not those who dined. ![Detail from Vegetius' book Mulomedicina](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/detail-from-Mulomedicina--1--1.jpg) Detail from Vegetius' book Mulomedicina. Photo credits: Sailko, CC BY 3.0 The *Mulomedicina* was thus a practical manual for the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/empire-size-comparison-how-did-the-roman-empire-compare-to-alexanders-or-the-mongols/)’s working class — stablehands, drivers, and overseers who kept the Roman roads alive. Vegetius’s recipes avoid costly ingredients, targeting the thrifty and the practical, those for whom > “the unimpaired health of draft animals entails profit” and who were > “appointed to oversee their care.” His prose reflects not a detached scholar but a man of the road, steeped in the rhythm of travel, mindful of animals and men alike. Through him, we glimpse the humbler arteries of Roman civilization: the mud, the wheels, the hooves — and the intellect that bound them all into service. ("Who was Vegetius?" by S. H.Rosenbaum) ### The Last Roman “Art of War” Before Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus set down his *Epitoma rei militaris*, earlier Romans such as [Cato](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/), Celsus, [Frontinus,](https://romanempiretimes.com/frontinus-rome-master-of-strategy-and-water/) and Paternus had each written treatises on warfare. Yet by the late fourth or early fifth century, Vegetius’ manual stood alone as the only surviving Latin “art of war.” Though often dismissed as a simple compilation of older military authors, the *Epitoma* is in fact a work of vision and reform — a coherent program addressed to the emperor, urging the restoration of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/incense-in-ancient-rome-smoke-ritual-and-power/)’s fading military strength. Vegetius’ message is unambiguous: [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/niche-perfumes-in-ancient-rome-how-did-emperors-smell-like/) must return to quality over quantity, to discipline over numbers, and to training over natural talent. His historical view links the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/)’s former greatness to its institutions — the moral and structural foundations that once ensured victory. In this, he joins a long Roman tradition of didactic writing meant not merely to instruct but to serve the state. The heart of his doctrine appears in his famous *regulae bellorum generales* (Book III) — “general rules of war” — a concise catalogue of maxims that would echo through medieval and Renaissance strategy. For centuries, these *regulae* were memorized, copied, and applied, shaping the tactical thought of Europe long after the legions had vanished. The *Epitoma rei militaris* thus deserves attention as more than a late antique military manual. It offers a rare window into the [Roman army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) of its age, poised between imperial decline and medieval transformation, and it stands as one of the most enduring works of military instruction in Western history. A modern scholar once aptly called it “the bible of warfare throughout the Middle Ages.” From the cloisters to the courts of princes, Vegetius was cited not only as a strategist but as a moral guide — his emphasis on prudence, order, and discipline harmonizing with both [Christian](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/) and civic ideals. During the Renaissance, Vegetius remained the acknowledged master of military wisdom. Readers valued him for his practicality as much as for his antiquarian prestige. Yet despite his enormous Nachleben — his rich afterlife in European thought — Vegetius has long been neglected outside of specialist circles. ![Artist's depiction of Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, commonly referred to as Vegetius, a writer from the Later Roman Empire (circa 4th century) who wrote extensively on military matters.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/depiction-of-vegetius--1-.jpg) Artist's depiction of Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, commonly referred to as Vegetius, a writer from the Later Roman Empire (circa 4th century) who wrote extensively on military matters. Public domain To overlook his technical prose is to miss an essential part of ancient intellectual life, for military handbooks formed a vital branch of didactic literature. They stood beside treatises on agriculture, [medicine](https://romanempiretimes.com/galen-of-pergamon-rome-most-famous-physician-galenus/), and rhetoric, written both for the “armchair general” and for the [soldier ](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/)in the field. War, to Vegetius as to the [Greeks](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) before him, was not a temporary condition but a constant of human existence. > “War,” wrote Heraclitus, > “is the father of all.” Plato’s Clinias declared that > “a natural state of undeclared war exists between all cities.” Vegetius echoed the same conviction, calling war > “the indispensable craft, without which other arts cannot exist.” His treatise, therefore, belongs not only to the history of military science but to the moral and philosophical imagination of Rome itself. Modern scholarship has largely concentrated on the sources and dating of the *Epitoma*. The text must postdate 383 CE, when Gratian’s death (emperor of the Western Roman Empire from 367 to 383) made possible the honorific *divus Gratianus*, and it cannot be later than 450, when a scribe named Flavius Eutropius recorded that date in a surviving manuscript colophon. Most scholars place its composition under Theodosius I (379–395), though recent work by another scholar, argues for Valentinian III (425–455). Rather than resolving this impasse, contemporary research turns to what the *Epitoma* reveals about the Roman mind: its faith in institutions, its moralized approach to warfare, and its influence on later military thought. Vegetius’ *regulae bellorum generales* (general rules of war), provided a bridge from the disciplined legions of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) to the strategic manuals of Byzantium. Centuries later, Maurice’s *Strategikon* (late sixth–early seventh century) absorbed these lessons into a new imperial context, proving that the Roman “art of war,” distilled by Vegetius, survived the fall of the West. His work remains a testament to a civilization that saw in warfare not only survival, but a moral duty — a craft that, in his own words, sustained all others. ### The Immortal Manual: Vegetius and the Power of the Written Word Vegetius’ faith in the supremacy of institutions led him to see military handbooks as essential instruments for governing the state. If victory, he reasoned, depends not on luck, cunning, or divine favor but on *disciplina*, training, and sound doctrine, then a written guide to reform becomes a tool of national preservation. For him, the handbook was not merely a book of tactics—it was the embodiment of Rome’s collective wisdom, meant to outlast generations. The idea that history and didactic writing could serve practical ends was not new. Thucydides had declared that his work would be “a possession for all time,” its insights into human nature allowing future readers to foresee and avoid calamity. [Polybius,](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/) too, saw in history a manual for life and politics: > “The knowledge of history is a very trustworthy education and training for political affairs, and the most excellent—even the only—teacher of being able to bear the changes of fortune nobly is the recollection of the misfortunes of others.” Roman thinkers shared this belief. [Sallust](https://romanempiretimes.com/sallust-details-on-the-historian-of-roman-elite-and-the-republic-decline/), echoing the old parallel between word and deed, argued that writing great actions was itself a form of doing them—a view later endorsed by[ Pliny](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/) in a letter to [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/). Yet Vegetius pushed this further than any of his predecessors. He cited [Cato the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/) as proof that writing could serve the Republic even more than commanding armies: > “Cato the Elder, although he was unbeaten in war and had often led armies as consul, believed that he would be more useful to the Republic if he were to put down military discipline into writing. For deeds which are done bravely are of one age, but those things which are written for the benefit of the state last forever.” In expressing this so forcefully, Vegetius elevated the military handbook to the level of law itself—an enduring structure that continued to shape society. The idea recalls[ *Cicero*](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)*’s De Officiis*, where he praises the immortality of written service to the state, noting of Solon that > “Salamis benefited the state only once, but Solon’s laws will always benefit her.” Vegetius adopted this reasoning but shifted the focus from the glory of the author to the immortality of the text. For him, permanence belonged not to the man but to the codified knowledge he left behind. This transition—from celebrating heroic writers to venerating enduring texts—was a hallmark of late antiquity. In an age when sacred scripture and imperial law had come to dominate thought, written works were revered as repositories of order and truth. Vegetius placed military manuals within this sacred hierarchy, celebrating their power to preserve the state and ensure continuity. For him, military science itself was the foundation of civilization, > “the indispensable art, without which all other arts are not able to exist.” ("Vegetius' Epitoma Rei militaris:institutions, rules and reception" by Jonathan Hoyt Warner) ### Velleius Paterculus and the History of Rome’s New Order URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/velleius-paterculus-and-the-history-of-rome-new-order/ Last updated: 2026-08-16T19:15:38.000Z Rome did not lack historians. By the early first century CE, its past had been written, rewritten, and fought over for generations. Civil wars had fractured memory as much as politics, and competing narratives of blame, virtue, and legitimacy still lingered beneath the surface of public life. What Rome needed now was not another argument about what had happened, but a version of the past that felt settled—coherent, confident, and free of doubt. A history that did not reopen wounds, but closed them. One finally emerged, composed with remarkable clarity, speed, and certainty. It was a history that aligned perfectly with the world as it now existed—and with the future Rome had already chosen. 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in December 2025\. It was updated in August 2026.* ### A History That Moves Without Hesitation Velleius Paterculus tells Rome’s past with remarkable speed. Generations pass in a handful of sentences; centuries are compressed into decisive moments. Kings appear, institutions take shape, wars are fought, and the Republic expands—all with a sense of inevitability that leaves little room for pause. This is not a narrative built on accumulation or exhaustive detail. What matters is direction. Events are selected, arranged, and propelled forward to maintain momentum rather than to linger on complexity. Conflict is acknowledged, but rarely examined at length. Even civil wars, though present, are treated as episodes to be moved past rather than wounds to be reopened. The tone is confident and assured. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)’s history unfolds as a continuous process rather than a fractured one, marked more by recovery than rupture. Moments of crisis do not destabilize the narrative; they are absorbed into it, presented as necessary trials rather than existential threats. ![Historia romana](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Historia-romana..jpg) Historia romana. Public domain What the reader encounters is not uncertainty, debate, or moral hesitation. The past is shaped into a coherent sequence that leads forward, not sideways. The effect is stabilizing. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s story appears intelligible, purposeful, and ultimately resolved. It is a history that asks for acceptance rather than interrogation. A story told not to unsettle its audience, but to reassure it. (From Velleius Paterculus: Making History, edited by Eleanor Cowan; chapter “Velleius Paterculus as Senator: A Dream with Footnotes” by Barbara Levick.) ### The Ground on Which History Stands Italy occupies a privileged position in Velleius Paterculus’ historical vision. His narrative does not treat it merely as a geographical unit or administrative core of the empire, but as the temporal and moral center of Roman history. Events are consistently framed in relation to Italy’s fortunes, its crises, and its recovery, giving the peninsula a central role in the unfolding of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s past. Velleius’ sense of time is closely bound to place. Italian history becomes the measuring point against which wider imperial developments are assessed. Civil wars, foreign campaigns, and political change acquire meaning insofar as they affect Italy—either by destabilizing it or by restoring order within it. The end of conflict is marked not simply by victory abroad, but by the reestablishment of security and continuity at home. This perspective shapes Velleius’ treatment of the late Republic. Periods of disorder are described as moments when Italy itself is endangered—politically fragmented, socially strained, and morally exhausted. Violence is not presented as an abstract constitutional crisis, but as something that directly wounds the Italian heartland. The repeated emphasis on devastation, fear, and uncertainty underscores Italy’s vulnerability during civil conflict. Against this background, the Augustan settlement acquires particular significance. For Velleius, the defining achievement of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) is not territorial expansion but the restoration of Italy’s stability. Peace is measured by the absence of war on Italian soil, the normalization of civic life, and the reassertion of traditional hierarchies and values. Time itself seems to change: the chaotic acceleration of the civil war years gives way to a calmer, ordered historical rhythm. ![Historia Romana, M. Velleius Paterculus, Upper cover](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Roman-History-1.jpg) Historia Romana, M. Velleius Paterculus, Upper cover. Public domain Italy thus functions as both subject and symbol. It represents [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s collective identity, its shared past, and its claim to moral authority over the wider empire. By anchoring his narrative in Italy, Velleius presents Roman history as a story of recovery rather than transformation—a return to balance rather than a radical break. The principate appears not as a revolutionary system, but as the necessary framework that allows Italy, and therefore [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/), to endure. This Italian-centered chronology also explains Velleius’ selective emphasis. Events that stabilize Italy are foregrounded; those that do not contribute to its security or cohesion are compressed or passed over. The result is a history written with a clear sense of priority, in which time moves toward consolidation, and the meaning of the past is defined by the preservation of Italy as Rome’s political and moral core. (From Velleius Paterculus: Making History, edited by Eleanor Cowan; chapter "Time for Italy in Velleius Paterculus" by Edward Bispham) ### The Imperial Republic For Velleius Paterculus, the collapse of the Republic was not a constitutional tragedy but a moral and civic catastrophe. Civil war, in his view, inflicted damage deeper than any foreign enemy could achieve, because it corroded the internal fabric of the state. As he bluntly observes, > “Civil wars are always more destructive than foreign wars, for they ruin not only the body of the state but its spirit” (Historia Romana 2.89.1). The crisis Rome faced was therefore not merely political, but existential. It is from this premise that Velleius constructs his vision of what modern scholarship has termed an “imperial republic.” The solution to Rome’s self-destruction was not the preservation of Republican forms at all costs, but the restoration of order through concentrated authority. [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/) appears not as an innovator overthrowing tradition, but as a restorer compelled by circumstance. The state, Velleius writes, > “exhausted by civil discord, was recalled to order by the authority of one man” (Historia Romana 2.89.3). The phrasing is revealing: authority is not seized, but exercised in response to exhaustion. Crucially, Velleius insists that this transformation did not amount to a wholesale rejection of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/)’s past. Instead, he frames it as a minimal intervention dictated by necessity rather than ambition. > “Nothing was changed except what the times themselves demanded” (Historia Romana 2.89.4). Republican institutions, laws, and magistracies are presented as surviving, not abolished — albeit operating now within a stabilizing framework that prevented their self-destruction. ![Illustrated title page of the 1520 editio princeps, edited by Beatus Rhenanus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Illustrated-title-page-of-the-1520-editio-princeps--edited-by-Beatus-Rhenanus--1-.jpg) Illustrated title page of the 1520 **Editio Princeps*, edited by Beatus Rhenanus. Public domain Peace, in this schema, becomes the ultimate measure of political legitimacy. Velleius offers one of his clearest statements of Augustan achievement when he notes that > “peace was restored to the world, the laws regained their force, the courts their authority, and the magistracies their dignity” (Historia Romana 2.89.5). The emphasis falls not on ideology, but on function: law works again, justice operates, and public office regains meaning. This is not monarchy justified by theory, but by results. The same logic governs Velleius’ portrayal of [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/), whose reign he describes in language carefully chosen to emphasize restraint rather than domination. Under Tiberius, he claims, > “justice is firm, discipline exact, and authority free from cruelty” (Historia Romana 2.126.3). Elsewhere he reinforces the point: > “There was nothing harsh in his power, nothing arrogant in his command” (Historia Romana 2.126.4). These are not the words of a detached observer, but of a senator writing within the political system he describes, attempting to articulate a form of rule that preserves order without abandoning Roman values. Velleius is explicit about his own position in this historical narrative. He does not claim neutrality in the modern sense. On the contrary, he grounds his authority in participation and experience: > “I have set down not rumors, but what I saw and took part in” (Historia Romana 2.104.4). His history is shaped by proximity to power, by service, and by memory — a perspective that explains both the urgency and the compression of his narrative. He is equally candid about the limits and purpose of his work. Faced with an overwhelming abundance of events, Velleius acknowledges that selection is unavoidable: > “I am constrained by the limits of brevity and the abundance of events” (Historia Romana 1.16.1). What he chooses to include, therefore, reflects not ignorance, but judgment. His history is not meant to catalogue everything, but to convey meaning. ![A sketch illustration of Velleius Paterculus.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/A-sketch-illustration-of-Velleius-Paterculus.jpg) A sketch illustration of Velleius Paterculus. Upscale by Roman Empire Times Seen in this light, Velleius’ “imperial republic” is neither naïve nor servile. It is an attempt to explain — and defend — a political reality in which peace, continuity, and restraint matter more than formal labels. The Republic, in his telling, survives not because its institutions remain unchanged, but because its values are preserved under conditions that no longer allow them to function on their own. ("The Imperial Republic of Velleius Paterculus" by Alain M. Gowing) This political logic becomes clearer once Velleius’ own career is taken into account. ### The Soldier Behind the Senator Velleius Paterculus presents himself as a senator writing history, but his narrative habits betray a deeper formative identity. Long before he wrote *Historia Romana*, Velleius had served as an officer on Rome’s most unstable frontiers, campaigning in Germany and Pannonia under Tiberius. This experience left a permanent mark on how he understood power, order, and peace. Modern scholarship has increasingly emphasized that Velleius’ apparent contradictions—his praise of Augustan stability alongside his harsh language toward Rome’s enemies—are not the result of confusion or incompetence. They arise instead from the tension between two roles he inhabited simultaneously: that of the loyal senator of the Principate and that of the professional soldier shaped by years of frontier warfare. His history reflects both perspectives, sometimes uneasily, but never accidentally. This duality is especially visible in his treatment of peace. Velleius formally celebrates the end of civil war and the restoration of order under Augustus, yet peace itself remains a fragile and morally ambiguous condition in his narrative. He repeatedly associates prolonged peace with decline, softness, and vulnerability, particularly when Rome’s enemies are concerned. Military vigilance, not civic harmony, is presented as the true guarantor of Roman survival. The closure of the Temple of Janus illustrates this tension. Augustus famously advertised the closing of Janus’ doors as proof that Rome was finally at peace. Velleius records the event, but his emphasis subtly shifts its meaning. He minimizes the number of closures and reminds the reader how rarely Rome has known peace at all, reinforcing the idea that war—not tranquility—is Rome’s natural state. The gesture becomes less a triumph of pacification than a brief interruption in an otherwise continuous history of conflict. ![Marcus Velleius Paterculus is offered trophies as a Roman field hero Title page for Pieter Burman, Gaius Velleius Paterculus, Leiden 1719 C.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Marcus-Velleius-Paterculus--as-a-Roman-general--is-presented-with-weapon-trophies--1-.jpg) Marcus Velleius Paterculus is offered trophies as a Roman field hero Title page for Pieter Burman, Gaius Velleius Paterculus, Leiden 1719 C. Public domain This soldierly perspective also shapes Velleius’ moral vocabulary. *Virtus* remains the supreme Roman quality, consistently praised and never problematized. *Clementia*, by contrast, is treated with caution. Mercy is appropriate within Rome and toward fellow citizens, but it becomes dangerous when extended to external enemies. His language hardens noticeably when describing non-Romans, who are often portrayed as treacherous, undisciplined, or inherently violent. One does not reason with such opponents; one subdues them. The contrast is particularly sharp in his assessment of commanders. Those who impose discipline and act decisively earn admiration, while figures who attempt to govern frontier populations with urban restraint are condemned. The disaster of Varus in Germany is not framed as a failure of military strength but as a failure of judgment: an excess of trust where suspicion was required. Peace, in such contexts, is not a moral achievement but a strategic error. Velleius’ own words underscore this outlook. Reflecting on Rome’s enemies, he describes their destruction without hesitation or regret, noting moments when they were “slaughtered almost like cattle” (*prope ad internecionem caesi*). The phrasing is deliberate. Violence is not justified through ideology or necessity; it is presented as the expected outcome of imperial defense. Yet this does not make Velleius an opponent of the Augustan order. On the contrary, his loyalty to the Principate is genuine. What his history reveals instead is a conception of imperial rule grounded in perpetual readiness for war. Augustus’ achievement lies not in ending conflict forever, but in managing it, channeling it, and preventing it from turning inward once again. Seen in this light, Velleius’ history is neither simple propaganda nor veiled dissent. It is the product of a man who accepted the new political reality while remaining deeply skeptical of the moral language that surrounded it. His Rome is stable, but never safe; victorious, but never at rest. Peace may be celebrated, but it is always provisional. ("Velleius Paterculus: The Soldier and the Senator" by Robert T. Connal) ### Exile in Ancient Rome: What Happened When Rome Sent You Away URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/exile-in-ancient-rome-what-happened-when-rome-sent-you-away/ Last updated: 2026-08-16T19:15:30.000Z For a Roman, exile could mean very different things. A man might leave Roman territory to escape the consequences of a prosecution, be forbidden to approach Rome, or be ordered to live in a place chosen for him by the authorities. He might retain his citizenship and property, or lose both. He could have money, servants and friends working on his behalf while living hundreds of miles away, or find himself under military guard on an island from which departure was forbidden. Some exiles returned when political circumstances changed. Others remained away for decades, died where they had been sent, or discovered that distance from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-client-kings-how-the-empire-ruled-without-annexing/) did not protect them from an [emperor ](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/the-year-of-the-four-emperors/)who still considered them dangerous. These differences developed over centuries. The exile experienced by [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) in 58 BCE still belonged largely to the political and legal practices of the Roman Republic. Half a century later, [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) could order [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/) to live at Tomis on the Black Sea while allowing him to retain his citizenship and property. ![J. M. W. Turner: Ancient Italy - Ovid Banished from Rome ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/ovid-bunished-from-rome--1-.jpg) J. M. W. Turner: Ancient Italy - Ovid Banished from Rome. Public domain. Under subsequent [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), other forms of banishment carried far heavier consequences, affecting civic [status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/), possessions and freedom of movement. The convenient English word “exile” therefore conceals several Roman practices whose legal consequences and everyday realities could be profoundly different. ### When Exile Was an Escape From Punishment During much of the Republic, *exilium* was not itself a criminal sentence imposed by a Roman [court](https://romanempiretimes.com/courtroom-drama-in-ancient-rome-when-trials-became-theater/). A citizen facing a capital prosecution could leave rather than remain to suffer the consequences of conviction. The departure was voluntary only in a limited sense: the accused chose flight because staying could mean imprisonment, execution or another severe penalty. A subsequent *aquae et ignis interdictio* — the interdiction of fire and [water ](https://romanempiretimes.com/romans-consumed-250-gallons-of-water-per-person-daily-why-is-this-important-for-modern-cities/)— could then formally prevent the individual from returning to the territory covered by the measure. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/stoic-in-the-sauna-why-a-baiae-bathhouse-linked-to-cicero-is-deliciously-ironic/) explained this Republican conception while defending Aulus Caecina in 69 BCE. His distinction between exile and punishment was explicit: > “Exile is not a punishment: it is a harbour of refuge from punishment. Because people want to escape from some punishment or catastrophe…” He continued that those seeking to avoid imprisonment, death or disgrace left their native soil and took refuge elsewhere. In the legal argument Cicero was making, exile was therefore the means by which a person escaped a punishment rather than the punishment itself. He also argued that [Roman citizenship](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-proved-who-they-were/) was not simply taken from the exile: it was lost when the fugitive became a member of another civic community. ![ Statue of Cicero, Courthouse, Rome, Italy.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Cicero-statue-courthouse--Rome-Italy--1--1.jpg) Statue of Cicero, Courthouse, Rome, Italy. Public domain. The position was already changing during Cicero’s lifetime. His own *lex Tullia* *de ambitu* of 63 BCE made exile a statutory penalty for electoral corruption. The measure represented an important stage in the development of exile into a punishment in its own right, although the evidence for its precise duration is not uniform: Cassius Dio is the ancient source that specifies a term of ten years. The transformation therefore began before [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/augustus-secret-syracuse-the-mystery-of-the-emperors-private-room/) and should not be reduced to a simple distinction in which Republican exile was always voluntary and imperial exile always imposed. Cicero himself encountered the realities of exile only eleven years after delivering *Pro Caecina*. In 58 BCE, the tribune Publius Clodius Pulcher moved against him over the execution of Roman citizens following the Catilinarian conspiracy. Cicero departed before the measures against him had fully run their course, but subsequent legislation attacked him by name, affected his property and restricted where he could remain. He considered several destinations, repeatedly changed his plans and eventually spent much of the period first at Thessalonica and later at Dyrrachium. His correspondence with Atticus shows how those restrictions affected everyday decisions. In April 58 BCE, after receiving a copy of the amended legislation, Cicero wrote: > “I received a copy of the bill for my ruin, and found that the amendment … took the form of banishment beyond four hundred miles.” He explained that he could not go where he had wished, hurried toward Brundisium, feared involving a host in his own downfall and worried about whether anyone would continue to receive him. Elsewhere in the same sequence of letters, he repeatedly asks Atticus to join him so that they can decide where he should go and what he should do. The correspondence shows exile not only through despair but through journeys, accommodation, [money](https://romanempiretimes.com/credit-loans-and-risk-how-ancient-rome-handled-money-without-a-central-bank/), political news, potential hosts and dependence on friends who could still act on his behalf. Materially, Cicero was not reduced to poverty. Friends helped provide funds, and at Thessalonica he stayed in the official residence of Gnaeus Plancius, the quaestor of Macedonia. Yet his correspondence repeatedly returns to losses that money could not repair: separation from his wife and children, removal from public life, damage to his political standing and uncertainty over whether he would ever return. His restoration in 57 BCE required a sustained campaign by allies in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/), establishing a pattern that remained important under the [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-did-son-of-god-mean-in-a-world-already-ruled-by-emperors-claiming-divine-sonship/). Physical absence did not necessarily end an exile’s political life when family and friends remained behind to work for his return. ### Augustus and the Growing Control of Exile Under [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/), imperial power increasingly determined not merely that somebody should leave [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) but where that person would live. The change appears particularly clearly within the imperial family. Augustus’ daughter Julia was sent to Pandateria in 2 BCE after accusations of adultery and sexual misconduct. Her conditions were closely regulated: access to visitors was controlled and [luxuries](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-fear-of-luxury/) were restricted. Five years later Augustus allowed her to move from the island to Rhegium on the Italian mainland, but he never permitted her to resume her former life in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/). Agrippa Postumus, Augustus’ grandson, was first removed to Surrentum and later sent to Planasia, where he lived under military guard. Julia the Younger was exiled to Trimerus in 8 CE and remained away for roughly two decades. These dynastic cases should not be treated as normal examples of what every Roman exile experienced. ![Island of Ventotene. Latin: Pandataria or Pandateria](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Ventotene-porto-Romano.jpg) Island of Ventotene. Latin: Pandataria or Pandateria. Public domain. Members of the imperial family could remain politically significant after their removal, and their banishment could therefore resemble closely supervised internment rather than ordinary territorial exclusion. The same year that Julia the Younger was sent away, Ovid was ordered to Tomis, a [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) city on the western shore of the Black Sea. His case illustrates one of the most important distinctions in Roman exile. Ovid was a *relegatus.* He had to leave Rome and reside at an assigned destination, but he retained his citizenship and property. Although his poems repeatedly use the emotionally stronger vocabulary of exile, his legal position differed significantly from the harsher condition associated with deportatio. Ovid’s Tristia preserves one of antiquity’s most detailed literary representations of the departure itself. In the third poem of the first book, he describes touching the threshold repeatedly, delaying his departure, giving further instructions and turning back again toward those he loved: > “At last I said, ‘Why hasten? ’Tis Scythia whither I am going, ’tis Rome that I must leave. Both are good reasons for delay.’” He continues by describing his wife, home and friends as still living and present, yet now denied to him. Eventually he embraces what is dearest to him and leaves, describing the separation as though he were being torn apart and leaving part of his body behind. His wife, meanwhile, begs to accompany him into exile. ![Ion Theodorescu-Sion - Ovid in exile](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/ovid-in-exile--1--1.jpg) Ion Theodorescu-Sion - Ovid in exile. Public domain. The scene is deliberately literary and cannot be treated as a stenographic record of Ovid’s last night in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/). The same caution applies to his later descriptions of Tomis. Across the Tristia and *Epistulae ex Ponto*, he repeatedly depicts the region as bitterly cold, remote, militarized and culturally alien, but the poems also formed part of his long campaign for relief. At different times he hoped not only for full recall but for transfer to somewhere less distant, and his later poetry acknowledges kindness shown to him by the inhabitants of Tomis. His works therefore preserve the emotional experience and rhetoric of relegation without requiring every description of his surroundings to be accepted as neutral geographical reporting. ### Relegation, Deportation and What an Exile Could Lose Roman banishment eventually included several overlapping forms, while ancient writers themselves did not always use the terminology with technical precision. A person subjected to *relegatio* might be excluded from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-went-dark-life-after-sunset-in-the-ancient-city/), from Italy or from a particular province, or ordered to remain at a designated location. Relegation could be imposed for a fixed period or for life. Even lifelong relegation, however, did not necessarily destroy the person’s Roman citizenship or confiscate all property. *Deportatio* carried substantially heavier consequences. Roman jurists distinguished it from relegation because deportation affected civic status as well as residence. A deportee remained a free person rather than becoming enslaved, but lost Roman citizenship and suffered serious disabilities concerning property and Roman civil rights. The difference therefore cannot be explained simply by saying that relegation was temporary while deportation was permanent. A Roman could be relegated for life while retaining citizenship; deportation changed the individual’s legal position much more fundamentally. The distinction becomes increasingly visible during the reign of [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/), when deportation to an assigned place appears clearly in the surviving evidence as an especially severe form of banishment. Its precise legal development cannot confidently be assigned to a single year, however, and the language used by early imperial historians is not always as systematic as that preserved by later jurists. The early Principate is better understood as a period in which compulsory banishment became increasingly structured and increasingly subject to imperial control. The case of Vibius Serenus in 23 CE also demonstrates that destination mattered. When Gyaros or Donusa were proposed for him, [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) records Tiberius objecting because the islands lacked adequate water. If Serenus was being allowed to live, the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-emperor-who-ruled-rome-for-77-days/) argued, he should also be provided with the necessities required to sustain life. Serenus was instead returned to Amorgos. The episode makes clear that different islands could themselves represent different degrees of punishment. ![Katapola and Moundoulia hill, Amorgos Island, Greece](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Amorgos-jpg--1--1.jpg) Katapola and Moundoulia hill, Amorgos Island, Greece. Credits: Oliwan, CC BY-SA 3.0 Violating the conditions attached to exile could lead to a heavier sentence. Roman legal texts preserve an escalating system in which temporary relegation could become permanent, while somebody who escaped from island relegation could be deported and a deportee who defied the sentence could face still more serious punishment. These provisions allowed Roman authorities to impose considerable restrictions without placing every exile inside a prison building. Geographic limits, designated residences, military escorts, guards and the possibility of an increased penalty could create several levels of confinement. The legal label nevertheless did not determine every part of an exile’s existence. Two people sentenced to forms of banishment might experience very different degrees of freedom, wealth and surveillance. Much depended on the destination, the offence, social rank, available resources and, particularly in politically sensitive cases, whether the emperor continued to regard the person as dangerous. ### Why Islands Became Places of Exile Imperial exile became strongly associated with islands including Pandateria, Planasia, Pontia, Gyaros, Seriphos, Amorgos, Andros, Sardinia and Corsica. They were not a uniform network of barren prison colonies. Some were inhabited and productive, while wealthy exiles could sometimes maintain reasonably comfortable households. What an island offered Roman authority was a clearly bounded place from which a politically or legally undesirable person could be separated from the capital and, where necessary, more easily watched. One of the most detailed surviving descriptions of the process concerns Avillius Flaccus, the former prefect of Egypt. After his fall under [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-caligula-mad-or-just-sick/), Flaccus lost his property and was condemned to banishment. Philo describes him as initially destined for Gyaros before the intervention of Lepidus allowed Andros to be substituted. He then records Flaccus’ journey under guard and the spectacle created as the disgraced former governor passed through places that had once seen him in prosperity. Philo was profoundly hostile to Flaccus because of his actions against the Jews of Alexandria, and his presentation of the former governor’s suffering is openly moralizing. When Andros finally appeared, Philo has Flaccus lament the reversal of his fortunes: > “What shall I say of this little islet? Shall I call it my place of banishment, or my new country, or harbour and refuge of misery?” He goes on to call the island a tomb and compares his existence there to attending his own [funeral](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/). The speech belongs to Philo’s literary presentation of Flaccus, but the account of what followed is particularly concrete. Once the vessel reached Andros, the inhabitants were assembled and Flaccus was exhibited before them so that they could witness the arrival of the exile. Only after the escort had completed this duty did the men who had brought him there depart. Members of the imperial family could experience much tighter control. Pandateria acquired particularly strong associations with dynastic punishment because Julia, Agrippina the Elder and later Octavia were all sent there. Under Tiberius, [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) describes Agrippina being physically mistreated and force-fed after she attempted to starve herself. Such circumstances bear little resemblance to those of a wealthy exile allowed to live comparatively freely elsewhere and should not be generalized to island exile as a whole. The same variation appears under [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-romes-most-infamous-ruler-part-1/). His wife Octavia was first removed from the imperial household and sent to Campania under military supervision. Her removal provoked demonstrations in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) in which crowds expressed support for her and hostility toward Poppaea. ![Alexander Rudolf Grünenwald – Nero rejects Octavia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Nero-rejects-octavia--1--1.jpg) Alexander Rudolf Grünenwald – Nero rejects Octavia. Public domain. After a new accusation of adultery was constructed with the assistance of the freedman Anicetus, Octavia was sent to Pandateria and killed. Anicetus himself was also sent away, but his fate was remarkably different: Tacitus says that he lived comfortably in Sardinia and eventually died naturally. The two cases occurred within the same political episode, yet island exile meant something entirely different for each person. For Anicetus it meant removal accompanied by material comfort. For Octavia it became part of a progression from separation and military supervision to confinement and death. Islands gave the authorities geography that could be used for control, but geography alone did not determine how harsh the punishment became. ### Money, Family and the Life of an Exile The surviving record is heavily weighted toward members of the elite because senators, imperial relatives, writers and officials were the exiles most likely to be named by ancient authors. Their circumstances cannot simply be extended to [poorer inhabitants of the Roman world](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/). Among those [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) cases, however, banishment clearly did not always mean destitution. Cicero possessed money and influential friends, Ovid retained his property, and [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/) belonged to a prosperous family and spent years on Corsica without evidence that he was reduced to poverty. Seneca confronted the subject directly in the Consolation to Helvia, composed during his own exile. Rather than denying the things normally associated with banishment, he named them before attempting to argue against their power: > “Let us consider what is meant by exile: clearly a changing from one place to another. … this changing of place is accompanied by poverty, disgrace, and contempt.” He then says that he will confront those burdens separately while first considering what is unpleasant about changing one’s place of residence. He points to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-cities-rome-punished-what-happened-when-communities-defied-the-republic/) itself, whose enormous population included people who had left their original homes for ambition, public office, education, friendship and other reasons. His purpose was philosophical rather than documentary: he did not deny that banishment involved loss, but tried to demonstrate that those losses need not destroy the person enduring them. Material comfort therefore did not make exile meaningless for an elite Roman. Political and social status depended heavily on proximity: family, friendship, patronage, reputation, public participation and access to powerful people were concentrated in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/). A man might continue to own property and employ servants while losing the social environment in which his rank had meaning. Cicero’s correspondence, Ovid’s appeals and Seneca’s exile writings all reveal continuing attempts to maintain connections with the capital rather than accepting complete separation from [Roman life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/). Families consequently faced difficult choices. Some spouses followed their partners into banishment. Fannia accompanied Helvidius Priscus during his exiles and later suffered exile herself, while other wives followed husbands expelled during imperial prosecutions. Yet remaining in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/some-of-rome-worst-rulers-nobody-talks-about/) could sometimes be more useful. A relative who stayed behind could safeguard family interests, communicate with influential friends and work for restoration in a way that somebody sharing a distant exile could not. ![Richard Wilson-Cicero and his two Friends, Atticus and Quintus, at his Villa at Arpinum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/cicero-atticus-quintus-1.jpg) Richard Wilson-Cicero and his two Friends, Atticus and Quintus, at his Villa at Arpinum. Public domain. Ovid’s wife remained important to him partly because she was still in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/mistress-of-rome-servilia-caesar-and-the-politics-of-passion/), while Cicero depended heavily on Atticus and other allies who could operate within the political world from which he had been removed. The separation of families was therefore not only an emotional consequence of exile. In some cases, maintaining someone in Rome was part of the only strategy available for bringing the exile home. ### When Exile Did Not Make Someone Safe Banishment could remove a prominent person from Roman politics without eliminating an emperor’s fear of him. Several first-century cases show that men already living far from Rome could continue to be treated as potential rivals or threats, and some were eventually killed despite having obeyed the original order to leave. Rubellius Plautus had already been compelled to live away from Rome when [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/)’s suspicions of him intensified. Tacitus records that armed men were eventually sent to kill him. The cases of Cassius Longinus and Lucius Junius Silanus provide an even clearer comparison because both were condemned to exile under the same emperor but met very different fates. Cassius was deported to Sardinia and survived long enough eventually to return. Silanus was nominally destined for Naxos, was detained at Barium in southern Italy and was ultimately killed by a centurion. Octavia’s fate followed a similar progression from removal to increasingly restrictive control. Her banishment to Campania involved military supervision, and her later transfer to Pandateria was followed by execution. Agrippa Postumus had likewise lived under guard on Planasia before being killed shortly after Augustus died. In politically sensitive cases such as these, exile could become something approaching custodial confinement without every form of Roman banishment being equivalent to imprisonment. This was not the normal conclusion of every imperial exile. Ancient narratives, particularly those concerning [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-caligula-really-declare-war-on-neptune/), preserve reports of extensive killings whose scale is difficult to establish, and rumours of imperial responsibility surrounded other deaths. Individual murders are securely attested, but many exiles lived for years away from Rome or died natural deaths abroad. During periods in which prominent Romans were being killed in the capital, an aristocrat in exile could sometimes be safer than somebody of similar rank who remained in Rome. That safety remained conditional. Flaccus eventually discovered this on Andros. Philo records that men arrived carrying orders for his death and encountered him while he was travelling from his farm toward the [city](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/). Realizing what was happening, Flaccus fled across the island. The same geography that had made Andros useful as a place of banishment also limited his options: beyond the land lay the surrounding sea. He was overtaken and killed. ![ Statue of Roman poet Ovid in Constanţa (ancient Tomis, the city where he was exiled).](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Ovids-statue-at-Tomis--1--1.jpg) Statue of Roman poet Ovid in Constanţa (ancient Tomis, the city where he was exiled). Public domain. An exile could therefore be outside Rome without being outside Roman power. Distance might initially spare someone from a harsher sentence or remove him from immediate political conflict, but it did not necessarily prevent the emperor from acting again if circumstances changed. ### Recall, Return and the Politics of a New Reign Exile did not always end with death abroad. Recall remained possible, and changes of ruler repeatedly transformed the prospects of people who had been sent away. Caligula recalled people banished under Tiberius. [Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/) restored several who had suffered under Caligula, including members of his own family. Seneca returned from Corsica in 49 CE through the influence of [Agrippina the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/agrippina-the-younger-the-first-empress-of-rome-in-a-male-dominant-society/) and was soon entrusted with the education of the future emperor [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-rome-most-infamous-ruler-part-2/). The pattern continued after Nero. The upheavals of 68–69 CE and the establishment of the Flavian regime allowed further exiles to return, while [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/)’s death was followed by restorations under [Nerva](https://romanempiretimes.com/nerva-the-first-of-the-good-roman-emperors/) and [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/). A new ruler could recall people punished by his predecessor and thereby mark a break with earlier policies. The surviving record consequently contains repeated episodes of restoration accompanying changes of regime. The death of an emperor did not automatically erase every sentence. Some people attempted to return without formal authorization during political transitions and were ordered back. Recall remained an official act rather than a right acquired simply because the ruler responsible for the original punishment had died. This uncertainty helps explain the importance of communication. Cicero followed negotiations over his restoration closely and depended on friends working in Rome. Ovid continued sending appeals and seeking either recall or a more tolerable destination until the end of his life. Seneca maintained connections with the imperial environment during his years on Corsica. Removal from Rome could weaken a person’s influence without completely severing the networks upon which eventual restoration depended. By the early [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/), Roman rulers possessed means of controlling banishment very different from the Republican refuge Cicero had described in *Pro Caecina*. They could decide not only that somebody must leave but where that person would live, how closely the individual would be watched, which rights and possessions survived the sentence and whether return would ever be allowed. Yet the older and newer forms continued to overlap, and no single experience can represent Roman exile as a whole. ![Franciabigio. The triumph of Cicero, after returning form exile](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Triumph-of-Cicero--1--1.jpg) Franciabigio. The triumph of Cicero, after returning form exile. Public domain. Ovid retained his citizenship at Tomis, while a deportee could lose citizenship altogether. A member of the imperial family might live under armed supervision, while another exile could enjoy substantial wealth and freedom within the limits imposed upon him. Some people returned when political power changed hands; others spent decades waiting for permission that never came. A few were killed after years of banishment because the political danger attributed to them had survived their physical removal. What united these very different experiences was separation from the place where Roman citizenship, family connections, reputation and political influence were most powerfully exercised. For some, that separation lasted until allies or a new emperor secured their return. For others it became permanent. And for those whose rulers continued to fear them, even an island far from Rome did not necessarily place them beyond the reach of Roman power. 💡 ****Sources used:** Gordon P. Kelly, A History of Exile in the Roman Republic. Cambridge University Press, 2006. Neil Raj Singh-Masuda, Exilium Romanum: Exile, Politics and Personal Experience from 58 BC to AD 68\. PhD thesis, University of Warwick, 1996. Mary V. Braginton, “Exile under the Roman Emperors,” The Classical Journal 39, no. 7 (1944), 391–407. Fergus J. King, “Exiles, Not Enemies: Petrine Self-Determination in the Face of Empire,” Religions 15 (2024), 1370. Cicero, Pro Caecina, trans. H. G. Hodge; Letters to Atticus, Book III, trans. E. O. Winstedt. Ovid, Tristia and Epistulae ex Ponto, trans. A. L. Wheeler. Seneca, Consolation to Helvia, trans. Aubrey Stewart; Consolation to Polybius. Tacitus, Annals and Histories. Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars. Cassius Dio, Roman History. Philo of Alexandria, Against Flaccus, trans. C. D. Yonge. Digest 48.19 and 48.22. ### Diodorus Siculus: The Historian Who Tried to Write the History of the World URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/diodorus-siculus-the-historian-who-tried-to-write-the-history-of-the-world/ Last updated: 2026-08-16T19:15:25.000Z During the first century BCE, Diodorus Siculus undertook one of the largest historical projects attempted in antiquity. His *Bibliotheca Historica*, or Library of History, sought to bring the past of the inhabited world into one continuous work, beginning with traditions about gods, heroes and the origins of civilisation and continuing through kingdoms, wars and political changes close to his own lifetime. The *Bibliotheca* originally consisted of 40 books. Books I–V and XI–XX survive substantially complete. Books VI–X and XXI–XL survive through fragments, excerpts, summaries and references preserved by later writers. Although much of the original work has disappeared, the surviving material preserves evidence that is unavailable, or survives only in much shorter form, in the other extant literary narratives. Diodorus relied heavily on earlier histories. Some of his principal authorities are known by name, while others can only be inferred from comparison, subject matter or similarities with surviving fragments. Many of those earlier works have since disappeared, leaving the *Bibliotheca* as the surviving route through which parts of their material can still be studied. For generations, Diodorus’ dependence on earlier writers encouraged the view that he was little more than a compiler who shortened the work of more original historians. The surviving evidence presents a more complicated method. He selected material, condensed long narratives, preserved conflicting traditions, reorganised information within a universal chronology and used cross-references to connect subjects treated in different books. The result was not always consistent. The *Bibliotheca* contains chronological difficulties, inherited errors, doubtful traditions and exaggerated figures. The fragmentary [books](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-burned-books/) create further problems because later excerptors and summarists selected, shortened and rearranged what they preserved. Yet the work remains indispensable for several periods, particularly in the history of Sicily, the wars among [Alexander the Great’](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/alexander-the-great/)s successors, the Sicilian slave revolts and the political and military conflicts of the late Roman Republic. ### A Sicilian Historian in Egypt and Rome Almost everything known about Diodorus’ life comes from the *Bibliotheca* itself. Apart from a brief notice in Jerome’s Chronicle, antiquity preserves no independent biography. Diodorus identifies Agyrium, a city in the interior of Sicily, as his birthplace. Nothing secure is known about his family, education or early career. ![Panorama of Agira. The Romans called it Agyrium.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Panorama-of-Agira--1--1.jpg) Panorama of Agira. The Romans called it Agyrium. Credits: Davide Mauro, CC BY-SA 4.0 Sicily receives sustained attention throughout the work. Its [cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), rulers, wars and internal conflicts appear repeatedly, while Agyrium is given more space than its importance within a history of the entire inhabited world might otherwise suggest. His Sicilian background may have contributed to this interest, but the surviving evidence does not establish how much of the island’s history he investigated independently. Diodorus says that he travelled widely during the preparation of the *Bibliotheca*. His visit to Egypt can be placed around 60–59 BCE, during the reign of Ptolemy XII. The Egyptian section combines earlier written accounts, traditions attributed to priests, descriptions of monuments and customs and statements presented as personal observation. The sources do not establish the extent to which Diodorus personally consulted Egyptian written records. Information may have reached him through priests, local intermediaries, [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) accounts or a combination of these channels. Claims involving sacred books and priestly records therefore cannot automatically be treated as evidence that he read such documents directly. Diodorus also says that he spent considerable time in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-client-kings-how-the-empire-ruled-without-annexing/). He presents the city as a place where information from many regions had become accessible under Roman rule. He further claims that his contact with Romans in Sicily had given him wide acquaintance with their language. The length of his residence and the extent of his linguistic knowledge cannot be independently measured. In the preface, Diodorus presented the *Bibliotheca* as the result of prolonged work, travel and investigation: > “And so we, appreciating that an undertaking of this nature, while most useful, would yet require much labour and time, have been engaged upon it for thirty years, and with much hardship and many dangers we have visited a large portion of both Asia and Europe that we might see with our own eyes all the most important regions and as many others as possible; for many errors have been committed through ignorance of the sites, not only by the common run of historians, but even by some of the highest reputation.” He connected this work with the resources available in Rome: > “For the supremacy of this city, a supremacy so powerful that it extends to the bounds of the inhabited world, has provided us in the course of our long residence there with copious resources in the most accessible form.” These statements contribute to the image Diodorus presents of himself as a travelled and serious historian. They place him within a historiographical tradition in which travel, observation and access to records strengthened an author’s authority. Whether every part of this self-presentation reflects his actual working practice cannot be established, but the persona remains consistent with the organisation and declared purpose of the work. The chronology of composition is uncertain. Several cross-references promise a fuller treatment of Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul, but the corresponding narrative does not survive and may never have been included. These unfulfilled references may indicate that Diodorus changed the planned endpoint of the work during composition, although the process of revision cannot be reconstructed securely. ### Bringing the Past Into One Library Universal history existed before Diodorus, but the scale of his project was exceptional. Earlier historians had usually concentrated on a particular people, city, ruler or conflict. Even broader histories often excluded early mythology, neglected non-[Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) peoples or ended with Philip, [Alexander](https://romanempiretimes.com/empire-size-comparison-how-did-the-roman-empire-compare-to-alexanders-or-the-mongols/) or the rulers who divided Alexander’s conquests. ![British Library, Harley 4916. Incipit of Iacopo da San Cassiano's translation of Book XI of Diodorus Siculus's Bibliotheca Historica.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/biblioteca-historica-1.jpg) British Library, Harley 4916\. Incipit of Iacopo da San Cassiano's translation of Book XI of Diodorus Siculus's Bibliotheca Historica. Public domain. Diodorus treated the separation of historical knowledge across numerous works as a practical problem. Events involving different peoples had been recorded by different authors, arranged according to different chronological systems and preserved in books that readers might struggle to obtain. His solution was to place the history of the inhabited world within one connected narrative. In the preface, he compared the world to a single community: > “For if a man should begin with the most ancient times and record to the best of his ability the affairs of the entire world down to his own day, so far as they have been handed down to memory, as though they were the affairs of some single city, he would obviously have to undertake an immense labour, yet he would have composed a treatise of the utmost value to those who are studiously inclined.” The comparison expressed the principle behind universal history. Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks, Sicilians, Macedonians, Romans and other peoples could be placed within the same historical framework instead of appearing in separate and disconnected traditions. Diodorus also emphasised the usefulness of such a work: > “For from such a treatise every man will be able readily to take what is of use for his special purpose, drawing as it were from a great fountain.” The title Library of History suited a work intended to gather material scattered across numerous accounts. The Bibliotheca was not designed to reproduce every source in full. Its purpose was to select, organise and connect historical material so that readers could consult it without searching through many separate histories. The first six books dealt with events and traditions before the Trojan War. Since Diodorus did not consider a reliable chronology available for this earliest period, he arranged the material mainly by peoples and regions. The first three books concentrated largely on non-Greek communities, while the next three dealt mainly with Greek traditions. Books VII–XVII covered the period from the Trojan War to the death of Alexander. Books XVIII–XL continued through the struggles among Alexander’s successors and into the age of Roman expansion. Diodorus described this structure directly: > “Our first six Books embrace the events and legends previous to the Trojan War, the first three setting forth the antiquities of the barbarians, and the next three almost exclusively those of the Greeks; in the following eleven we have written a universal history of events from the Trojan War to the death of Alexander; and in the succeeding twenty-three Books we have given an orderly account of all subsequent events down to the beginning of the war between the Romans and the Celts, in the course of which the commander, Gaius Julius Caesar, who has been deified because of his deeds, subdued the most numerous and most warlike tribes of the Celts, and advanced the Roman Empire as far as the British Isles.” A project of this size required extensive compression. Diodorus could not give equal space to every ruler, battle, law and local tradition. Long dynastic sequences were sometimes reduced to short summaries, while events judged memorable or useful received greater attention. The arrangement of the books also shows an effort to guide readers through the material. Prefaces reviewed what had already been covered and announced the subject of the next section. Transitional passages moved the narrative between regions and periods. Internal references directed readers backward to earlier discussions or forward to subjects promised later. A systematic classification identified 95 cross-references in the surviving work. Seventy were judged definitely fulfilled, 15 probably fulfilled and ten probably not fulfilled. Comparisons with the limited parallel material that survives from earlier historians also show that Diodorus did not reproduce every cross-reference found in his sources. Some were omitted, while others appear to have been introduced for the structure of the *Bibliotheca* itself. The evidence does not show perfect planning. Some references remained unfulfilled, chronological difficulties persisted and parts of the work may have been revised without every earlier passage being corrected. It does, however, show that the *Bibliotheca* was organised across many books rather than formed from a succession of unrelated extracts. ### Beginning History Before Recorded Time Diodorus began his history before the Trojan War, in a period for which he believed no dependable common chronology existed. He therefore organised the earliest material mainly by peoples and regions rather than by years. ![ The title page of Bibliotheca historica by Diodorus Siculus published in 1559 in Basel.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/The-title-page-of-enBibliotheca-historicaby-Diodorus-Siculus-published-in-1559-in-Basel_png-1.jpg) The title page of Bibliotheca historicaby Diodorus Siculus published in 1559 in Basel. Public domain. These books included traditions about gods, heroes, founders and the origins of institutions. Diodorus treated such accounts differently from later political history. Much of the material is introduced through phrases equivalent to “they say” or “they report,” marking it as received tradition rather than as directly verified history. The inclusion of mythology allowed him to begin with ancient explanations for the origins of agriculture, law, cities, religious practices and political organisation. It also enabled him to connect the earliest traditions of different peoples with the later chronological history of kingdoms and states. Diodorus did not always attempt to reconcile conflicting versions. In several places he preserved alternative traditions or attributed them to particular peoples and authorities. The result was not a single consistent mythology, but an account of what different communities believed about their earliest past. ### The Historian’s Changing Voice The narrative voice of the Bibliotheca changes according to the type of material being presented. These differences do not require the presence of several unrelated narrators. They form different registers within one historical project. The Egyptian mythological narrative is largely presented as secondhand information. Repeated references to what others say distance the narrator from both the stories and some of their interpretations. Diodorus takes responsibility for selecting and organising the material without claiming direct authority over every tradition. Geographical and ethnographic sections often employ a more confident register. Earlier writers may be criticised, travel and local inquiry are given authority and the narrator explains why one report appears more credible than another. Chronological political and military history can appear less intrusive. Events are arranged by years, rulers and magistracies, while direct intervention is often limited to transitions, summaries and brief explanations. This apparent neutrality does not remove evaluation from the narrative. Descriptive words guide the reader’s response to people and actions. Conduct can be identified as cruel, unlawful, courageous or unjust without a separate moral essay. At other points, Diodorus addresses the moral purpose of history directly. In the preface, he writes that > “history alone, since in it word and fact are in perfect agreement, embraces in its narration all the other qualities as well that are useful; for it is ever to be seen urging men to justice, denouncing those who are evil, lauding the good, laying up, in a word, for its readers a mighty store of experience.” History therefore served both as a record of events and as a form of instruction. Good and bad conduct could be judged through their consequences, while the memory of earlier events provided readers with examples applicable to political and private life. This moral purpose does not appear in the same form in every book. Some passages contain extended reflections, while others communicate judgment through selection, vocabulary or the arrangement of events. Diodorus also supplies motives such as [fear](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-elderly-in-ancient-rome-voices-of-respect-and-fear/), anger, hope, ambition and confidence. These motives are usually historical reconstructions rather than recorded private statements, but they connect actions and consequences within the narrative. The different registers correspond broadly to the demands of the material. Received mythology is treated cautiously, geographical inquiry more assertively, chronological narrative more quietly and moral interpretation more openly. The variation supports the presence of an organising narrator who remains visible even when earlier sources provide much of the information. ### How the Library Survived in Pieces The Bibliotheca did not survive through one continuous manuscript tradition. Books I–V and XI–XX remain substantially complete, while the other books reached modern readers in fragmentary forms. Some passages were preserved in Byzantine collections organised according to subjects such as virtues, vices, embassies and notable sayings. Others survive through epitomes, summaries or references made by later authors. These different forms of preservation do not carry the same evidential value. A thematic excerpt removes a passage from its original chronological setting. An epitomator may shorten several events, omit explanations or alter the balance of the narrative. A later writer may cite Diodorus as an authority while combining his material with information taken from other works. A fragment should therefore not automatically be treated as an exact piece of the lost original. Some passages may preserve wording closely. Others transmit only the substance of an account. The name of Diodorus may be used to support a later writer’s argument without proving that every detail came from him. The story of the bull of Phalaris demonstrates the problem. A later Byzantine account names Diodorus among its authorities, but comparison with more securely transmitted material shows that the passage cannot safely be treated as an independent fragment preserving his exact wording or interpretation. ![The Brazen Bull of Phalarus Engraving.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/The-Brazen-Bull-of-Phalarus--1--1.jpg) The Brazen Bull of Phalarus. Engraving. Public domain. Once uncertain material was included in collections of Diodoran fragments, it could be used to reconstruct his vocabulary, style and historical opinions. The attribution could then become accepted even when the path of transmission remained doubtful. Contradictions in the fragmentary books may also have several possible origins. They could have existed in Diodorus’ composition, come from conflicting earlier sources or been introduced by later abbreviation and rearrangement. The surviving evidence often cannot determine which stage produced the inconsistency. The fragmentary books must therefore be studied through both their historical content and the methods by which later writers preserved them. ### Where Other Histories Disappear Diodorus’ importance varies according to the survival of other sources. Where substantial contemporary narratives exist, the Bibliotheca can supplement, compare or reorganise their evidence. Where those narratives have disappeared, Diodorus may become the principal surviving literary account. Sicilian history is one of the clearest examples. The *Bibliotheca* preserves material on the island’s cities, rulers, conflicts with [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spartan-who-saved-carthage-and-broke-a-roman-invasion/), political changes and later revolts. Diodorus’ Sicilian origin does not make these accounts automatically reliable or firsthand. Their value lies in the preservation of earlier historical traditions that no longer survive independently. The period following the death of Alexander provides another major example. Book XVII covers Alexander’s reign, while Books XVIII–XX form the chief surviving connected literary narrative for the conflicts among his successors from 323 to 302 BCE. Other evidence survives through inscriptions, papyri, coins and Near Eastern records. These sources add information and sometimes correct or complicate the literary narrative, but they do not replace the continuous sequence preserved in the *Bibliotheca*. The distribution of provinces after Alexander’s death, the regency, the campaigns of Eumenes and the competition involving Antigonus, Ptolemy, Seleucus and other rulers can be followed through Diodorus because he incorporated material from an earlier historical tradition that has otherwise disappeared. The fragmentary later books are also important for the two Sicilian slave revolts of the second century BCE. They preserve one of the principal literary traditions for these uprisings, although the material reached modern readers through later excerptors rather than as a continuous Diodoran text. The wording, sequence and original context of these passages must therefore be treated cautiously. Their value lies in preserving an extensive ancient account where no comparable continuous narrative survives. The later books also contained material on the political and social conflicts of the late Roman Republic. A major portion of Book XXXVII dealt with the [Social War](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-social-war-why-rome-italian-allies-took-up-arms/) of 91–88 BCE between [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-client-kings-how-the-empire-ruled-without-annexing/) and many of its Italian allies. The surviving ancient sources commonly connect the outbreak with demands involving citizenship and liberty, but the underlying causes and the objectives of the insurgents remain debated. Several works written by participants or near-contemporaries have disappeared. Sisenna’s history survives only in small fragments. [Lucullus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-unknown-lucullus-far-more-than-just-lucullan-meals/) wrote a history of the conflict in Greek, but it has been lost. [Sulla](https://romanempiretimes.com/sulla-rome-reluctant-tyrant/)’s autobiography is known only indirectly. [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) devoted six books to the war, but they survive mainly through short summaries. Diodorus’ account has also been lost as a continuous text. Fragments of Book XXXVII survive in four collections compiled under Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, while a longer summary attributed to Diodorus survives through Photius. The sequence of the fragments is often conjectural, and the Constantinian excerpts do not always agree with the Photian summary. It is also uncertain how much of the original account reflected earlier writers and how much resulted from Diodorus’ own selection and organisation. Despite these difficulties, the remains of Book XXXVII constitute one of the most detailed literary sources for the Social War. They preserve material concerning the Italian allies, political conflict, military operations and Roman responses that would otherwise be much harder to reconstruct. The value of the later books does not depend on treating Diodorus as an eyewitness or assuming that every detail is correct. Their importance comes from the survival of material drawn from historical traditions whose original works have disappeared. Diodorus did not preserve the ancient past intact. The *Bibliotheca* contains uncertain traditions, inherited mistakes, chronological problems and material of unequal quality. Much of the work was then reduced further through manuscript loss, excerpting and summary. Yet the project fulfilled much of the purpose stated in its preface. It gathered events that had been dispersed among many writers and placed the histories of different peoples within one connected structure. As the earlier works used by Diodorus disappeared, the Bibliotheca became increasingly important. Entire periods remain visible because material from those historical traditions survived within one Sicilian historian’s attempt to write the history of the world. 💡 ****Sources used**: Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Volume I, Books I–II.34, translated by C. H. Oldfather. Catherine Rubincam, “Did Diodorus Siculus Take Over Cross-References from His Sources?” Catherine Rubincam, “New and Old Approaches to Diodorus.” Lisa Irene Hau, “Narrator and Narratorial Persona in Diodorus Siculus.” Liv Mariah Yarrow, “How to Read a Diodoros Fragment.” Iris Sulimani, Diodorus’ Mythistory and the Pagan Mission: Historiography and Culture-Heroes in the First Pentad of the Bibliotheke. Christopher J. Dart, The Social War, 91 to 88 BCE: A History of the Italian Insurgency Against the Roman Republic. ### The Social War: Why Rome’s Italian Allies Took Up Arms URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-social-war-why-rome-italian-allies-took-up-arms/ Last updated: 2026-08-16T19:15:19.000Z For generations, Rome’s Italian allies supplied troops for campaigns throughout the Mediterranean. Their contingents fought beside Roman legions in Italy, Spain, North Africa, Greece and Asia. These communities helped provide the manpower through which Rome defeated its major rivals and extended its power overseas, but they remained outside the Roman citizen body and had no direct share in the political decisions made at Rome. The relationship was not identical throughout Italy. Some communities possessed Latin rights, others held treaties negotiated under different circumstances, and many retained their own laws, magistrates and local citizenship. Their common obligation was military service in wars declared and directed by [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/). By the beginning of the first century BCE, the difference between their contribution to Roman power and their position within the Roman system had become a source of repeated political conflict. The war that began in 91 BCE is commonly called the Social War, from the Latin *socii*, meaning allies. Its principal campaigns were fought in 90 and 89 BCE, although resistance continued into 88 and became connected with the civil conflicts that followed. The surviving sources associate the revolt with citizenship, political equality, liberty and resistance to Roman domination. Those references do not produce one consistent account, and the same ancient passages have led modern historians to different reconstructions of what the insurgents intended. ### Allies in Rome’s Armies, but Not Roman Citizens [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-client-kings-how-the-empire-ruled-without-annexing/)’s domination of Italy rested on a network of alliances rather than the uniform government of the peninsula as a single territory. Allied communities generally remained responsible for their internal affairs, but their treaties placed military manpower at [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-in-the-empire-last-act-the-western-court-from-455-to-476/)’s disposal. They were required to provide contingents in accordance with arrangements controlled by [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/), while the policies for which those troops were used were decided by Roman authorities. Allied contingents could equal or exceed the number of Roman citizens serving in [Roman armies](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/). The system gave [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) access to a much larger reserve of manpower than its citizen body alone could have provided. It also meant that communities without a formal share in Roman political decisions carried a substantial part of the military burden created by Roman expansion. Military service did not by itself produce one Italian political programme. Christopher Dart treats the army as one setting in which close cooperation with [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) and the inequalities of allied status existed side by side. Seth Kendall similarly places military obligations among several grievances that made citizenship attractive, including the treatment of allied soldiers and the inability of allied communities to influence decisions made by Roman authorities. Velleius Paterculus presented the allies’ military contribution and demand for citizenship together. His account also preserves the ancient tradition that [Drusus](https://romanempiretimes.com/drusus-the-elder-rome-most-successful-germanic-commander/)’ death released tensions that had existed for some time: > “The long smouldering fires of an Italian war were now fanned into flame by the death of Drusus. One hundred and twenty years ago, in the consulship of Lucius Caesar and Publius Rutilius, all Italy took up arms against the Romans. The rebellion began with the people of Asculum, who had put to death the praetor Servilius and Fonteius, his deputy; it was then taken up by the Marsi, and from them it made its way into all the districts of Italy. > > The fortune of the Italians was as cruel as their cause was just; for they were seeking citizenship in the state whose power they were defending by their arms; every year and in every war they were furnishing a double number of men, both of cavalry and of infantry, and yet were not admitted to the rights of citizens in the state which, through their efforts, had reached so high a position that it could look down upon men of the same race and blood as foreigners and aliens. This war carried off more than three hundred thousand of the youth of Italy.”— Velleius Paterculus, Roman History 2.15, translated by Frederick W. Shipley. Velleius’ statement that “all Italy” took up arms cannot be read literally, since many communities remained loyal. His claim that the allies furnished double the Roman manpower and his total of more than 300,000 deaths are also ancient estimates rather than independently verified figures. ![Velleius Paterculus. Historia Romana](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Caii-Velleii-Patercvli-Historia-Romana-1.jpg) Velleius Paterculus. Historia Romana. Public domain The passage is nevertheless important evidence for the tradition that connected the allies’ military contribution with their exclusion from citizenship and remembered the war as exceptionally destructive. P. A. Brunt regarded citizenship as a demand for parity of rights, not simply a change in legal title. For him, the allies sought the vote, eligibility for Roman office and a share in the government of the empire they had helped create. Henrik Mouritsen challenges the assumption that this desire had become general throughout Italy before the war. He argues that later writers knew the eventual outcome—the incorporation of the peninsula into the Roman citizen body—and may have explained the earlier revolt through the settlement that followed it. ### Earlier Attempts to Change the Allies’ Status The position of the allies had entered Roman politics decades before the outbreak of war. In 125 BCE, the consul Marcus Fulvius Flaccus proposed legislation concerning Italian citizenship. The precise terms are uncertain. The surviving tradition associates it with a grant of citizenship and also refers to a right of appeal for those who did not accept the offer, but the scope and relationship of these provisions remain disputed. The proposal failed. Soon afterwards, the Latin colony of Fregellae revolted against [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-burned-books/) and was captured by a Roman army. The city was destroyed, demonstrating the danger faced by an individual community that challenged [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-went-dark-life-after-sunset-in-the-ancient-city/) without wider support. [Gaius Gracchus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-gracchi-brothers-visionaries-or-socialist-revolutionaries/) later returned to the status of the Latins and other allies. His proposals also encountered strong resistance. Roman citizens could regard the admission of large numbers of Italians as a threat to their political privileges and to benefits attached to citizenship. Land disputes added another source of conflict. Italians occupied Roman public land in several parts of the peninsula, sometimes under arrangements that had existed for generations. Agrarian legislation passed at [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) could subject that land to surveys, litigation and redistribution. Those affected by the decisions did not possess a vote on the legislation that authorised them. Brunt treats the controversies surrounding Flaccus, Fregellae, Gaius Gracchus and the agrarian laws as stages in the development of a wider demand for equality. He does not argue that all Italians already wanted citizenship in 125 BCE, but that the proposal had introduced an idea that became more powerful over time. Mouritsen questions this linear reconstruction. He argues that the surviving evidence does not securely establish one continuous Italian citizenship movement extending from 125 to 91 BCE. Earlier proposals may have concerned the Latins more directly, and the interests of communities with different legal statuses should not automatically be combined into a single programme. He also rejects the assumption that cultural assimilation had made all allied peoples willing to abandon their own citizenship in favour of [Roman status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/). The communities that later revolted differed considerably in language, institutions and exposure to Roman culture. The evidence therefore preserves several political disputes involving citizenship, land and allied status, but does not provide a complete account of how opinion developed within each Italian community. The relationship among those disputes has to be reconstructed from later and fragmentary sources. ### Drusus, Poppaedius Silo and the Approach of War Marcus Livius Drusus became tribune of the [plebs](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/) in 91 BCE. His legislative programme addressed the [courts](https://romanempiretimes.com/courtroom-drama-in-ancient-rome-when-trials-became-theater/), public land, colonies and grain distributions. At some stage, he also became associated with a proposal to extend Roman citizenship to the allies. The sources do not establish whether citizenship formed part of his plans from the beginning or was introduced later as his political position deteriorated. They do show that influential Italian leaders expected him to act on their behalf. ![Image by John Leech, from: The Comic History of Rome by Gilbert Abbott A Beckett. Bradbury, Evans & Co, London, 1850s Drusus is Stabbed, end Expires gracefully](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Comic-History-of-Rome-p-254-Drusus-is-Stabbed-and-Expires-gracefully--1--1.jpg) Image by John Leech, from: The Comic History of Rome by Gilbert Abbott A Beckett. Bradbury, Evans & Co, London, 1850s Drusus is Stabbed, end Expires gracefully. Public domain. The most prominent was Quintus Poppaedius Silo, a Marsian who later became one of the principal insurgent commanders. [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/) places him in the household of Drusus and explicitly connects him with the demand for citizenship: > “While Cato was still a boy, the Italian allies of the Romans were making efforts to obtain Roman citizenship. One of their number, Pompaedius Silo, a man of experience in war and of the highest position, was a friend of Drusus, and lodged at his house for several days. > > During this time he became familiar with the children, and said to them once: ‘Come, beg your uncle to help us in our struggle for citizenship.’ Caepio, accordingly, consented with a smile, but Cato made no reply and gazed fixedly and fiercely upon the strangers.”— Plutarch, Life of Cato the Younger 2.1–2, translated by Bernadotte Perrin Plutarch wrote long after the event, and the anecdote serves primarily to illustrate the character of the [young Cato](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-younger-the-last-roman-of-the-republic/). It nevertheless preserves a tradition in which Silo, one of the future leaders of the revolt, described the Italian cause as a struggle for citizenship. Diodorus preserves another account in which Silo advanced towards [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-cities-rome-punished-what-happened-when-communities-defied-the-republic/) with approximately 10,000 armed followers before being persuaded to pursue the Italian request peacefully. The dating and details remain disputed, but Brunt regards the episode as evidence that armed pressure was contemplated before open hostilities began. Dart argues that preparations for a revolt must already have been under way while Drusus was alive. The coordination of several peoples, the exchange of [hostages](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-hostage-system/), the accumulation of supplies and the appointment of commanders could not have been arranged only after his death. [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/)’s surviving summary also places Italian meetings and a conspiracy before the tribune was killed. Kendall reconstructs Drusus as the final opportunity to secure citizenship without [war](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-well-full-of-war-skeletons-in-croatia-may-be-victims-of-romes-forgotten-battle/). He proposes that Silo may have persuaded the allies to delay action while Drusus’ programme remained possible and that the failure of the legislation and Drusus’ death then allowed the planned withdrawal from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/) to proceed. The surviving sources do not state this sequence in full. Mouritsen agrees that the revolt required preparation but disputes the citizenship-centred explanation. He argues that [Appian](https://romanempiretimes.com/appian-of-alexandria-the-greek-historian-who-explained-romes-empire/) arranged the conspiracy, prosecutions and war in a sequence that made the failure of Drusus’ citizenship proposal appear more directly responsible for the uprising than the chronology permits. Drusus’ legislation was annulled, and he was stabbed at his home before the end of his tribunate. His killer was never securely identified. His death removed the Roman politician most closely associated with the allied request for citizenship, but the organisation behind the revolt was already developing. ### Asculum and the Formation of Italia The first mass killing occurred at Asculum in Picenum late in 91 BCE. A Roman official, usually identified as the praetor Quintus Servilius, learned of Italian preparations and confronted a public gathering. The ancient accounts differ over the circumstances. Appian presents Servilius as discovering a conspiracy and addressing the inhabitants threateningly. Diodorus places greater emphasis on his conduct and the anger of the crowd. Servilius and his legate Fonteius were killed, followed by the other Romans present in the town. ![A possible representation of a tense confrontation at Asculum in 91 BCE, where a Roman official’s attempt to address a public gathering helped trigger the killings that marked the opening of the Social War.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Asculum-in-91-BCE-confrontation-1.jpg) A possible representation of a tense confrontation at Asculum in 91 BCE, where a Roman official’s attempt to address a public gathering helped trigger the killings that marked the opening of the Social War. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT The killings altered the position of those already involved in the preparations. Rome could not ignore the murder of its officials and citizens, while the implicated communities could expect prosecution and military punishment if they submitted without terms. Appian alone preserves an embassy sent to Rome after the massacre: > “They sent ambassadors to Rome to complain that although they had co-operated in all ways with the Romans in building up the empire, the latter had not been willing to admit their helpers to citizenship. The Senate answered sternly that if they repented of what they had done they could send ambassadors, otherwise not. The Italians, in despair of any other remedy, went on with their mobilization.”— Appian, Civil Wars 1.39, translated by Horace White Dart accepts this as evidence of a final attempt at negotiation. In his reconstruction, even the killings at Asculum were followed by an effort to reach terms, and the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/)’s refusal to discuss the Italian complaint unless the allies first submitted marked the final failure of that effort. Kendall is more cautious because no other surviving source confirms the embassy. The revolt spread among the *Marsi, Paeligni, Vestini, Marrucini, Picentes, Samnites, Frentani* and other peoples of central and southern Italy. It did not include the whole peninsula. Most Latin colonies remained loyal, and Etruria and Umbria did not initially join the insurgency. Individual communities could also be divided internally. Brunt points to cases in which local leaders supported [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-behind-rome-how-society-really-worked/) against members of their own [cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-cities-rome-punished-what-happened-when-communities-defied-the-republic/) or delivered towns to the insurgents against the wishes of other inhabitants. The insurgents established a common centre at Corfinium, a Paelignian town renamed Italia in Latin and Viteliú in Oscan. They gathered troops and supplies there, appointed commanders, maintained central political and military coordination, and issued silver coinage. [Strabo](https://romanempiretimes.com/strabo-mapping-the-world-of-rome/) brings together political rights, liberty, revolt and the new Italian centre in one passage: > “These tribes are small, it is true, but they are very brave and oftentimes have exhibited this virtue to the Romans: first, when they went to war against them; a second time, when they took the field with them as allies; and a third time when, begging for freedom and political rights without getting them, they revolted and kindled what is called the Marsic War, for they proclaimed Corfinium (the metropolis of the Peligni) the common city for all the Italiotes, instead of Rome, making it their base of operations for the war and changing its name to Italica; and here it was that they mustered all their followers and elected consuls and praetors.” — Strabo, Geography 5.4.2, translated by H. L. Jones Diodorus describes a body of 500 councillors, two senior commanders and twelve subordinate commanders. The existence of central political and military coordination is clear, but the precise size, membership and constitutional powers of these bodies depend largely on later literary descriptions. Dart warns that the [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) and Roman terminology used by later writers may make the insurgent organisation appear more exactly modelled on Rome than the evidence proves. Kendall interprets Corfinium primarily as a directory and military centre needed to coordinate armies, supplies and diplomacy. He argues that the sources do not securely establish a full Roman-style senate or popular voting assembly. Brunt gives the arrangement greater political significance. He argues that the allies had sought equality and political unity within a system centred on Rome. After Rome rejected them, they established Italia as an alternative framework for political unity and equality outside Rome. Mouritsen treats the common city and its institutions as evidence of a more direct challenge to Roman supremacy. For him, the creation of Italia is difficult to reconcile with a war fought merely to obtain ordinary admission into the existing Roman state. ### The Same Evidence, Different Reconstructions The disagreement among modern historians is not caused simply by the absence of evidence. Several ancient sources contain language that appears to support more than one interpretation. Appian, Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch and parts of the Livian tradition connect the Italians with citizenship. Diodorus preserves references both to the longed-for citizenship and to freedom, Italian power and revolt against Roman domination. Strabo combines “freedom and political rights” in the same sentence and then describes the creation of a common Italian city in place of Rome. ![Statue of Strabo in Amasia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Statue-of-Strabo-in-Amasia--1--1.jpg) Statue of Strabo in Amasia. Credits: Erturac, CC BY-SA 3.0 Brunt interprets the evidence as showing that the allies sought citizenship with effective political rights. Once that demand was rejected, they established Italia as an alternative framework for political unity and equality outside Rome. Their creation of a separate centre did not mean that independence had always been their original objective. Mouritsen argues that the citizenship-centred account may have been shaped by the later incorporation of Italy. He gives greater weight to references to liberty, secession and the overthrow of Roman domination. His position is not simply that every insurgent held one clearly documented independence programme. His broader argument is that the traditional narrative has treated a later Roman settlement as though it revealed the original cause of the war. Kendall defends citizenship as the central and continuing issue. He argues that freedom from unequal Roman power could be achieved through admission to the citizen body and that references to liberty do not therefore exclude citizenship. He also treats the later political conduct of the new citizens as evidence that formal admission without full voting rights did not satisfy their aims. Dart adopts a more cautious reconstruction. The ancient sources repeatedly associate the pre-war movement with citizenship, but different peoples, communities and individuals may have supported the insurgency for different reasons. Their aims could also change as peaceful efforts failed and the military situation developed. The insurgent [coinage](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) cannot settle the disagreement. It provides the most important contemporary evidence produced by the insurgents themselves, but it also had the practical function of paying troops. The coins followed the Roman denarius standard and used forms familiar from Roman currency, making them suitable for payments and circulation during the war. Some issues carried the names Italia or Viteliú. Their designs included oath scenes, the personification of Italy, Victory and the Dioscuri. One well-known type showed an Italian bull attacking the Roman wolf. The imagery demonstrates collective identity and hostility towards Rome during the conflict, but it does not establish what every insurgent community had wanted before the war began. ### War Across Italy The fighting began in earnest in 90 BCE. Rome faced armies composed of men who had served within its own military system and knew Roman equipment, camp organisation and methods of campaigning. The war is often reconstructed through northern and southern theatres, although that division is a modern way of organising fragmentary accounts rather than proof of a fixed command structure from the beginning. In the north, fighting centred on Picenum, Asculum and the central Apennines. In the south, insurgent forces operated through Campania, Samnium, Apulia and Lucania. The insurgents achieved serious early successes. Roman armies were defeated, towns changed allegiance and the revolt threatened to spread. The consul Publius Rutilius Lupus was killed in 90 BCE, while other senior Roman officers also died. Pompeius Strabo suffered an early defeat and was placed under pressure around Firmum before recovering his position. In the south, Gaius Papius Mutilus led Samnite forces through Campania. Aesernia was besieged and captured, Nola joined the revolt, and communities were won through political agreement, internal betrayal or force. Rome distributed command among several experienced officers, including Gaius Marius, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Pompeius Strabo and members of the Julian family. The campaigns involved sieges, ambushes, raids and repeated engagements rather than one decisive [battle](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-battle-of-pharsalus-the-victory-that-changed-rome/). Roads, mountain passes and fortified towns determined the movement of armies. By 89 BCE, Rome had regained much of the initiative. Pompeius Strabo continued operations around Asculum, while Sulla campaigned successfully in Campania and Samnium. The consul Lucius Porcius Cato was killed, but many insurgent armies were losing commanders, territory and access to important routes. The decline did not occur uniformly, and Samnite and Lucanian resistance continued after many central Italian communities had been defeated or neutralised. ### Citizenship as Part of Rome’s War Strategy Rome combined military recovery with a change in citizenship policy. A citizenship measure conventionally identified as the *lex Julia* was passed in 90 BCE and applied principally to allied communities that had remained loyal. It helped prevent the spread of the revolt, particularly in Etruria and Umbria, while offering hostile communities the prospect of different treatment if they abandoned resistance. ![A Roman veteran presents proof of his status before an official, while wax tablets, a seal ring, a tied document and a bronze military diploma represent the different forms of evidence used to establish identity and citizenship.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/roman-veteran-presents-proof-of-identity-1.jpg) A Roman veteran presents proof of his status before an official, while wax tablets, a seal ring, a tied document and a bronze military diploma represent the different forms of evidence used to establish identity and citizenship. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Appian describes both the concession and its intended effects: > “The Senate also voted that those Italians who had adhered to their alliance should be admitted to citizenship, which was the one thing they all desired most. They sent this decree around among the Etruscans, who gladly accepted the citizenship. By this favour the Senate made the faithful more faithful, confirmed the wavering, and mollified their enemies by the hope of similar treatment.” — Appian, Civil Wars 1.49, translated by Horace White Velleius also presents citizenship as part of Rome’s recovery: > “Then little by little the strength of the Romans was recruited by admitting to the citizenship those who had not taken arms or had not been slow to lay them down again, and Pompeius, Sulla, and Marius restored the tottering power of the Roman people.” — Velleius Paterculus, Roman History 2.16.4, translated by Frederick W. Shipley These passages show that citizenship was used to preserve loyalty, encourage surrender and reduce support for the insurgency. They do not identify the precise law or administrative procedure by which every community entered the citizen body. The *lex Plautia Papiria* is often described as completing the enfranchisement of Italy, but [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)’s surviving account gives specific conditions: > “For by the law of Silvanus and Carbo, citizenship was given to all those who had been enrolled as citizens in any of the confederate cities, if at the time when the law was passed they had a residence in Italy, and if within sixty days they made a return of themselves to the praetor.” — Cicero, Pro Archia 4.7, translated by C. D. Yonge The [law](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) required enrolment in an allied community, residence in Italy and registration before a praetor within 60 days. Brunt, Mouritsen and Kendall interpret the provision as applying to a more restricted category than the entire former allied population. Dart allows that its formal reach may have been broader but stresses that access depended on the claimant’s ability to report before a Roman praetor within the prescribed period. Kendall goes further, arguing that the law could not practicably have been the mechanism for the mass enfranchisement of allied Italy. He points to the difficulty of moving a large population through a war-torn peninsula and processing claimants before a small number of praetors within two months. He proposes that an otherwise unnamed measure may have allowed Roman commanders or authorities to register surrendered communities collectively. He states explicitly that this is conjecture and that the law responsible cannot be identified from the surviving evidence. The settlement therefore cannot be reduced to the claim that the *lex Julia* enfranchised the loyalists and the *lex Plautia Papiria* enfranchised everyone else. The surviving evidence indicates several laws, individual grants and collective arrangements, but does not preserve one complete legislative account. ### Citizenship Without a Settled Political Position By 88 BCE, many of the principal insurgent centres had been captured or neutralised, while Samnite and Lucanian forces continued the struggle. The surviving evidence does not provide a complete record of the terms under which other communities ceased resistance or entered the citizen body. Admission to citizenship also left unresolved questions about registration and voting. New citizens had to be assigned to Roman tribes, and each tribe cast one collective vote regardless of the number of citizens enrolled in it. Concentrating the Italians in a limited number of voting units would therefore restrict their influence in the assemblies. Appian describes the creation of 10 new tribes for the Italians, but the meaning and reliability of this account remain disputed. It should be treated as Appian’s version rather than as an uncontested constitutional arrangement. The issue reappeared in 88 BCE, when the tribune Publius Sulpicius Rufus proposed distributing the new citizens across all 35 existing tribes. His legislation became connected with the contest between Marius and Sulla over the command against [Mithridates](https://romanempiretimes.com/mad-honey-warfare-how-king-mithridates-poisoned-pompeys-legions/). [Sulla](https://romanempiretimes.com/sulla-rome-reluctant-tyrant/)’s march on Rome then turned the political crisis into [civil war](https://romanempiretimes.com/for-rome-no-war-was-worse-than-civil-war/). Brunt treats the limitation of the Italians’ voting power as evidence that the struggle for effective citizenship continued after the main campaigns. Legal admission without a genuine share in political decision-making did not provide the equality he identifies as the central Italian demand. Mouritsen argues that the tribal dispute was also a Roman political conflict over the mobilisation of new voters. Since only a minority of citizens could travel to Rome and participate in assemblies, the issue should not automatically be treated as the collective priority of all former allies throughout the peninsula. Kendall places the new citizens’ political status within a longer struggle that continued through the conflicts involving Sulpicius, Marius, Cinna and Sulla. His reconstruction treats the Social War and the civil wars of the 80s BCE as connected stages in the effort to obtain, exercise and preserve the rights attached to citizenship. The principal campaigns were followed by the gradual admission of most allied communities into the Roman citizen body. The laws and administrative steps by which this occurred are only partly preserved, and disputes over registration, tribal enrolment and political influence continued into the civil conflicts of the 80s BCE. The ancient accounts connect the war with citizenship, liberty and resistance to Roman power, but they do not present the relationship among those aims in one consistent form. 💡 ****Sources used**: Christopher J. Dart, The Social War, 91 to 88 BCE: A History of the Italian Insurgency against the Roman Republic Seth Kendall, The Struggle for Roman Citizenship: Romans, Allies, and the Wars of 91–77 BCE Henrik Mouritsen, Italian Unification: A Study in Ancient and Modern Historiography P. A. Brunt, “Italian Aims at the Time of the Social War,” in The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays Appian, Civil Wars, translated by Horace White Velleius Paterculus, Roman History, translated by Frederick W. Shipley Plutarch, Life of Cato the Younger, translated by Bernadotte Perrin Strabo, Geography, translated by H. L. Jones Cicero, Pro Archia, translated by C. D. Yonge ### How Romans Proved Who They Were URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-proved-who-they-were/ Last updated: 2026-08-16T19:13:16.000Z The surviving evidence does not reveal a single document that every Roman was required to carry as proof of identity. Instead, names, family relationships, place of origin, legal status, census registrations, birth declarations, military diplomas, private tablets, seals, witnesses and official archives could all be used. The evidence required depended on what the person was attempting to establish. Roman authorities distinguished between citizens, Latins, peregrines, freedpeople and [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/), while individual communities maintained their own civic categories. [Status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/) affected taxation, [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/), inheritance, military service, access to public office and protection before the law. Identifying someone could therefore involve more than confirming a name. It could require proof of parentage, citizenship, freedom, membership of a particular community or entitlement to a legal privilege. ### A Name Was the Beginning In Roman literary and legal texts, identification normally begins with a name. A male Roman citizen might be designated by a *praenomen* and *nomen*, with a *cognomen* becoming increasingly common. Public records could add his father’s name and voting tribe. These additions distinguished individuals who shared the same personal and family names while locating them within a recognized citizen family. The form of a name could indicate legal status. A [slave](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-zoninus-collar-the-iron-collar-that-spoke-for-the-silenced/) was commonly identified by an individual name together with the name of an owner. After manumission, a freedman generally adopted the *praenomen* and *nomen* of his former owner and retained his former slave name as a *cognomen*. Official formulations could add *libertus*, identifying him as the freedman of a particular patron. Women’s names could similarly be accompanied by their filiation, marital relationship or connection to a household. Status and occupation were particularly important when slaves and freedmen acted in commercial affairs. Legal texts describe people as an actor, an agent or manager acting for someone else, or as an *institor*, a person placed in charge of a [business](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-tavern-inn-wine-bar-the-hospitality-business-of-an-ancient-roman-city/). Such descriptions did more than distinguish one individual from another. They identified the capacity in which the person acted and could affect whether an obligation attached to the agent, an owner or a patron. The legal compilations do not always preserve the names contained in the original cases. Roman jurists and later compilers frequently substituted conventional names such as Lucius Titius, Gaius Seius and Maevius. Occasionally, an otherwise anonymous case retains an unusual personal name, or an embedded document preserves names different from those used in the surrounding legal discussion. These inconsistencies make it difficult to reconstruct the complete identification formulas of the original transactions. ### Registration in the Roman Census During the Republic, the census was one of the principal means by which the Roman state recorded its citizens. Adult male citizens who were legally independent appeared before the censors and made declarations under oath. These declarations included information about their households, property and legal position. Names, [ages](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-elderly-in-ancient-rome-voices-of-respect-and-fear/), family relationships and voting tribes could be recorded, while wives, children, freedpeople and slaves were included within the broader description of the household. The census contributed to taxation, military recruitment, voting organization and the classification of citizens according to property. The censors could also alter a citizen’s political or social position. They could transfer him to a less prestigious voting category, cancel his voting rights or expel a senator or equestrian from his order. ![A possible representation of a Roman citizen presenting his household declaration during a census.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/household-declaration-during-a-census_png-1.jpg) A possible representation of a Roman citizen presenting his household declaration during a census. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT As Roman citizenship expanded throughout Italy, collecting this information solely at [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) became impractical. Municipal communities conducted registrations locally and transmitted copies of their records to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/). Regulations preserved at Heraclea describe municipal magistrates entering declarations in public records and sending copies to the capital. Officials at [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/) could then incorporate the information into the central census records. Registration was also connected to residence and eligibility for public benefits. [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) describes a census conducted under [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) through the owners of residential buildings: > “He made the enumeration of the people neither in the usual manner nor place, but from street to street aided by the owners of blocks of houses.” Suetonius connects this procedure with [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/)’s revision of the list of people receiving publicly supplied grain. Registration could therefore establish[ residence](https://romanempiretimes.com/insulae-apartment-buildings-ancient-rome-romans/) and determine whether a person qualified for a material privilege administered by the state. Provincial censuses were conducted through local administrative districts. The most extensive surviving evidence comes from Roman Egypt, where household declarations were submitted according to regular census cycles. These declarations identified the occupants of a house by name, age, parentage and legal or civic status. Copies were retained within the administrative system, allowing information gathered locally to reach district and provincial archives. Egypt cannot automatically be treated as a complete model for every Roman province. Its climate preserved papyri that disappeared elsewhere, and some elements of its administration had earlier Egyptian origins. Evidence from other provinces is considerably less complete. References to censuses, property declarations and population registers indicate that comparable forms of registration existed elsewhere, but they do not prove that every province followed precisely the same procedures as Egypt. ### Birth Declarations and Family Status Because census registrations were periodic, additional declarations could record changes occurring between them. Birth declarations documented a child’s name, parentage, date of birth and status. Death declarations allowed officials to update tax registers and could support the settlement of an inheritance. From the Augustan period onward, the registration of legitimate children became increasingly important. In Egypt, surviving declarations show fathers registering children before local officials. Authenticated copies could subsequently be obtained from the archives. These copies reproduced the original declaration and carried the names or seals of the people responsible for verifying the transcription. A birth declaration could support claims to free birth, legitimate descent and Roman citizenship. It could also protect inheritance rights if a parent died before the next census. The surviving Egyptian evidence is particularly strong for families whose legal or fiscal status was hereditary. Members of such groups had a clear reason to ensure that the next generation was correctly entered in official records. The precise legal necessity of birth registration remains uncertain. The surviving evidence shows that registered declarations could provide authoritative evidence of birth, descent and status. It also shows that [courts](https://romanempiretimes.com/courtroom-drama-in-ancient-rome-when-trials-became-theater/) and administrative hearings could accept testimony and other records when a birth declaration was unavailable. ![A possible representation of a father registering his child’s birth before local officials in Roman Egypt.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/birth-registration-in-roman-egypt-1.jpg) A possible representation of a father registering his child’s birth before local officials in Roman Egypt. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT A birth declaration could therefore make a status claim more secure without functioning as an indispensable identity document in every case. Its importance depended on the question being examined, the records preserved in the relevant archive and the availability of witnesses or other documentary evidence. ### When Citizenship Was Contested [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)’s defence of the [poet](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/) Archias in 62 BC shows how a claim to Roman citizenship could be assembled from several forms of evidence. Archias claimed citizenship through enrolment at Heraclea, residence in Italy and a declaration made before a Roman praetor under legislation passed after the Social War. The prosecution challenged the supporting records and pointed to his absence from the surviving census lists. The public registers at Heraclea could not be produced because the archive had been destroyed during the Social War. [Cicero ](https://romanempiretimes.com/stoic-in-the-sauna-why-a-baiae-bathhouse-linked-to-cicero-is-deliciously-ironic/)responded with the testimony of [Lucullus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-unknown-lucullus-far-more-than-just-lucullan-meals/), representatives sent by Heraclea and the surviving record of Archias’s declaration before the praetor Metellus. He contrasted the absence of the destroyed municipal archive with the evidence still available: > “It is ridiculous to say nothing to the proofs which we have, but to ask for proofs which it is impossible for us to have.” Cicero also argued that appearance in the census did not itself create citizenship. It recorded that an individual had claimed citizen status at the time of registration. Archias had been absent from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) during successive censuses, while other acts showed that he had behaved as a citizen: he had made wills under Roman law, received inheritances from Roman citizens and appeared in official communications retained in the treasury. The speech is an advocate’s presentation rather than a neutral description of evidentiary procedure. Its argument nevertheless depends upon forms of evidence that could be presented in a Roman court: municipal enrolment, an official declaration, witnesses, residence, census records, wills, inheritances and archived public correspondence. Cicero does not rely upon only one of them. The case also shows why archives were valuable without being immune to challenge. Records could be destroyed, carelessly maintained, altered or disputed. Cicero attacked the reliability of some praetorian registers while praising the care with which Metellus maintained his own. The authority of a document depended partly on where and how it had been produced and preserved. ### Tablets, Copies, Seals and Witnesses Roman legal acts were frequently recorded on wooden tablets. The tablet did not necessarily create the transaction by itself. Many Roman contracts were valid because the parties had performed the required legal act or exchanged the appropriate words. The document preserved evidence that the act had occurred and recorded its terms. Witnesses played an important part in the authentication of tablets. They could confirm that the required procedure had been followed and that the document reflected the transaction. Their seals helped protect the contents against alteration. Over time, sealed tablets became closely connected with the credibility of the witnesses and the reliability of the recorded act. Authenticated copies could reproduce documents held in official archives. A copy might identify the archive, the original declaration and the officials or witnesses responsible for verifying it. This allowed a person to use evidence taken from an official register without removing the original record. The value of the copy depended on the authority of the record from which it had been made and the procedure used to authenticate it. ![Writing tablet with wax and stylus. Roman period. The sharp tip was used for writing and the flat end was for wiping it out.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Table-with-was-and-stylus-Roman-times--1--1.jpg) Writing tablet with wax and stylus. Roman period. The sharp tip was used for writing and the flat end was for wiping it out. Public domain. Handwriting and signatures supplied further confirmation. A *chirographum (Χειρόγραφο)* was written in the first person and could acknowledge a debt, receipt or obligation. Its name referred to its handwritten form. In some legal cases, a person’s own handwriting or subscription demonstrated consent to a transaction. A signature by an owner could also confirm an act performed by a slave or agent and make the owner responsible for it. Seals did not function as portraits or modern biometric identifiers. A distinctive seal could associate a letter or tablet with the person who issued it, provided that the recipient recognized the device and accepted its use. [Roman comedy](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-made-the-ancient-romans-laugh/) contains stories in which [rings](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-carried-on-their-hands-meant-more-than-we-think/), sealed letters and agreed tokens authorize a bearer to collect [money](https://romanempiretimes.com/credit-loans-and-risk-how-ancient-rome-handled-money-without-a-central-bank/) or property. The plots also show how a stolen ring or forged letter could allow the wrong person to appear properly authorized. These comic examples are not administrative records, and several are situated in [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) commercial settings. They cannot establish how frequently Romans used the same procedures in ordinary transactions. They do show that Roman audiences could understand plots based on tokens, recognizable seals and letters used to identify an authorized representative. ### Proving a Claim Before a Court Roman courts did not operate with a single fixed hierarchy of evidence throughout the Republic and [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-behind-rome-how-society-really-worked/). Documents could carry considerable weight, but judges also considered witnesses, admissions, handwriting, seals, account books and the circumstances of the case. Official records became increasingly authoritative, particularly when they preserved acts performed before magistrates or entries made by public administrators. In *Pro Quinto Roscio Comoedo*, Cicero asks how an alleged financial obligation could be proved. He refers to payment, an entry in the account books, a verbal promise and the people present when that promise was made: > “You made a stipulation: when? On what day? At what time? In whose presence? Who says that I made a promise? Nobody.” The questions show the practical combination of records and testimony. An account-book entry could support the claim that money had been transferred. Witnesses could confirm a verbal obligation. Without either, the claimant’s position became more difficult. Aulus Gellius, (a Roman author and legal antiquarian of the second century AD) describes a case in which a man claimed that he had lent money but possessed neither written records nor witnesses. The claimant had an excellent [reputation](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-obsession-with-reputation/), while the defendant was known for dishonesty. The defendant nevertheless demanded proof through the customary means: an entry in an account book, banking records, a written acknowledgement, sealed tablets or witnesses. Gellius found the claimant personally credible but hesitated to decide without the conventional evidence. His account presents a conflict between confidence in a person’s character and proof of a particular transaction. Reputation could be considered, but it did not automatically replace documents or testimony. Disputes over freedom produced similar problems. In the case of Petronia Justa, preserved in tablets from [Herculaneum](https://romanempiretimes.com/ancient-roman-beach-herculaneum-reopened/), the central issue was whether she had been born free or had been born to a slave mother and later manumitted. The relevant documents were apparently unavailable, so the parties relied heavily on witnesses and competing accounts of her mother’s status. The absence of documentary evidence did not itself settle the dispute, but it left the parties dependent on testimony. ### Military Diplomas and Official Grants [Roman soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/) could receive particularly formal documentary proof. Military diplomas were bronze copies of imperial constitutions granting privileges to named [veterans](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/). Depending on the period and unit, these grants could include Roman citizenship, legal marriage rights and recognition of children. The text connected an individual recipient with an imperial act. It normally identified the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-emperor-who-ruled-rome-for-77-days/), the units concerned, the commanding officer and the veteran to whom the certified copy had been issued. The diploma’s authority came from the original constitution displayed or deposited at [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-burned-books/), while the bronze copy allowed the veteran to retain evidence of his inclusion in the grant. Military diplomas were not general identity documents carried by all Romans. They addressed the specific status and privileges of particular servicemen. Their survival demonstrates how a grant of citizenship or marriage rights could be recorded, copied and authenticated. ![Fragmentary military diploma from Carnuntum; Latin was the language of the military throughout the Empire](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Roman-military-diploma--1--1.jpg) Fragmentary military diploma from Carnuntum; Latin was the language of the military throughout the Empire. Public domain. Soldiers and veterans could also be identified through service records, discharge documents and entries held in military archives. During formal examinations of status, military diplomas could be considered alongside birth declarations, manumission records and witness testimony. The purpose was to establish the legal history that gave the individual a particular status. ### When a Spoken Claim Was Accepted Not every assertion of status was accompanied by the immediate production of a document. In Acts, Paul prevents his examination under flogging by telling a centurion that he is a Roman citizen. The commander questions him directly about how he obtained that citizenship: > “And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.” The officials withdraw from the proposed examination and become alarmed because Paul, a citizen, had been bound. In this account, his spoken claim produces an immediate response. The passage does not describe officials consulting an archive or demanding that he present a certificate at that moment. The episode does not explain whether Paul’s claim was later checked or how a disputed assertion would ordinarily have been investigated. It shows that, in this particular situation, the officers accepted his declaration before proceeding further. [Pliny](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/)’s correspondence with [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/) provides a different view of the information required when citizenship was formally granted. After requesting Roman citizenship for his Egyptian doctor Harpocras, Pliny learned that he should first have secured Alexandrian citizenship. He supplied the doctor’s age, financial position and district of origin and asked the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/) to complete the necessary grants. The exchange records several overlapping statuses. Harpocras was a freedman, an Egyptian, a member of a particular district and a proposed citizen of Alexandria and [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/). Each status followed its own administrative and legal rules. The grant of Roman citizenship did not remove the need to establish the categories under which he had previously been recorded. ### Different Questions Required Different Proof Romans used combinations of evidence to establish identity and status. A name might be sufficient in a familiar private transaction, while a disputed inheritance could require proof of parentage and legitimacy. Citizenship might be supported by municipal enrolment, census information, a birth declaration, an imperial grant, archived correspondence, witnesses or the exercise of rights reserved for citizens. Documents preserved acts beyond the memory of those present. Archives allowed authorities to retain declarations and issue authenticated copies. Seals, signatures and witnesses supported the reliability of records. Military diplomas connected individual veterans to imperial grants, while account books and written acknowledgements supported private financial claims. These forms of evidence were neither uniform nor equally preserved across the Roman world. Egyptian papyri provide unusually detailed evidence for household registration, birth declarations and administrative examinations. Evidence from many other provinces survives only in fragments. Courts and officials could consider alternative forms of proof when records were missing, while the production of an appropriate document could make a claim easier to establish. 💡 ****Sources used:** Cicero, Pro Archia, translated by C. D. Yonge Cicero, Pro Quinto Roscio Comoedo, translated by J. H. Freese Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar, translated by J. C. Rolfe Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights, Book 14, translated by J. C. Rolfe Pliny the Younger, Letters, Book 10, translated by J. B. Firth Acts of the Apostles 22:25–29, King James Version Anna Dolganov, “Documenting Roman Citizenship” Jane F. Gardner, “Proofs of Status in the Roman World” Elizabeth A. Meyer, Legitimacy and Law in the Roman World: Tabulae in Roman Belief and Practice Philipp Scheibelreiter, “Identifikation von Vertragspartnern in der römischen Literatur” ### The Cities Rome Punished: What Happened When Communities Defied the Republic URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-cities-rome-punished-what-happened-when-communities-defied-the-republic/ Last updated: 2026-08-16T19:13:24.000Z Rome did not impose a single, fixed punishment upon every defeated city. The terms depended upon how a community had entered the conflict, whether it had surrendered or been taken by force, the danger Roman authorities believed it might pose in the future, and the uses to which its territory and population could be put. Execution, enslavement, confiscation, demolition and the abolition of civic government could be applied in different combinations. In some cases a city remained standing but ceased to exist as a self-governing community. In others, its inhabitants were removed and its physical fabric was deliberately destroyed. Capua, Carthage and Corinth show three different outcomes. Capua defected to [Hannibal](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-battle-of-lake-trasimene-hannibals-devastating-ambush/) during the Second Punic War and was recovered by [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) in 211 BC. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) executed members of its ruling class and dismantled its political institutions, but preserved the city as a centre for the agricultural population working its exceptionally fertile territory. [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spartan-who-saved-carthage-and-broke-a-roman-invasion/) and Corinth were destroyed in 146 BC, yet the course of each war, the treatment of the inhabitants and the political arrangements imposed afterward were not identical. ## Punishment, Surrender and the Fate of a City The treatment of a captured community was closely connected with the manner in which it fell. A city that submitted before an assault might negotiate or receive terms, although surrender placed its people, territory, buildings and property at [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s disposal. A city taken by storm could be exposed to killing, plunder and enslavement. The severity of a [sack](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-sack-of-rome-in-410/) could also serve as a warning to other communities that were considering resistance. These practices did not mean that every victory ended in destruction. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) frequently preserved defeated communities, imposed obligations upon them or incorporated them into a system of subordinate alliances. The systematic demolition of a city required prolonged labour. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-burned-books/) could instead preserve buildings and population while confiscating territory and removing political institutions, as it did at Capua. The events considered here also occurred at different stages of Roman expansion. Capua was punished while [Hannibal](https://romanempiretimes.com/hannibal-ad-portas-how-37-african-elephants-crossed-the-alps/) remained in Italy and [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-went-dark-life-after-sunset-in-the-ancient-city/) was still fighting for the allegiance of Italian communities. Carthage and Corinth fell sixty-five years later, when Roman power extended across the Mediterranean. By 146 BC, the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) could extinguish a major rival in North Africa and dismantle the leading [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) federation within the same campaigning year. ## Capua’s Defection and Surrender Capua joined Hannibal after the Roman defeat at [Cannae](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-battle-of-cannae-romes-darkest-day/) in 216 BC. Its size, wealth and influence made the defection particularly dangerous. [Livy ](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/)explains that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/for-rome-no-war-was-worse-than-civil-war/) regarded its recovery as a matter of more than resentment. Capua had drawn other communities away from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/tertullian-rome-most-uncomfortable-christian/), and its recapture was expected to demonstrate that Roman authority had survived the disasters of the war. ![Amphitheathre of antique Capua](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Amphitheathre-of-antique-Capua--1--1.jpg) Amphitheatre of ancient Capua. Public domain. [Roman armies](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) maintained the siege even when Hannibal marched toward [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/) in an effort to draw them away. Once the Capuans understood that Hannibal could no longer relieve the city, the Roman commander announced that any citizen who crossed over before a specified date would receive immunity. Livy states that nobody accepted the offer. Fear of Roman retaliation and the magnitude of the defection left the inhabitants with little confidence that a promise of pardon would be honoured. The Capuan senate was divided over how to respond. A group of senators led by Vibius Virrius chose suicide by [poison](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-art-of-poison-in-the-roman-empire/) rather than surrender. The remaining authorities opened the city. Roman troops entered, collected the weapons and arrested the Punic garrison. The senators were placed in chains and ordered to surrender their gold and silver. Twenty-eight men regarded as chiefly responsible for the revolt were sent to Teanum and another twenty-five to Cales. The Roman commanders disagreed over their fate. Appius Claudius favoured referring the matter to the Senate and was prepared to show greater leniency. Quintus Fulvius Flaccus acted before instructions could prevent him. He travelled first to Teanum and then to Cales, where the prisoners were scourged and beheaded. Livy also records a conflicting version in which the senatorial decree arrived before the executions but left Fulvius discretion to decide what served the Republic. Atella and Calatia subsequently surrendered. Livy reports that seventy leading senators were executed and three hundred Campanian nobles imprisoned. Other prisoners were distributed among [Latin](https://romanempiretimes.com/contrary-to-what-you-think-not-all-romans-spoke-latin-heres-what-they-actually-spoke/) communities. His immediate account says that the remaining population of Capua was sold, but the later senatorial settlement in the same book gives a more complicated picture. It distinguishes between categories of inhabitants, allows many to retain their freedom, excludes them from Roman or Latin citizenship, and assigns different places of residence. The result was displacement, punishment and loss of status rather than the extermination of the entire population. ## A City Preserved but Stripped of Government [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/) then decided what to do with Capua and its territory. Livy records that some favoured complete destruction because the city was powerful, close to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) and demonstrably hostile. Economic considerations prevailed: > “The territory was generally allowed to be the first in Italy in point of productiveness.” The city was preserved to provide accommodation for those who cultivated that land. ![Capua bridge](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Capua-bridge--1--1.jpg) Capua bridge. Credits: Austin Keys, CC BY-SA 2.0 Capua’s territory and public buildings became property of the Roman people. The city lost its senate, popular council and magistrates, as well as the capacity to assemble and act as a political body. Justice was administered by a Roman prefect sent annually. Capua therefore survived physically while its independent civic existence was abolished. Its walls and houses remained, but the institutions through which its citizens had governed themselves disappeared. The evidence from Republican Capua shows that this constitutional punishment did not end the city’s economic life. Local industries, agriculture and trade continued, and the surviving inscriptions record building activity and forms of local administration. Boards associated with religious sanctuaries performed functions that elsewhere belonged to municipal magistrates. They supervised construction, handled funds and contributed private [money](https://romanempiretimes.com/credit-loans-and-risk-how-ancient-rome-handled-money-without-a-central-bank/) to public works, even though Capua formally possessed no normal municipal government. Capua’s bronze-working, textile production, perfumes and other specialised trades remained important. Families already established in the region continued to appear in the inscriptions, while commercial connections linked Campania with Italian ports and eastern markets. The punishment of 211 BC had removed political independence and confiscated the land without eliminating the productive population upon which the territory’s value depended. The settlement combined political abolition with the preservation of the inhabited city. Rome punished the leaders associated with the revolt, dispersed or restricted sections of the citizen population, took control of the land and prevented the restoration of an autonomous government. At the same time, it retained the buildings and the presence of cultivators, freedmen, traders and artisans whose activities continued after 211 BC. ## Carthage Ordered Away from the Sea Carthage faced a different decision during the Third Punic War. After its defeat in the Second Punic War, it had been forbidden to wage war without Roman permission. Conflict with the Numidian king [Massinissa ](https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-client-kings-how-the-empire-ruled-without-annexing/)eventually led the Carthaginians to take military action, and Rome declared war in 149 BC. Carthage surrendered hostages and weapons in the hope of preserving itself, only to receive the further demand that the population abandon the city and settle at least ten miles from the sea. ![Punic Port of Carthage](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Punic-Port-of-Carthage--1--1.jpg) Punic Port of Carthage. Credits: Names9, CC BY-SA 4.0 The order included more than the abandonment of existing buildings. Carthage’s harbours and maritime commerce had developed around its position on the coast. Removing the population inland would have ended the existing coastal city even if the inhabitants had survived together elsewhere. After surrendering their arms, the Carthaginians rejected the demand, manufactured new weapons and prepared to withstand a siege. The Roman campaign initially proceeded badly. Carthage’s fortifications and the resistance of its inhabitants prevented an easy capture. Under Scipio Aemilianus, the Romans tightened the blockade, closed the routes by which supplies entered and fought their way into the harbour district. The final assault became a struggle through streets and [multistorey buildings](https://romanempiretimes.com/insulae-apartment-buildings-ancient-rome-romans/) as Roman troops advanced toward Byrsa, the citadel. [Appian](https://romanempiretimes.com/appian-of-alexandria-the-greek-historian-who-explained-romes-empire/) describes six days and nights of fighting while units were relieved so that the assault could continue. Buildings were burned and demolished to clear the routes of advance, and both living inhabitants and corpses fell with the masonry. On the seventh day, suppliants carrying sacred garlands asked Scipio to spare those willing to leave Byrsa. He accepted, except in the case of Roman deserters. Appian gives the number who emerged under guard as 50,000 men and women. The deserters remained with Hasdrubal, his wife and their children in the temple of Asclepius. Hasdrubal eventually left them and surrendered to Scipio. His wife denounced him, killed their children and entered the flames. Watching the city’s destruction, Scipio wept and reflected that the same fate could one day reach Rome. [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/), who was present with him, records the warning attributed to Scipio: > “A glorious moment, Polybius; but I have a dread foreboding that some day the same doom will be pronounced on my own country.” ## The Obliteration of Carthage After the capture, Scipio allowed a period of plunder while reserving gold, silver and sacred objects. [Temple](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/) offerings that Sicilian communities could identify as property seized by Carthage in earlier wars were returned to them. Other spoils were sold, while captured arms, [engines](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-mechanics-of-civilization-machines-in-the-greco-roman-world-empire/) and unusable ships were burned in a Roman religious ceremony. The Senate sent ten commissioners to settle Africa with Scipio. Appian records their instruction: > “They decreed that if anything was still left of Carthage, Scipio should obliterate it and that nobody should be allowed to live there.” The restriction concentrated particularly on Byrsa and Megara, although people were not prohibited from entering the ground. Communities that had supported Carthage were also marked for destruction, while those that had assisted Rome received land. ![Ruins of Antonine Baths at Carthage](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Ruins-of-Antonine-Baths-at-Carthage--1--1.jpg) Ruins of Antonine Baths at Carthage. Credits: Silar, CC BY-SA 4.0 Carthaginian territory became Roman public land. Utica, which had supported Rome, received part of it, while taxes were imposed elsewhere and a Roman praetor was appointed to govern the new arrangements. Carthage therefore lost its population, its buildings, its territory and its government. Unlike Capua, it was not retained as an inhabited centre serving the surrounding land. The familiar claim that Rome sowed the site with[ salt](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/) does not appear in the ancient accounts used here. Appian describes destruction, restrictions upon rebuilding and the political settlement of the territory, but does not mention a ceremony involving salt. The physical site did not remain permanently empty. An attempt to establish a colony during the political career of [Gaius Gracchus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-gracchi-brothers-visionaries-or-socialist-revolutionaries/) did not produce a lasting city. Appian records that [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/) later left written instructions for Carthage to be colonised and that [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) carried out the project, sending 3,000 settlers from Rome while others came from the surrounding country. This refoundation did not restore the state destroyed in 146 BC; it established a Roman community near the site of the prohibited Carthaginian city. ## Corinth and the End of the Achaean War The destruction of Corinth occurred in the same year but followed a separate conflict. Relations between Rome and the Achaean League had deteriorated over disputes involving Sparta, Roman demands concerning membership of the League, and the treatment of Roman representatives. [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-and-the-architecture-of-roman-power/) presents the final Achaean leadership as reckless and repeatedly notes that Roman delegations had offered opportunities to avoid open war. ![Corinth and its isthmus (Greece). NASA satellite photo](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Corinth-Greece-NASA--1--1.jpg) Corinth and its isthmus (Greece). NASA satellite photo. The Isthmus of Corinth has played a very important role in the history of Greece. It is the only land bridge between the country's north (Attica) and south (Peloponnese). It is a 6 km wide tongue of land separating the Gulf of Corinth from the Saronic Sea. Populations, armies and commodities have got to move through it. Public domain. After Critolaus was defeated, Diaeus became commander of the Achaeans. He ordered [cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) to free and arm thousands of [enslaved men](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/), demanded special financial contributions and concentrated forces at Corinth. Lucius Mummius arrived with the Roman army and defeated the Achaean force outside the city. Diaeus escaped to Megalopolis, killed his wife and then took poison. Most of the surviving Achaean soldiers and many Corinthians fled during the night. Pausanias says that Mummius initially hesitated to enter through the open gates because he suspected an ambush. On the third day after the battle, the Romans entered and burned the city. His account states: > “The majority of those found in it were put to the sword by the Romans.” The women and children were sold into [slavery](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-zoninus-collar-the-iron-collar-that-spoke-for-the-silenced/), as were formerly enslaved men who had been freed to fight and had survived the [battle](https://romanempiretimes.com/forged-for-battle-the-six-century-reign-of-the-roman-gladius/). The city was then stripped of its movable wealth. Mummius removed its most celebrated votive offerings and artworks, while other objects were assigned to the representative of Attalus of Pergamum. Corinthian spoils were distributed beyond Rome, and objects taken from the city remained visible in [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) and Italian settings. The removal of these works accompanied the destruction of the community that had possessed and displayed them. ### What Remained After Corinth The settlement extended beyond Corinth. Mummius demolished the walls of cities that had fought Rome and disarmed their inhabitants. The Roman commissioners dissolved the Achaean League and other federal associations, replaced democratic governments with constitutions based upon property qualifications and imposed tribute. Restrictions were placed upon the ownership of property outside a citizen’s own community. Some of these measures were later relaxed, but the independent Achaean federation had ended. ![Bridges over the Corinth Canal](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Corinth-Canal-bridge--1--1.jpg) Bridges over the Corinth Canal. Credits: Tesla Delacroix, CC BY-SA 4.0 Corinth itself ceased to function as the major urban and political centre it had been. Its destruction removed a strategically placed city controlling the Isthmus and separated the punishment of Corinth from the treatment of many other Greek communities. The inhabitants found inside were killed or enslaved, its most valuable objects were carried away, and its buildings were burned. The city was not immediately replaced by another Greek civic community on the site. As at Carthage, later rebuilding created a Roman colony rather than restoring the defeated city in its previous political form. [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) refounded Corinth in 44 BC, approximately a century after its destruction. The new colony occupied the same strategic location, but its institutions and population belonged to a different political order. Capua, Carthage and Corinth did not experience a uniform Roman penalty. Capua’s buildings and working population were retained while its leaders, territory and self-government were subjected to Roman punishment. Carthage was emptied, demolished and prohibited as a place of habitation before a later Roman refoundation. Corinth was burned, its remaining inhabitants killed or enslaved, and its artworks removed while Rome dismantled the federal and political structures associated with the Achaean resistance. Each settlement determined whether the defeated city would retain its population, territory, institutions and capacity for independent political action. 💡 ****Sources used:** Livy, History of Rome, Book 26, translated by Rev. Canon Roberts. Appian, The Punic Wars, translated by Horace White. Polybius, The Histories, fragments of Book 38, translated by W. R. Paton. Pausanias, Description of Greece, Book 7, translated by W. H. S. Jones. M. W. Frederiksen, “Republican Capua: A Social and Economic Study,” Papers of the British School at Rome 27 (1959), pp. 80–130. Nicholas Purcell, “On the Sacking of Carthage and Corinth,” in Doreen C. Innes, Harry Hine and Christopher Pelling, eds., Ethics and Rhetoric: Classical Essays for Donald Russell on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 133–148. Adrian Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare (London: Cassell, 2000). ### Rome’s Client Kings: How the Empire Ruled Without Annexing URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-client-kings-how-the-empire-ruled-without-annexing/ Last updated: 2026-08-16T19:13:33.000Z Rome did not govern every dependent territory as a province. Across the Mediterranean, Roman expansion incorporated communities through treaties, alliances, grants of territory, and the recognition of local rulers. Modern historians commonly describe some of these rulers as client kings, although this was not an official Roman title. Roman documents and literary sources instead refer to a king as an ally and friend of the Roman people, expressed in the formula *rex sociusque et amicus*. In his defense of Deiotarus, [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) appealed to the standing of such rulers: > “Ever has the name of king been hallowed in our society; most hallowed that of kings who are our allies and friends.” The relationship preserved a kingdom’s separate institutions while placing its ruler within an unequal alliance dominated by[ Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/). During the Republic, recognition of a king normally belonged to the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/), though Roman commanders could make decisions in the field that were later submitted for ratification. Under the Principate, the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/the-year-of-the-four-emperors/) became the principal authority who confirmed kings, altered their territories, settled disputed successions, or replaced royal government with provincial administration. Recognition was therefore not a permanent guarantee to a dynasty. It depended upon Roman approval and could be reconsidered when a king died, when his heirs competed, or when conditions in the kingdom changed. This arrangement allowed [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) to exercise influence without immediately assuming the full work of provincial government. Allied kings collected revenue, administered justice, maintained [courts](https://romanempiretimes.com/courtroom-drama-in-ancient-rome-when-trials-became-theater/), commanded troops, and dealt with local [elites](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) according to the practices of their kingdoms. They could supply Roman [armies](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) with cavalry, infantry, grain, [money](https://romanempiretimes.com/credit-loans-and-risk-how-ancient-rome-handled-money-without-a-central-bank/), transport, and knowledge of regional conditions. In frontier regions, they could also defend territory against neighboring peoples and respond to threats before [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) committed a provincial army. The kings received substantial advantages in return. Roman recognition could provide a disputed ruler with legitimacy, preserve him against domestic rivals, enlarge his territory, and protect his kingdom from external enemies. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) frequently allowed considerable freedom in internal administration, but the king’s position was secure only while Roman authorities continued to support it. A ruler could govern his subjects as a king while remaining dependent upon decisions made by the Senate, a Roman commander, or an [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-emperor-who-ruled-rome-for-77-days/). The term “client king” is used here as shorthand rather than as a description found in the ancient sources. These rulers pursued territorial, dynastic, and financial interests of their own, negotiated with competing Roman leaders, and sometimes used Roman power against local rivals. Their actions nevertheless remained limited by Roman authority. Massinissa of Numidia, Deiotarus of Galatia, and Herod of Judaea belonged to different periods and political settings. In all three cases Rome preserved a kingdom, used its resources, and retained authority over the ruler’s position. ### Massinissa and the Numidian Alliance Massinissa began the Second Punic War as a cavalry commander fighting for Carthage in Spain. After the death of his father and a succession struggle in Numidia, he entered into relations with [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-burned-books/) and joined Scipio after the Roman landing in Africa in 204 BCE. His knowledge of the country and his Numidian cavalry contributed to the attacks on the camps of Syphax and Hasdrubal, the capture of Syphax, and the Roman victory at Zama in 202 BCE. ![Paolo Domenico Finoglia: Masinissa Mourning Over the Death of Sophonisba ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Mainissa-mourning-Sofoniba--1--1.jpg) Paolo Domenico Finoglia: Masinissa Mourning Over the Death of Sophonisba. Public domain. His alliance with [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/) transformed his political position. After Syphax had been defeated, Scipio recognized Massinissa as king and granted him royal insignia. Livy records: > “Addressing Masinissa as king and eulogising him in the highest possible terms, he presented him with a golden crown, curule chair, an ivory sceptre and also with a purple-bordered toga and a tunic embroidered with palms.” The Senate subsequently ratified the settlement. Massinissa recovered his ancestral kingdom, received Cirta, and acquired part of the territory formerly ruled by Syphax. Massinissa owed the enlargement and recognition of his kingdom to Roman victory, while his military assistance had contributed to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-went-dark-life-after-sunset-in-the-ancient-city/)’s victory in Africa. The connection was strengthened by personal relations with the Scipionic family as well as by formal decisions of the Roman state. Massinissa had changed alliances during a struggle for survival and used Roman support to recover authority that he had lost. During the following decades, Numidia repeatedly supported Roman warfare outside Africa. Ancient accounts record deliveries of grain and the dispatch of cavalry, infantry, and elephants. Between 200 and 198 BCE Massinissa presented the Romans with 400,000 measures of wheat and 200,000 of barley. In 191 BCE he promised 800,000 measures of wheat and 550,000 of barley. In 170 BCE his envoys offered one million measures of wheat, 1,200 cavalry, twelve elephants, and anything else the Romans required for the war against Perseus of Macedon. The kingdom’s agricultural capacity made this assistance possible. Ancient authors credited Massinissa with settling nomadic peoples and encouraging cultivation, but agriculture and urban life in the region predated his reign. The evidence supports an expansion of cultivated land rather than the creation of agriculture in [Numidia](https://romanempiretimes.com/numidia-rome-african-frontier-and-the-soldiers-who-changed-an-empire/). Massinissa’s government accumulated large cereal surpluses, and some of these were sent to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) or to Roman armies. The alliance allowed [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/) to draw on North African production without turning Numidia into a province or administering its estates and communities directly. Massinissa also used the relationship to pursue claims against [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spartan-who-saved-carthage-and-broke-a-roman-invasion/). The peace settlement after the Second Punic War prohibited [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/) from waging war outside Africa and from waging war within Africa without Roman permission. Disputes between Carthage and Numidia were repeatedly referred to Roman commissions. Massinissa occupied contested land, while Carthaginian embassies complained in Rome that he had taken towns and territory. Roman decisions did not always satisfy him, but Roman policy became increasingly favorable to his claims in the decades before the Third Punic War. The most valuable contested areas were not empty stretches of land. They included fertile districts, ports, towns, and the Emporia region, which produced revenue and agricultural surpluses. Massinissa’s policy strengthened his kingdom materially. Rome’s position as arbiter restricted Carthage’s ability to resist him and gave the Numidian king opportunities to retain territorial gains. At the same time, Rome preserved the final decision for itself. The limits of the alliance became evident when Rome decided to destroy Carthage. Massinissa had benefited from Carthage’s weakness and sought further gains, but the Roman government did not allow him to determine the city’s future. He was not informed in advance of every element of the Roman plan, and Carthage was not incorporated into his kingdom. When the Roman expedition arrived in Africa in 149 BCE, Massinissa offered assistance, but he died in 148 before the war ended. Scipio Aemilianus then arranged responsibilities among his sons. Numidia remained a kingdom, but Rome continued to intervene in its succession and foreign relations. ### Deiotarus Between Roman Commanders Deiotarus ruled among the Tolistobogii, one of the three Galatian peoples of central Anatolia. Galatian political organization had traditionally included *tetrarchs,* but Roman intervention changed the distribution of authority. [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/)’s reorganization of the East in 65/64 BCE established Deiotarus as ruler of the Tolistobogii and rewarded him with additional territory. ![A photorealistic, historically plausible reconstruction of Deiotarus of Galatia in old age.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Deiotarus-1.jpg) A photorealistic, historically plausible reconstruction of Deiotarus of Galatia in old age. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT In inscriptions he could be described as both king and *tetrarch*, combining a Galatian political title with a kingship granted to him individually by Roman authority. Deiotarus built his position through long cooperation with Roman commanders. His forces assisted Rome in the East, where Galatia lay near regions affected by the wars against [Mithridates](https://romanempiretimes.com/mad-honey-warfare-how-king-mithridates-poisoned-pompeys-legions/) of Pontus and by the threat of Parthian expansion. Cicero’s speech in his defense describes the purpose of his army: > “King Deiotarus never had forces sufficient to make an attack upon the Roman people, but only to protect his territories against raids and brigandage and to send assistance to our generals.” Cicero thus presented the army as a force for the defense of Deiotarus’s territory and for service with Roman commanders. The Roman civil war placed Deiotarus in a dangerous position because friendly kingship was also built through personal connections. He supported Pompey, who had confirmed and enlarged his authority, and joined him during the war against [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/). Cicero defended this decision by claiming that Deiotarus responded to Pompey as a friend and ally and obeyed what he understood to be the authority of the Senate. After Pompey’s defeat at [Pharsalus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-battle-of-pharsalus-the-victory-that-changed-rome/) in 48 BCE, Deiotarus returned to his kingdom and sought accommodation with [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/). After Pompey’s defeat, Deiotarus had to establish a relationship with [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/caesar-comet-how-a-seven-day-star-helped-found-an-empire/). While [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/) was engaged in the Alexandrian War, Deiotarus housed and supplied the army of Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus, sent money to [Ephesus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), and raised further funds by selling property. He then fought beside Caesar against Pharnaces II. Cicero summarized these services in a complete sequence: > “He it was who aided with shelter and supplies the army of the brave Gnaeus Domitius; he sent funds to Ephesus; he it was who, after holding two, nay three, auctions, contributed to your war funds; he it was who exposed his person to peril, fought at your side in the field against Pharnaces, and deemed your enemy his own.” Caesar nevertheless reduced Deiotarus’s territory after the Pontic campaign. The Trocmi *tetrarchy* was removed from his control in 47 BCE, although he retained the royal title. Rome could recognize a man as king while changing the size and composition of the lands he ruled. His status did not give him an independent right to every territory that earlier Roman decisions had assigned to him. In 45 BCE Deiotarus faced an accusation that he had plotted to murder Caesar when Caesar had stayed in his residence. Cicero’s surviving speech was composed to secure his acquittal and does not provide a neutral account of the king. In presenting the defense, Cicero invoked Deiotarus’s services, the Senate’s earlier recognition, his hospitality toward Roman commanders, and the aid that he and his son had supplied. The proceedings placed the foreign monarch before Caesar as judge, while his representatives appealed for the preservation of his life and title. Deiotarus survived Caesar and recovered territory after Caesar’s [assassination](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-shadow-of-the-dagger-assassinations-of-roman-emperors/), but the history of Galatian kingship did not end with him. Rome continued to recognize regional rulers until Amyntas was killed during a war in Pisidia. Augustus annexed his territories and created the province of Galatia in 25/24 BCE. The interval between Pompey’s settlement and annexation was not treated in the sources as a fixed preparatory stage. A sequence of kings continued to rule before Augustus introduced provincial government. ### Herod and a Kingdom Created at Rome Herod’s father, Antipater, had supported Julius Caesar during the Alexandrian War and received Roman citizenship. Herod’s own rise proceeded through relations with Roman leaders. He held authority in Galilee, collected revenue for Cassius after Caesar’s assassination, and was appointed *tetrarch* with his brother Phasael through the support of [Mark Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/). ![A photorealistic, historically plausible reconstruction of Herod The Great](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Herod-The-Great-1.jpg) A photorealistic, historically plausible reconstruction of Herod the Great. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT The Parthian invasion of 40 BCE displaced Herod and installed Antigonus in Judaea. Herod escaped and traveled to Rome. He did not possess the Hasmonaean dynastic claim that normally might have supported a Jewish kingship, but Antony proposed him to the Senate and [Octavian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) supported the appointment. Josephus gives Antony’s political justification: > “Antony came forward and informed them that it was also an advantage in their war with the Parthians that Herod should be king. And as this proposal was acceptable to all, they voted accordingly.” The vote did not give Herod immediate possession of Judaea. Josephus describes Antony and Octavian leaving the Senate with Herod between them, followed by the consuls and magistrates, to sacrifice and deposit the decree on the Capitol. Herod then returned east and fought for approximately three years before Jerusalem was captured in 37 BCE with the assistance of Roman forces under Sosius. His reign was counted in two ways: from the Senate’s appointment in 40 BCE or from his acquisition of the kingdom in 37 BCE. Herod’s territory depended throughout his reign on Roman decisions. Antony’s grants established his authority, while territory assigned to [Cleopatra](https://romanempiretimes.com/cleopatra-daughter-selene-ii-the-last-echo-of-a-dynasty/) reduced his control over valuable resources, including the balsam plantations near Jericho. After Octavian defeated Antony and Cleopatra at Actium in 31 BCE, Herod had to seek confirmation from the victorious leader. He met Octavian at Rhodes in 30 BCE, acknowledged his loyalty to Antony, and asked to be judged by the quality of that loyalty rather than by the identity of its recipient. Octavian confirmed him as king. Herod then supplied Octavian’s army as it moved toward Egypt and received him with extensive provisions and financial support. After the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra, territories previously removed from Herod were restored, and further grants enlarged his kingdom. Its boundaries were neither inherited nor fixed solely by local conquest. Roman rulers could expand or contract them according to their own settlements in the East. Within those boundaries, Herod exercised broad royal authority. He maintained an army, appointed officials, raised revenue, controlled royal estates, founded cities, and supervised large building programs. His kingdom contained communities with different legal, [religious](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-religion-of-ancient-rome-how-roman-worshipped-their-gods/), and civic traditions, and his administration had to govern Judaea, Samaria, Galilee, Idumaea, and territories across the Jordan. Rome did not replace these arrangements with a provincial governor and staff. It relied upon Herod to maintain order, supply resources, and govern a politically varied region adjoining the province of Syria. Herod expressed his Roman alignment through personal relations and public foundations. He named Caesarea for Augustus and Sebaste from the [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) form of the emperor’s title. [Temples](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/) dedicated to [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/augustus-secret-syracuse-the-mystery-of-the-emperors-private-room/) and Roma were constructed in parts of the kingdom where their establishment did not confront the same religious restrictions as Jerusalem. Herod also assisted cities beyond his realm and maintained close relations with [Marcus Agrippa](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/). These activities linked his kingship to the wider political order created by [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/) while leaving him responsible for local government. The royal family itself remained connected to Rome. Herod sent sons to be educated there, and Augustus became involved in disputes over the succession. Herod revised his will several times as conflict within the dynasty led to accusations and executions. His final arrangements could not take effect solely by royal command. After his death in 4 BCE, competing representatives traveled to Rome, and Augustus decided how the kingdom would be divided. Archelaus received Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea as *ethnarch* rather than king; Antipas and Philip received *tetrarchies*. Augustus accepted parts of Herod’s plan but withheld the undivided royal title and altered the form of the succession. Archelaus was removed in 6 CE, and his territories were placed under direct Roman administration. Other members of the Herodian dynasty continued to rule elsewhere. The end of Herod’s reign produced neither automatic dynastic continuity nor immediate annexation of every territory. ### The Uses and Limits of Indirect Rule These three kings belonged to different forms of Roman indirect government. Massinissa became king after providing decisive assistance in a major [war](https://romanempiretimes.com/for-rome-no-war-was-worse-than-civil-war/). Deiotarus accumulated titles and territory through cooperation with successive commanders in Anatolia. Herod received a royal title by vote of the Senate before he had conquered the kingdom assigned to him. In every case, Roman recognition strengthened a ruler whose services could advance Roman military and political interests. The resources supplied by the kingdoms also differed. Numidia provided cavalry, elephants, and large quantities of grain. Deiotarus defended territory, maintained troops, housed Roman forces, and supplied commanders with money. Herod governed a varied frontier kingdom, provisioned Roman armies, and tied his territory to Augustus through cities, dynastic arrangements, and personal loyalty. Indirect government reduced the need for Rome to administer these regions directly while preserving access to their military and financial resources. The arrangement remained unequal. Rome could ratify a kingship, alter borders, hear accusations against a king, determine a succession, or impose provincial government. Inequality did not eliminate royal agency. Massinissa pursued fertile Carthaginian territory, Deiotarus changed his position after Pharsalus and rebuilt relations with Caesar, and Herod transferred his allegiance after Actium while preserving his crown. Their success depended partly upon their ability to use Roman support for the security and expansion of their kingdoms. Annexation was one possible conclusion, not the automatic purpose of every allied kingship. Some kingdoms lasted for generations; others were divided, restored, or annexed after a succession crisis or a change in frontier policy. Rome ruled without annexing when a recognized king could maintain order and provide useful services. It intervened directly when Roman authorities decided that the existing ruler, dynasty, or political arrangement no longer met those purposes. 💡 ****Sources used:** Livy, History of Rome, Books 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 42, 43, and 45, translated by Rev. Canon Roberts. Cicero, For King Deiotarus, translated by N. H. Watts. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books 14–17, translated by H. St. J. Thackeray, Ralph Marcus, Allen Wikgren, and Louis H. Feldman; and The Jewish War, Books 1–2, translated by Martin Hammond. David Braund, Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of Client Kingship. P. G. Walsh, “Massinissa,” Journal of Roman Studies 55 (1965), pp. 149–160. Karl Strobel, “The Galatians in the Roman Empire: Historical Tradition and Ethnic Identity in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor.” Martin Goodman, Herod the Great: Jewish King in a Roman World. ### The Battle of Lake Trasimene: Hannibal’s Devastating Ambush URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-battle-of-lake-trasimene-hannibals-devastating-ambush/ Last updated: 2026-07-31T20:42:03.000Z In 217 BC, during the second year of the Second Punic War, Hannibal destroyed a Roman consular army beside Lake Trasimene in Etruria. The Romans entered a narrow area between the lake and the surrounding hills, where Carthaginian troops had taken concealed positions during the night. When Hannibal ordered a simultaneous attack, the Romans were struck from several directions before they could form a battle line. The precise date of the battle is uncertain. It is generally placed in June 217 BC, while a date close to the summer solstice has also been proposed from a passage in [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/)’s Fasti. The ancient narratives of the battle itself do not provide a date that can be converted securely into the modern calendar. ### Hannibal Enters Etruria After defeating the Romans at the River Trebia, [Hannibal](https://romanempiretimes.com/hannibal-ad-portas-how-37-african-elephants-crossed-the-alps/) crossed the Apennines and entered Etruria. The march took his army through the flooded marshes of the Arno. [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/) says that the [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/) marched through water for three continuous days and nights. Many pack animals died in the mud, while the men used their bodies and baggage to raise themselves above the water long enough to sleep. [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) gives a similar account but describes the march as lasting four days and three nights. He places the Spaniards and Africans at the front of the column, followed by the Gauls, with the cavalry and [Numidian](https://romanempiretimes.com/numidia-rome-african-frontier-and-the-soldiers-who-changed-an-empire/) horsemen at the rear. The Numidians were instructed to prevent the Gauls from abandoning the march when exhaustion overcame them. Hannibal suffered from an inflammation of the eyes during the crossing. [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-and-the-architecture-of-roman-power/) says that he rode the only surviving elephant and eventually lost the sight of one eye because the army could not stop for treatment. After completing the crossing, he rested his troops near the edge of the marshes and gathered information about the country and the Roman commander. The Roman consuls for the year were Gaius Flaminius and Gnaeus Servilius Geminus. Flaminius was stationed at Arretium, while Servilius commanded farther east near Ariminum. The two consular armies were therefore separated when Hannibal entered Etruria. Rather than attack Flaminius immediately, Hannibal passed the Roman position and began ravaging the surrounding country. Fires and destruction were visible from the Roman camp. Both Polybius and Livy say that this was intended to provoke Flaminius into following before he could unite with Servilius. ### The Reputation of Gaius Flaminius The surviving accounts present different aspects of Flaminius’s character and conduct. Polybius describes him as > “a thorough mob-courtier and demagogue, with no talent for the practical conduct of war and exceedingly self-confident withal.” ![A possible representation of Gaius Flaminius.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Gaius-Flaminius-1.jpg) A possible representation of Gaius Flaminius. Credits; Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT In his account, Hannibal learned about Flaminius’s character and planned his movements accordingly. Livy places greater emphasis on Flaminius’s earlier conflicts with the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) and on his alleged disregard for [religious](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-religion-of-ancient-rome-how-roman-worshipped-their-gods/) signs. Before describing the march toward Lake Trasimene, he includes reports of prodigies, Flaminius’s departure from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) without completing the customary rites, and the consul’s refusal to be delayed by unfavorable omens. The descriptions of Flaminius are not identical. Polybius concentrates on his political popularity, confidence and military decisions. Livy gives greater attention to his disputes with the Senate and his alleged disregard for religious warnings. [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/) describes him as fiery and ambitious, but also records his earlier victory over the Gauls despite opposition from the Senate and his fellow consul. Livy’s account changes emphasis once the battle begins. Before the fighting, Flaminius is presented as unwilling to heed advice or unfavorable signs. During the battle, however, Livy describes him restoring the broken ranks, encouraging his soldiers and moving toward the parts of the Roman army under the greatest pressure. ### Why Flaminius Followed Hannibal Polybius says that Flaminius’s officers advised him not to engage Hannibal immediately. They urged him to remain cautious, pay attention to the strength of the Carthaginian cavalry and wait for Servilius to arrive with the second consular army. Flaminius rejected their advice while Hannibal continued to devastate the countryside. Livy gives Flaminius a speech in which the consul explains why he would not remain at Arretium: > “We are to sit, I suppose, before the walls of Arretium, because our country and our household gods are here. Now that Hannibal has slipped through our hands, he is to ravage Italy, destroy and burn everything in his way till he reaches Rome, while we are not to stir from here until the senate summons C. Flaminius from Arretium as they once summoned Camillus from Veii.” The speech survives in Livy’s account. It presents Flaminius as fearing that Hannibal would be allowed to advance across Italy toward[ Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) while the Roman army remained behind him. Polybius similarly says that Flaminius asked what would be said in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) if the countryside were devastated while the army remained encamped in Etruria. He then broke camp and followed Hannibal. According to Polybius, civilians accompanied the army in the expectation of victory and booty, carrying chains and fetters intended for prisoners. Servilius was attempting to join Flaminius, but the ancient sources do not preserve Flaminius’s complete operational plan. Polybius says that Servilius found it impossible to move quickly with his entire army and sent a force of 4,000 cavalry under Gaius Centenius ahead of him. Hannibal continued southward between Cortona and Lake Trasimene, burning and plundering as he advanced. When he reached ground suitable for an ambush and saw that Flaminius was approaching, he began preparing his positions. ### The Trap Beside the Lake The ancient accounts describe a narrow entrance between the lake and the hills, followed by a broader area of level ground enclosed by rising terrain. Hannibal passed through the defile and placed his army around the route the Romans were expected to follow. ![Detail of the Battle of Lake Trasimeno in the fresco of the territories of Perugia and Città di Castello in the Gallery of Maps of the Vatican Museums in Rome. The detail was added in 1597 by the painter Pietro Oldrado over the original fresco by Ignazio Danti.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Battle-of-Lake-Trasimeno--1--1.jpg) Detail of the Battle of Lake Trasimeno in the fresco of the territories of Perugia and Città di Castello in the Gallery of Maps of the Vatican Museums in Rome. The detail was added in 1597 by the painter Pietro Oldrado over the original fresco by Ignazio Danti. Public domain. Polybius says that Hannibal occupied the hill facing the Roman advance with his Spaniards and Africans. He placed his slingers and pikemen beneath the hills on one side of the defile, while the cavalry and Celts formed a continuous line beneath the hills on the other side. The end of this line reached the entrance between the hillside and the lake, allowing the Romans to be attacked from behind once they had entered. Livy gives a somewhat different arrangement. Hannibal camped with his Africans and Spaniards on the ground visible ahead of the Romans, while the Balearic slingers and other light infantry were concealed behind the hills. The cavalry occupied the entrance to the defile. Livy explains the purpose of this deployment in a complete description: > “The Balearics and the rest of the light infantry he sent behind the hills; the cavalry, conveniently screened by some low hills, he stationed at the mouth of the defile, so that when the Romans had entered it they would be completely shut in by the cavalry, the lake, and the hills.” The two arrangements are not identical. In both accounts, however, Hannibal’s visible troops drew the Roman column forward while other parts of his army occupied concealed positions along the surrounding heights and near the entrance. The exact shape of the ancient shoreline remains uncertain because the level and boundaries of Lake Trasimene have changed. A modern reconstruction places the principal action in the basin between Malpasso, Sanguineto and Tuoro. Under this reconstruction, the Romans entered through the narrow passage at Malpasso and continued along the lakeshore while Hannibal’s troops occupied the enclosing heights. This identification remains a reconstruction of the ancient terrain rather than a detail supplied by the literary accounts. Flaminius reached the lake near sunset and camped there for the night. During the same night, Hannibal completed the deployment of the troops assigned to the ambush. ### The Ambush Begins in the Fog At[ dawn](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/), the Roman army entered the passage beside the lake. Livy explicitly says that Flaminius did so without sending scouts ahead. Polybius does not mention the absence of scouts, stating instead that Flaminius led his vanguard along the lake because he wanted to make contact with the enemy. Mist rising from the lake covered the lower ground. The Carthaginian troops stationed above the Romans could see one another, while visibility on the plain remained poor. Polybius describes the opening of the attack: > “It was an unusually misty morning, and Hannibal, as soon as the greater part of the enemy’s column had entered the defile and when the head was already in contact with him, giving the signal for battle and sending notice to those in the ambuscades, attacked the Romans from all sides at the same time.” The head of the Roman column had already reached the troops positioned in front when Hannibal gave the signal. The concealed forces descended from the hills, while the troops near the entrance blocked retreat. Roman officers could not see the overall situation or organize the column into its normal battle formation. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Battle-of-Lake-Trasimene-3--1--1.jpg) Castiglione del Lago-Umbria. Corgna palace. Fresco showing the Battle of Lake Trasimene by an unknown artist ( detail ): detail: Disembarkment of troops. Credits: Wolfgang Sauber, CC BY-SA 4.0 Livy reports that the Romans heard the attack before they understood where it was coming from: > “The shout of battle rose round the Romans before they could see clearly from whence it came, or became aware that they were surrounded. Fighting began in front and flank before they could form line or get their weapons ready or draw their swords.” The army had entered in marching order rather than in a prepared battle line. Attacks from the front, flanks and rear separated different parts of the column. The lake prevented movement in one direction, while Carthaginian troops descending from the hills restricted movement in the others. The fog also made it difficult for Roman soldiers to identify their standards, units and officers. Livy says that men moved toward the sounds of fighting without knowing whether they were advancing toward their comrades, the enemy or other groups attempting to escape. ### The Destruction of Flaminius' Army Although Livy strongly criticizes Flaminius before the [battle](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-battle-of-pharsalus-the-victory-that-changed-rome/), he describes his behavior during the fighting differently: > “In the universal panic, the consul displayed all the coolness that could be expected under the circumstances. The ranks were broken by each man turning towards the discordant shouts; he re-formed them as well as time and place allowed, and wherever he could be seen or heard, he encouraged his men and bade them stand and fight.” Flaminius attempted to restore order and moved toward places where his men were under the greatest pressure. Livy says that the fighting around him was especially severe and that he was accompanied by the strongest part of his army. Plutarch writes: > “Flaminius himself, then, while displaying many deeds of daring and prowess, fell, and round about him the flower of his army.” Polybius gives a shorter account of his death, saying that he was attacked and killed by certain Celts. Livy identifies the killer as Ducarius, an Insubrian horseman who recognized Flaminius and called upon his countrymen: > “Here is the man who slew our legions and laid waste our city and our lands! I will offer him in sacrifice to the shades of my foully murdered countrymen.” Ducarius then charged, killed an armor-bearer who attempted to stop him and drove his lance into the consul. The named warrior and his speech appear only in Livy’s account. ![ Ducarius decapitates Flaminius at the Battle of Lake Trasimene, by Joseph-Noël Sylvestre. Béziers (Languedoc-Roussillon), Musée des beaux-Arts](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Ducarius-decapitates-Flaminius-at-the-Battle-of-Lake-Trasimene--1--1.jpg) Ducarius decapitates Flaminius at the Battle of Lake Trasimene, by Joseph-Noël Sylvestre. Béziers (Languedoc-Roussillon), Musée des beaux-Arts. Public domain. The fighting continued for about three hours according to Livy. He also reports that an earthquake occurred during the[ battle](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-well-full-of-war-skeletons-in-croatia-may-be-victims-of-romes-forgotten-battle/) and affected several parts of Italy, but that the combatants did not notice it. Plutarch includes the same event, while Polybius does not mention an earthquake. Many Roman soldiers were driven toward the lake. Some attempted to swim while still wearing their armor and drowned. Others remained in the shallows with only their heads above water until Carthaginian cavalry entered the lake and killed them. Some asked their own comrades to kill them rather than leave them to the approaching horsemen. Approximately 6,000 Romans at the head of the column broke through the troops in front of them. Because of the fog, they did not initially understand what had happened to the rest of the army. They reached higher ground, where the clearing mist allowed them to see the destruction below. The survivors then moved toward an Etruscan village. Maharbal pursued and surrounded them with Carthaginian troops. They surrendered after receiving a promise that their lives would be spared. Polybius says that Hannibal later declared Maharbal had lacked the authority to grant those terms. Livy says that the men were thrown into chains. ### Casualties and the News at Rome Polybius gives a Roman death toll of approximately 15,000 and says that more than 15,000 prisoners were assembled after the battle. He places Hannibal’s losses at about 1,500, most of them Celts. Livy also reports that 15,000 Romans were killed. He says that about 1,000 fugitives reached [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-went-dark-life-after-sunset-in-the-ancient-city/) by different routes and gives Carthaginian losses as 2,500 killed during the battle, with additional men later dying from their wounds. These are the separate figures given by the two accounts. Hannibal divided the prisoners according to their status. Roman citizens were kept under guard, while prisoners from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-defeat-rome-never-forgot-teutoburg-forest-9-ce/)’s Italian allies were released without ransom. Polybius says Hannibal told them that he had come to fight the Romans for the freedom of Italy. This continued his attempt to separate [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/mistress-of-rome-servilia-caesar-and-the-politics-of-passion/) from the allied communities that supplied much of its military strength. ![Castiglione del Lago-Umbria. Corgna palace. Fresco showing the Battle of Lake Trasimene by an unknown artist ( detail )](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Battle-of-Lake-Trasimene-2--1--1.jpg) Castiglione del Lago-Umbria. Corgna palace. Fresco showing the Battle of Lake Trasimene by an unknown artist ( detail ): detail: Clemency of Hannibal. Credits: Wolfgang Sauber, CC BY-SA 4.0 Livy and Plutarch say that Hannibal ordered a search for Flaminius’s body because he wished to give it an honorable burial. The body was not found. Polybius does not include this detail. When news reached [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/), the population gathered in the Forum. Livy says that people demanded information from the magistrates while [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) moved through the streets seeking news about relatives in the army. The praetor Marcus Pomponius eventually addressed the crowd with the announcement: > “We have been defeated in a great battle.” Polybius records the same announcement. Plutarch provides a longer version, adding that the army had been destroyed and Flaminius was dead. For several days, people waited at the city gates for survivors and reports concerning those who had fought. A further defeat followed shortly afterward. The 4,000 cavalrymen sent ahead by Servilius encountered Carthaginian forces commanded by Maharbal. Polybius says that approximately half were killed in the first attack and the remainder were captured the next day. Livy reports that the force was surrounded and captured in Umbria. ![The column, donated by the city of Rome, in memory of the Battle of Trasimeno and placed at the intersection of Via Annibale Cartaginese and Via del Porto](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/The-pillar--from-Rome--in-memory-of-the-Battle-of-Trasimen-1.jpg) The column, donated by the city of Rome, in memory of the Battle of Trasimeno and placed at the intersection of Via Annibale Cartaginese and Via del Porto. Credits: Oracle of Delphi, CC BY-SA 4.0 The defeat at Lake Trasimene and the destruction of the cavalry reinforcements left Rome facing Hannibal without an intact consular army in central Italy. The Romans responded by granting extraordinary authority to Quintus Fabius Maximus. His appointment marked the beginning of the strategy later associated with his name: avoiding a direct battle with Hannibal while following his army, restricting its movements and attempting to exhaust its resources. **Sources used:** Polybius, Histories, Book 3, translated by W. R. Paton. Livy, History of Rome, Book 22, translated by Rev. Canon Roberts. Plutarch, Life of Fabius Maximus, translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Nic Fields, Lake Trasimene 217 BC: Ambush and Annihilation of a Roman Army. Osprey Publishing, 2017. Rachel Feig Vishnia, “A Case of ‘Bad Press’? Gaius Flaminius in Ancient Historiography,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 181 (2012), pp. 27–45. ### Fabius Maximus: The Roman Who Fought Hannibal by Refusing to Fight URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/fabius-maximus-the-roman-who-fought-hannibal-by-refusing-to-fight/ Last updated: 2026-07-30T18:38:12.000Z Quintus Fabius Maximus received command at one of the most dangerous moments in Roman history. Hannibal had crossed the Alps, defeated Roman armies at the Trebia and Lake Trasimene, and advanced through Italy while Rome struggled to recover. Previous commanders had attempted to stop him in major battles and suffered heavy losses. Fabius adopted a different policy. He followed Hannibal, occupied strong positions, attacked isolated soldiers and refused the decisive engagement that the Carthaginian commander repeatedly tried to provoke. His delaying policy was later summarized by the descriptive epithet *Cunctator*, meaning “the Delayer,” but many Romans initially condemned it. They watched their territory and that of their allies being destroyed while their commander remained on the heights. His [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/) questioned his courage, his deputy challenged his judgment, and his political opponents accused him of prolonging the war. Fabius nevertheless continued because he believed that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)’s first priority was to preserve its [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) and recover from the defeats it had already suffered. ### The Quiet Child Who Appeared Slow Fabius belonged to one of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s most distinguished families. His surname Verrucosus referred to a small wart above his lip, while another childhood name, *Ovicula*, or “Lambkin,” was associated with the gentleness and seriousness of his early behavior. His silence, caution during childhood activities and difficulty learning quickly caused some who knew him only superficially to consider him slow or unintelligent. These characteristics were later presented differently. [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/) writes: > “But soon, as time went on and he was roused by the demands of active life, he made it clear even to the multitude that his seeming lack of energy was only lack of passion, that his caution was prudence, and that his never being quick nor even easy to move made him always steadfast and sure.” Fabius prepared for public life by training his body for warfare and his speech for political activity. His speaking style reportedly lacked artificial ornament and relied instead on dignity and concise maxims. Long before [Hannibal](https://romanempiretimes.com/hannibal-ad-portas-how-37-african-elephants-crossed-the-alps/) entered Italy, Fabius had already held [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s highest offices. During the first of his five consulships, in 233 B.C., he defeated the Ligurians and celebrated a triumph. He also served as censor. By the crisis of 217 B.C., [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-burned-books/) was turning to an experienced commander whose established character differed from that of the generals Hannibal had recently defeated. ### Rome Turns to Fabius After Lake Trasimene The defeat at Lake Trasimene left [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/) in fear. The consul Gaius Flaminius had been killed and his army destroyed. Soon afterward, another Roman force of 4,000 cavalrymen, sent to assist him, was surrounded and captured. With the surviving consul absent and much of Italy threatened by Hannibal’s advance, the normal procedure by which a consul nominated a dictator could not be followed. The Assembly therefore invested Fabius with dictatorial authority and appointed Marcus Minucius Rufus as his master of the horse. ![Trasimeno lake seen from the fortress in Castiglione del Lago, Italy.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Lago-Trasimeno--1--1.jpg) Trasimene lake seen from the fortress in Castiglione del Lago, Italy. Credits:Adbar, CC BY-SA 3.0 Plutarch gives a different version, stating that Fabius appointed Minucius himself. Livy and Polybius place both appointments in the hands of the Roman people. The situation confronting [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) was expressed directly when news of the defeat reached the city: > “Men of Rome, we have been beaten in a great battle; our army has been cut to pieces; our consul, Flaminius, is dead. Take ye therefore counsel for your own salvation and safety.” Fabius first addressed the religious concerns associated with the defeats. The Sibylline Books were consulted, ceremonies and festivals were prescribed, and [temples](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/) were vowed to Venus Erycina and Mens. A sacred spring was also vowed. The religious measures were followed by military preparations. Additional [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/) were raised, Rome’s defenses were strengthened, and communities in Hannibal’s expected path were instructed to move into fortified places. They were also ordered to burn buildings and destroy produce that the Carthaginian army might use. His authority was displayed publicly. A dictator was attended by 24 lictors, twice the number assigned to a consul. When the surviving consul approached with his own lictors, Fabius ordered him to dismiss them, remove the symbols of his office and meet the dictator as a private citizen. ### Why Fabius Refused a Decisive Battle When Fabius took command of the army, Hannibal offered him battle. Fabius refused. He established his camps on high ground, where the Carthaginian cavalry could not easily reach him, and followed the enemy without approaching closely enough to be forced into an engagement. When Hannibal remained still, Fabius waited. When the Carthaginians moved, the Romans followed from the heights. [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/) explains that Hannibal’s soldiers had been trained through constant warfare from an early age. They had fought in Spain, crossed the Alps and already defeated the Romans and their allies twice in succession. The condition of the Roman army was described as the opposite, and a general engagement was expected to result in another defeat. Rome, however, possessed greater reserves of provisions and men. Fabius kept his army together and did not allow soldiers to forage or wander away from the camp without protection. When they went out to gather wood or supplies, they moved in large groups and remained within prescribed limits. Cavalry and light infantry were kept ready to respond to sudden attacks. Fabius watched for Carthaginians who wandered too far from their own camp and attacked them when the circumstances were favorable. He accepted smaller engagements on secure ground where the Romans had a nearby route of retreat. These actions gradually reduced Hannibal’s limited forces while giving Roman soldiers opportunities to recover from the effect of their earlier defeats. [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/) describes the priority Fabius established: > “Fabius, having determined not to expose himself to any risk or to venture on a battle, but to make the safety of the army under his command his first and chief aim, adhered steadfastly to this purpose.” [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) similarly describes Fabius refusing to risk everything in a general engagement while using smaller encounters to restore the confidence of his men. The soldiers had been demoralized by previous defeats, but the limited successes made them less dissatisfied with their own courage and fortunes. The policy remained unpopular because Hannibal continued moving through allied territory. Minucius and other officers saw communities being plundered and farms burning while the Roman army followed without offering battle. Minucius argued that they had not come merely to watch their allies being murdered and their homes destroyed. He accused Fabius of treating an army like a herd being led through mountain paths and summer pastures. Hannibal also understood that the destruction of allied territory might weaken Rome’s authority. By entering the fertile plain around Capua and devastating it without opposition, he hoped either to compel Fabius to fight or to persuade Italian communities that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/some-of-rome-worst-rulers-nobody-talks-about/) could no longer defend them. Even after the Roman defeats at the Trebia and Lake Trasimene, however, the Italian cities had not yet begun abandoning Rome in large numbers. Fabius continued moving along the high ground. He remained near enough to show Rome’s allies that the army had not withdrawn completely but declined to descend into the plain, where Hannibal’s cavalry held a clear advantage. His refusal to fight was condemned by his own soldiers and civilians in Rome, while Hannibal recognized that he was facing a different kind of commander from those he had already defeated. ### Hannibal Escapes With the Fire-Bearing Oxen Fabius attempted to use the terrain against Hannibal when the Carthaginian army entered the fertile Falernian plain and collected a large quantity of booty. The Romans occupied the surrounding heights and guarded the narrow route through which Hannibal was expected to withdraw. Fabius stationed about 4,000 men at the pass and held the main army on elevated ground overlooking it. ![Hannibal Crossing the Alps; detail from a fresco by Jacopo Ripanda, ca 1510, Palazzo dei Conservatori (Capitoline Museum), Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Hannibal-in-Italy-by-Jacopo-Ripanda--1--1.jpg) Hannibal Crossing the Alps; detail from a fresco by Jacopo Ripanda, ca 1510, Palazzo dei Conservatori (Capitoline Museum), Rome. Credits:osé Luiz Bernardes Ribeiro / CC BY-SA 4.0 Hannibal gathered around 2,000 captured oxen and ordered bundles of dry wood to be fastened to their horns. During the night, the wood was set alight and the frightened animals were driven toward higher ground. To the Romans watching from a distance, the moving flames appeared to be soldiers carrying torches across the mountains. The soldiers guarding the pass abandoned their position and moved toward the lights because they believed that Hannibal’s army was attempting to pass above them. While they tried to understand what was happening on the heights, the Carthaginian army moved through the unguarded route with its captured supplies. Fabius remained inside his camp with the main force until daylight because he suspected that the movement was a trick. When morning came, Hannibal sent reinforcements to the troops accompanying the cattle. They attacked the Romans on the heights, killed about 1,000 of them and brought their own men down safely. Hannibal escaped from the plain with his army and booty, and the incident increased the criticism directed at the dictator. Hannibal also attempted to damage Fabius’s [reputation](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-obsession-with-reputation/) by ordering that his property be spared while the surrounding estates were destroyed. Guards were placed around the land to prevent anything from being taken. When the news reached Rome, it increased suspicions against Fabius and allowed his opponents to suggest that a secret agreement existed between the commanders. The ancient accounts then describe an exchange of prisoners in which Rome recovered more men than[ Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spartan-who-saved-carthage-and-broke-a-roman-invasion/) and owed payment for the difference. Livy gives the number as 247 Roman prisoners, while Plutarch gives 240\. [The Senate ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/)delayed or refused the payment because Fabius had made the agreement without consulting it. Fabius sent his son to Rome and ordered him to sell the property Hannibal had spared. The money was brought back to the camp and used to settle the obligation. In Plutarch’s account, many of the released prisoners later offered to repay Fabius, but he refused to accept their [money](https://romanempiretimes.com/credit-loans-and-risk-how-ancient-rome-handled-money-without-a-central-bank/). ### Minucius Is Given Equal Authority Fabius was recalled to Rome to participate in religious ceremonies and left Minucius in temporary command. Before departing, he advised him to rely on prudence rather than fortune. He said that Rome had already gained something by avoiding another defeat and obtaining time to recover from its earlier disasters. Livy compares this policy to the work of physicians who sometimes helped their patients more by allowing them to rest than by subjecting them to movement and exercise. Minucius ignored the advice. After observing that many Carthaginian soldiers were dispersed in search of supplies, he attacked the remaining forces. He drove some of them back into their camp and inflicted losses on the foraging parties. Roman casualties were also heavy, but reports reaching Rome exaggerated the engagement into a major victory. Minucius was praised as the active commander Rome needed, while Fabius declared that he feared his deputy’s success more than he would have feared his failure. The tribune Metilius accused Fabius of deliberately wasting time so that he could remain in office and retain supreme command. He also argued that Minucius had been prevented from seeing the enemy or doing anything associated with warfare while Fabius remained in control. Political opposition to Fabius then produced an unprecedented decision. Minucius was granted authority equal to that of the dictator. Rather than permit each commander to control the entire army on alternate days, the forces were divided between them. Minucius established a separate camp and prepared to conduct operations according to his own judgment. Hannibal learned about the disagreement and decided to exploit it. Between the camps stood a hill surrounded by land that appeared too open for an ambush. The ground, however, contained hollows in which Carthaginian infantry and cavalry could be concealed. During the night, Hannibal placed soldiers in these hiding places. The following morning, he sent a smaller force to occupy the hill, expecting Minucius to challenge it. Minucius sent out his light infantry, followed by his cavalry and finally the legions. As the engagement expanded, the concealed Carthaginian soldiers emerged and attacked the Romans from several directions. The Roman formation fell into confusion, and Minucius’s army began to break apart. Fabius had kept his troops prepared and watched the battle from his own camp. When he saw Minucius’s army surrounded, he ordered his soldiers to advance: > “However, this is not the time for censure or rebuke, advance into the field! Let us wrest victory from the foe, and a confession of error from our fellow-citizens.” The defeated soldiers rallied around the fresh formations, and Hannibal ended the pursuit rather than engage the newly arrived legions in good order. Plutarch adds that Fabius returned to his camp after the battle without making a haughty or hostile statement about his colleague. ![Hubertus Quellinus: Triumphal procession Fabius Maximus ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Fabius-Maximus-in-his-chariot-in-Triumphal-procession--1--1.jpg) Hubertus Quellinus: Triumphal procession Fabius Maximus. Public domain. Minucius reunited the army and publicly acknowledged Fabius as his superior. He addressed him as “Father,” while his soldiers called the men who had rescued them their “Patrons.” Minucius told his troops: > “Since the first order of intelligence and capacity has been denied to us let us cling to the second and intermediate one, and whilst we are learning to command, let us make up our minds to obey him who is wise and far sighted.” The two forces returned to a single camp, and Minucius again accepted the authority of Fabius. The different ancient accounts do not present this reconciliation in exactly the same way. Livy concentrates mainly on Minucius acknowledging that Fabius possessed better military judgment. Plutarch expands the episode into a broader lesson about generalship: Fabius rescues the colleague who opposed him, refuses to humiliate him afterward and allows Minucius to acknowledge his mistake voluntarily. In this version, the correction of Minucius becomes part of Fabius’s victory. ### Rome Abandons His Policy at Cannae When Fabius and Minucius laid down their offices, the disagreement over how to fight Hannibal remained unresolved. Rome still wanted a decisive victory. The consul Gaius Terentius Varro supported an aggressive policy, while his colleague Lucius Aemilius Paullus was more cautious. Fabius warned Paullus that he would have to resist not only Hannibal but also the impatience of his fellow consul. He maintained that Hannibal wanted a battle because his forces would continue to weaken if Rome refused to provide one. Plutarch records Fabius telling Paullus that if no one fought Hannibal that year, the Carthaginian would either perish in Italy or leave it in flight. Rome nevertheless assembled an exceptionally large army and confronted Hannibal at [Cannae](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-battle-of-cannae-romes-darkest-day/) in 216 B.C. The Roman infantry advanced into the Carthaginian center, which gave way and drew it forward. Hannibal’s stronger troops then attacked the Romans from the flanks and closed around their rear. Paullus was killed, Varro escaped, and a large part of the Roman and allied army was destroyed or captured. Fabius had not commanded at Cannae, but he helped organize Rome’s response. Reports reaching the city initially suggested that both consuls and their armies had been lost. Public streets filled with lamentation, while the Senate struggled to obtain reliable information about the survivors and Hannibal’s next movement. Fabius proposed that horsemen be sent along the Appian and Latin roads to question fugitives and determine what had happened to the armies. They were also to discover where Hannibal had gone after the battle and what he appeared likely to do next. Because few magistrates remained in Rome, the senators themselves were instructed to help calm the city. Fabius also recommended that citizens remain in their homes, public lamentation be restrained and guards be stationed at the gates to prevent people from abandoning Rome. Those bringing information were to be taken before the praetors rather than allowed to spread reports through the city. Once the immediate panic had been controlled, the Senate could meet again to discuss the defense of Rome. The period of mourning was limited to 30 days so that public religious observances would not remain suspended indefinitely. When Varro returned after surviving the battle, the Senate and people received him because he had not despaired of the state. Rome then reorganized the surviving forces and prepared new measures for its defense. ### Fabius and Marcellus After Cannae, Fabius continued to receive military commands. The other Roman commander particularly associated with resistance to Hannibal was Marcus Claudius Marcellus. The two men were admired for different qualities and conducted the war in different ways. ![Giovanni Battista Tiepolo: Quintus Fabius Maximus Before the Senate of Carthage](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Quintus-Fabius-Maximus-Before-the-Senate-of-Carthage--1-.jpg) Giovanni Battista Tiepolo: Quintus Fabius Maximus Before the Senate of Carthage. Public domain. Marcellus favored energetic and direct action. Fabius continued to rely on caution, secure positions and gradual pressure. Plutarch compares Marcellus to a swiftly flowing river that shook and swept away Hannibal’s forces, while the slow and continuous hostility of Fabius wore them down. Hannibal fought both men repeatedly while they held commands as consuls, praetors or proconsuls. Marcellus was eventually killed after being drawn into an ambush during his fifth consulship. Hannibal used several deceptions against Fabius but failed to destroy him. On one occasion, letters supposedly sent by leading men in Metapontum promised to surrender the city if Fabius approached. He prepared to take part of his army there during the night, but unfavorable religious signs stopped the expedition. The letters were later discovered to be forgeries prepared by Hannibal, who had arranged an ambush near the city. ### How Fabius Treated His Soldiers Several stories describe how Fabius handled discipline and discontent within his army. He believed that a commander should not depend entirely upon punishment. Plutarch compares his approach with that of people training horses and dogs, who relied on care, familiarity and feeding rather than only on restraints and blows. The same passage compares difficult soldiers with wild trees that could be cultivated until they produced fruit. When Fabius learned that a Marsian soldier of distinguished birth and proven courage was considering desertion, he did not punish him. He acknowledged that the man’s service had been overlooked by commanders who distributed honors according to favor rather than merit. Fabius gave him a warhorse and other rewards, after which the soldier reportedly became one of the most loyal men in the army. In another account, a Lucanian soldier repeatedly left his post and traveled away from the camp. Fabius investigated and discovered that the soldier was visiting a woman he loved. He secretly had the woman brought to his tent and then placed her in the soldier’s care. Fabius told him that his previous acts of bravery would atone for his transgressions, but another person would now be responsible for ensuring that he remained in camp. His respect for Roman public authority was illustrated after his son became consul. Fabius approached him on horseback, but the younger man sent a lictor ordering his father to dismount and approach the consul on foot. The people present regarded the order as disrespectful to a man of Fabius’s standing, but he immediately dismounted, approached his son and embraced him: > “My son, you are right in thought and act. You understand what a people has made you its officer, and what a high office you have received from them.” ![Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator goes to meet his son on foot](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Quintus-Fabius-Maximus-goes-to-meet-his-son-on-foot--1--1.jpg) Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator goes to meet his son on foot. Public domain. He continued by explaining that parents and children were secondary to the good of the country. The account then compares his behavior with that of his great-grandfather, who had served under his own son when the younger man held the consulship. Fabius’s son later died while holding the consulship. Fabius delivered the [funeral ](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/)oration himself in the Forum, then wrote and published the speech. Plutarch presents him as bearing the loss with the self-control expected of both a father and a public figure. ### The Capture of Tarentum In 209 B.C., Fabius recovered Tarentum from Hannibal through an arrangement with a Bruttian commander inside the city. One version describes a young Tarentine serving in the Roman army whose sister was involved with the commander of the Bruttian garrison. Another version identifies the woman as a Bruttian and a concubine of Fabius. In both versions, contact with the garrison commander created the opportunity for Roman soldiers to enter the city. To draw Hannibal away, Fabius ordered the Roman garrison at Rhegium to attack Bruttium and capture Caulonia. The force consisted largely of deserters and soldiers previously sent away from Sicily in disgrace. Fabius expected their movement to attract Hannibal, and the Carthaginian army left the area around Tarentum to pursue them. Five days after beginning the siege, Fabius received information about the section of wall controlled by the Bruttian commander. He did not rely entirely upon that agreement. Roman forces attacked the city by both land and sea with enough noise to draw most of the defenders away, while Fabius led another group quietly toward the appointed position. After receiving the signal, the Romans scaled the walls and captured the city. The capture was followed by severe measures. Plutarch states that Fabius ordered the Bruttians killed so that his success would not appear to have depended upon betrayal. The attempt failed to conceal what had happened and brought accusations of cruelty and bad faith. Many Tarentines were also killed, 30,000 were sold into [slavery](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/), and the city was plundered. ![National Gallery. Girolamo Genga, The Son of Quintus Fabius Maximus Ransoming Roman Prisoners from Hannibal](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/The-son-of-Quintus-Fabius-Maximus-ransoms-the-Roman-prisoners-from-Hannibal--1--1.jpg) National Gallery. Girolamo Genga, The Son of Quintus Fabius Maximus Ransoming Roman Prisoners from Hannibal. Credits: Fabrizio Garrisi, CC BY-SA 4.0 The account states that 3,000 talents were brought into the Roman treasury. When an official asked what should be done with the statues and paintings, which he called the gods of Tarentum, Fabius replied that the angered gods should be left to the Tarentines. He nevertheless removed a colossal statue of Hercules and placed it on the Capitoline Hill near an equestrian statue of himself. The victory brought Fabius a second triumph. Marcus Livius, who had retained control of Tarentum’s citadel after the rest of the city went over to Hannibal, complained that he rather than Fabius deserved credit for its recovery. Fabius answered: > “You are right; had you not lost the city, I had not taken it.” ### Fabius Opposes Scipio’s African Campaign During the final phase of the war, Fabius opposed[ Scipio](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-continence-of-scipio-a-legacy-of-clemency-in-roman-history-and-art/)’s proposal to invade Africa. [Scipio](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-was-the-best-roman-warrior-scipio-africanus-a-man-who-never-lost-a-battle/) had returned from Spain after defeating Carthaginian forces, taking cities and gaining the support of several peoples. After becoming consul, he proposed moving the war from Italy to the territory of Carthage. Fabius argued that Hannibal remained undefeated in Italy and that Rome should not send men and resources overseas while the enemy was still present on Italian soil. He warned that Scipio was encouraging young men to leave their parents, wives and city while Hannibal remained in the country. Fabius persuaded the Senate to support his position. He also attempted to convince Scipio’s consular colleague, Publius Licinius Crassus, to seek the African command himself. Crassus remained in Italy partly because he was *pontifex maximus* and was restricted by his religious office. Plutarch attributes Fabius’s initial opposition to his established caution and fear of the danger involved. The account adds that his resistance became more intense through ambition and rivalry with the younger commander. Fabius prevented public money from being granted for the expedition, forcing Scipio to obtain voluntary support from communities in Etruria. Scipio was ultimately permitted to use the forces already stationed in Sicily and take 300 of the soldiers who had served with him in Spain. After he crossed into Africa, reports arrived in Rome describing his victories, captured spoils and the destruction of Carthaginian camps. [Carthage ](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/)then sent messages ordering Hannibal to leave Italy and return to defend his native city. Fabius continued opposing the campaign and proposed that a successor be sent to replace Scipio. He said that it was dangerous to entrust such important affairs to the fortune of one man because the same person could not always remain fortunate. Even after Hannibal left Italy, Fabius warned that the danger had not ended and argued that Scipio would now face him near Carthage with his army prepared to defend its own city. Fabius did not live to hear of Hannibal’s defeat at Zama or see the conclusion of the war. He became ill and died around the time Hannibal left Italy. The Romans did not formally bury him at public expense. Instead, individual citizens contributed the smallest coin they possessed toward his funeral. The contribution was not presented as aid to an impoverished family. According to Plutarch, the people believed they were participating in the burial of a father. 💡 ****Sources used:** Plutarch, "Life of Fabius Maximus", translated by Bernadotte Perrin Livy, "History of Rome", Book 22, translated by Rev. Canon Roberts Polybius, "Histories", Book 3, translated by W.R. Paton Sophia A. Xenophontos, “Περὶ ἀγαθοῦ στρατηγοῦ: Plutarch’s Fabius Maximus and the Ethics of Generalship,” **Hermes* 140, no. 2 (2012), pp. 160–183. ### Courtroom Drama in Ancient Rome: When Trials Became Theater URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/courtroom-drama-in-ancient-rome-when-trials-became-theater/ Last updated: 2026-07-29T18:34:44.000Z Roman public trials in the late Republic were not quiet legal proceedings built around written briefs, private deliberation, and modern rules of evidence. They were public events built around speech. The Roman *iudicia publica*, or public courts, dealt with wrongs understood as injuries to the community. They were not exact equivalents of modern criminal courts. The Romans had public prosecutions, charges, laws, jurors, [punishments](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/) and verdicts, but the modern category of crime does not fit their world neatly. The courtroom was one of the places where Romans judged acts, but it was also one of the places where they judged people. A trial could ask whether a man had committed murder, bribery, violence, or extortion, while also asking what sort of man he was, what life he had lived, what company he kept, what people believed about him, and whether his conduct threatened the Roman community. The law was there, but it stood alongside reputation, family, shame, humor, anger, pity, witnesses, spectacle, and memory. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)’s surviving courtroom speeches give the clearest view of this world, though they are not neutral transcripts. Some were revised for publication, some are defense speeches by a man trying to win, and one major prosecution, the case against Verres, was later expanded into speeches that [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/stoic-in-the-sauna-why-a-baiae-bathhouse-linked-to-cicero-is-deliciously-ironic/) would have delivered if the trial had continued. The evidence is powerful, but it is not simple. Still, the speeches preserve one of the fullest surviving views of Roman trials. Cicero speaks to judges, imagines strangers entering the city, calls up ancestors, mocks enemies, presents witnesses, makes absent provinces visible, asks for pity, provokes laughter, and turns legal accusations into public portraits. ### Courts Built Around Speech The Republican public courts worked through oratory. Advocates spoke before lay jurors, who were not guided by a modern judge’s charge on law and evidence. They listened to speeches that shaped the case before them. This made the advocate central. A Roman trial was not only a question of statutes and proof, because the jurors heard a story of the case, a story of the accused, a story of the accuser, and often a story of Rome itself. Cicero knew that an advocate had to understand the minds of the jurors. In *Pro Cluentio*, he makes clear that an advocate must understand the common assumptions and instincts of the people he is addressing. The point belongs to a speech and is part of persuasion, but it also describes the orator’s task: the advocate had to know what the audience already feared, admired, hated, accepted, or suspected. ![ Marcus Tullius Cicero, by Bertel Thorvaldsen as copied from the Roman original, in Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Cicero-bust--1--1.jpg) Marcus Tullius Cicero, by Bertel Thorvaldsen as copied from the Roman original, in Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen. Public domain The surviving speeches show that Roman jurors could be asked to judge more than a charge. They could be asked to judge a character. A prosecutor did not always rely only on the alleged act, and a defense did not always answer only the legal accusation. Both sides could draw on life, [reputation](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-obsession-with-reputation/), previous behavior, public service, moral habits, associates, household, wealth, enemies, and social standing. For a modern reader, that can look like a trial moving away from the case. In Roman oratory, those surrounding details could become part of the case. A charge of murder could lead into a man’s family, property, inheritance, and enemies. A charge of violence could lead into the state of the republic. A charge of extortion could lead into the treatment of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)’s allies. A scandal involving a young man could lead into the reputation of a [woman](https://romanempiretimes.com/eumachia-the-unknown-woman-of-pompeii/), the habits of a household, and the moral limits of elite youth. ### Cicero and the Problem of the Evidence Cicero is the main surviving voice, which is useful and dangerous at the same time. It is useful because the speeches preserve Roman courtroom material: names, charges, witnesses, laws, emotions, jokes, accusations, appeals, and legal settings. It is dangerous because the speeches give one advocate’s version of events. Cicero wanted acquittals for his clients and conviction for Verres, and he also wanted his speeches to preserve his own public image. The speech for Milo is the clearest warning. Milo was tried after the killing of Publius Clodius Pulcher in 52 BC. The real trial took place amid public violence. [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/) surrounded the court with soldiers, Cicero’s defense failed, and Milo went into exile. The speech that survives is the version Cicero later circulated, not the speech recorded as delivered at the trial. Ancient evidence already knew that a different speech had been delivered. The published version presents the killing as though the key question were whether Milo or Clodius laid an ambush, while other evidence presents the events as less clean than Cicero’s published version. That does not make the speech useless. It makes it a written Roman courtroom performance. It shows how Cicero wanted the case remembered, and it also shows how a trial could be rebuilt through style, order, argument, and character. The same caution applies to In Verrem. Verres left for exile before Cicero delivered the long second set of speeches. Cicero then published the speeches he would have used. The result is not a normal transcript, but it preserves a powerful Roman prosecution: theft, provincial abuse, stolen art, sacrilege, flogged citizens, witnesses, records, and outrage brought into the Roman court. The trial speeches must therefore be read as advocacy. They may preserve evidence, but they also arrange that evidence into public performance. ### When the Defendant Became the Story Roman courtroom speeches often make the accused into a public type. Verres is not only a governor accused of extortion. He becomes the corrupt and cruel magistrate whose greed shames Roman rule. Milo is not only a man charged after a killing. He becomes either murderer or defender of the state, depending on which speech is believed. Caelius is not only a young man accused in a scandal. He becomes a promising Roman youth attacked through the anger and reputation of Clodia. Sextus Roscius is not only a son accused of killing his father. He becomes a dispossessed man caught in the violence and property seizures of [Sulla](https://romanempiretimes.com/sulla-rome-reluctant-tyrant/)’s time. ![ The original Forum functioned as an open air market abutting on the Comitium, but eventually outgrew its day to day shopping and marketplace role. Political speeches, civil trials, and other public affairs began to take up more space in the Forum.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Roman-forum-1--1--1.jpg) The original Forum functioned as an open air market abutting on the Comitium, but eventually outgrew its day to day shopping and marketplace role. Political speeches, civil trials, and other public affairs began to take up more space in the Forum. Public domain. This kind of portrait was not separate from the legal case. In Roman public speech, the kind of person a defendant seemed to be could help jurors decide what was believable. A charge of murder could lead to questions about motive, opportunity, inheritance, household, and enemies. A charge of extortion could lead to the governor’s whole conduct in a province. A charge of violence could become a question of political danger. Cicero often asks jurors to see the accused in a wider frame, placing the act inside a life. That also allowed the speaker to shape public sympathy. A defendant could be made pitiful, dangerous, ridiculous, noble, corrupt, youthful, reckless, loyal, shameless, or Roman. The courtroom turned legal accusation into civic portraiture. ### When a Trial Became a Stage The opening of *Pro Caelio* begins with a staged scene. Cicero asks the judges to imagine a stranger arriving in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/), unfamiliar with Roman law and custom. This stranger sees that all other business has stopped for public games, but one trial is still going on. He would assume, Cicero says, that the charge must involve > “a crime of such enormity” that, if it were neglected even briefly, > “the state could no longer stand upright. The scene is carefully arranged. The calendar, the games, the court, the outsider, the judges, and the supposed seriousness of the case all appear before the legal details. Then the tone turns. If the stranger heard the facts, Cicero claims, he would not think the state was in danger. He would see a young man being attacked through private resentment and scandal. The trial begins as public emergency and becomes, in Cicero’s hands, an overblown accusation. The opening asks the judges to feel the mismatch between the court’s seriousness and the prosecution’s case. This is courtroom theater, but not theater outside law. It is the way the defense frames the law. The same habit appears elsewhere. In the case against Verres, Sicily is brought before Roman jurors through words. In the case for Milo, the [Appian Way](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-appian-way-europe-most-travelled-road-is-not-a-modern-highway/), the armed court, Clodius’ followers, [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/mad-honey-warfare-how-king-mithridates-poisoned-pompeys-legions/)’s troops, and the burning of the [senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) house stand behind the speech. In the case for Roscius, the shadow of Sulla’s proscriptions hangs over the charge of murder. ### Clodia and the Trial of Reputation *Pro Caelio* is one of the clearest examples of reputation inside a Roman trial. The case formally concerned accusations against Marcus Caelius, including violence and attempted poisoning. Cicero turns much of the speech toward Clodia, the woman he presents as the force behind the prosecution. He does not only answer the charge. He attacks the world from which the charge comes. Clodia is treated through ancestry, sexuality, household, rumor, and ridicule. Cicero calls up the voice of Appius Claudius Caecus, one of her great ancestors, and imagines him rebuking her. A Roman trial suddenly contains a dead ancestral voice. In that imagined rebuke, Cicero has the ancestor ask: > “why was Caelius so intimate with you?” The question is followed by another: > “Was he a relation? a connection?” The effect is not just argument. It puts Clodia before the judges as a woman judged by family memory and by the standards attached to a famous Roman house. Then the speech shifts again. Cicero offers a lighter voice, an indulgent relative who speaks with less severity. The courtroom becomes a place of roles: stern ancestor, forgiving kinsman, accused young man, dangerous woman, laughing audience. Cicero also attacks Clodia’s house. A household can become evidence of character. [Slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/), visitors, parties, rumors, and private habits are pulled into public speech. The legal charge does not disappear, but the defense makes the credibility of the charge depend on the character of the woman behind it. ![For centuries, the Forum was the center of Roman public life: the site of triumphal processions and elections; the venue for public speeches, criminal trials, and gladiatorial matches; and the nucleus of commercial affairs. Statues and monuments commemorated the city's great historical figures.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/roman-forum-2--1--1.jpg) For centuries, the Forum was the center of Roman public life: the site of triumphal processions and elections; the venue for public speeches, criminal trials, and gladiatorial matches; and the nucleus of commercial affairs. Statues and monuments commemorated the city's great historical figures. Credits: daryl\_mitchell, CC BY-SA 2.0 Cicero’s language is brutal. Clodia is not simply contradicted. She is displayed. Her ancestry is turned against her, her house is turned into a public scene, and her private life is made part of the trial. The young Caelius is defended partly by making Clodia unbelievable. ### When Jokes Became Evidence [Laughter](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-made-the-ancient-romans-laugh/) had a place in Roman public speech, but it was not always gentle. Roman humorous invective could make an opponent ridiculous, isolate him, and invite the audience to join in the humiliation. A joke could suggest that a man was not what a Roman public man should be. [The body could be mocked](https://romanempiretimes.com/if-you-were-overweight-in-ancient-rome-you-were-judged/). A name could be twisted. A mouth, a face, a walk, a style of dress, a banquet habit, or a rumor of sexual conduct could become material for public attack. In political and courtroom speech, such mockery did not only entertain. It marked people, and the audience’s laughter helped confirm the judgment. [Quintilian](https://romanempiretimes.com/quintilian-a-roman-theory-of-education-that-left-its-mark-from-antiquity-onwards/) later explains the courtroom use of laughter with practical clarity. He says it can > “dispels the graver emotions of the judge” and > “frequently diverts his attention from the facts of the case.” In other words, laughter was not only a decorative flourish. It could change the emotional direction of a trial. But he also warns that jokes are dangerous. Jokes meant to raise laughter can be false, distorted, or damaging in ways that do not depend on strict reason. Their effect depends not only on the words themselves but on the audience, the case, the judge, the speaker, the target, and the moment. He also gives limits. An accuser should not season a terrible case with jokes, and a defender should not laugh at a case that calls for pity. Great wickedness requires seriousness, while great misery requires compassion. Roman humor in court was therefore controlled. A joke could wound, but it could also misfire. The courtroom speaker had to judge when laughter would help. A joke could break tension, but it could also make the speaker look cruel. It could diminish the opponent, but it could also diminish the case. ### How Romans Turned Mockery into Judgment Roman invective could use appearance as a public sign. In Cicero’s discussion of humor in *De Oratore*, one story tells how a speaker mocked Helvius Mancia by pointing to a painted figure on a shield: a distorted Gaul, tongue out, cheeks hanging. The joke made the crowd laugh because the figure seemed to resemble Mancia. The attack worked through resemblance. The mocked man was made to look like a foreign caricature. The joke did not simply say he looked strange. It used his appearance to suggest what sort of person he was. This kind of public mockery feels cruel to a modern reader. In Roman elite speech, bodily ridicule could carry moral meaning. The ugly, distorted, excessive, or uncontrolled body could be presented as a sign of the person within. Names worked in a similar way. A name could be turned into a joke or a judgment. The orator could make the name seem to reveal the person. In a society where family name, rank, and public memory carried great weight, playing with a name could become more than wordplay. ![Copy of one of Cicero's orations (Pro Caelio) which are found in a 15th century codex from Italy. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/copy-of-Cicero-orations--1--1-1.jpg) Copy of one of Cicero's orations (**Pro Caelio*) which are found in a 15th century codex from Italy. Credits:PGS 1984, CC BY 4.0 The same logic appears in attacks on feasting and effeminacy. Banquets, [luxury](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/), dancing, sexual accusation, soft habits, and bodily display could be used to suggest that a man had failed the standards expected of an elite [Roman male](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-thought-made-a-man-weak/). The courtroom was one place where those standards could be enforced through laughter. A man mocked for his body, name, speech, appetite, dress, or sexual rumors was not just being insulted. He was being placed before the audience as the wrong kind of Roman. ### When Judges Were Moved by Emotion Roman trials also used pity. Quintilian writes openly about the need to move judges. He says that proofs may make judges think one side has the better case, but emotional appeal does something else. His short explanation is direct: > “what they wish, they will also believe.” He treats this not as an accident but as part of advocacy. The orator must know how to stir anger, hatred, envy, fear, pity, and favor. The judge moved by passion is no longer weighing the case in the same cold way. Quintilian compares him to a lover who cannot judge beauty because passion has taken control. A judge swept by anger, favor, hatred, or pity is carried by the emotion. Tears have their place too. When tears rise in a judge’s eyes during the closing part of a speech, Quintilian treats that as a visible sign of victory. The judge is still sitting and listening, but his emotion already gives something away. Roman rhetorical training was open about emotional pressure. The orator did not merely lay out facts. He made the judge feel. Laughter and tears belong in the same courtroom. Both move judgment away from plain calculation, and both can make the jurors see the case differently. The advocate could use pity for a defendant, anger against an enemy, disgust toward an accuser, fear for the republic, or grief for a victim. The speech did not only give the jury information. It shaped the emotional path by which the jury reached judgment. ### How Humor and Pity Shaped Roman Trials Quintilian places laughter close to the courtroom’s emotional work. Humor can loosen anger, distract from facts, and refresh a tired listener. But it is risky. It depends on timing, nature, opportunity, speaker, case, judge, target, and the kind of remark made. ![Frontispiece of Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria, ed. by Pieter Burman(n) the Elder, Leiden 1720. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Quintilian--Institutio-oratoria--1--1.jpg) Frontispiece of Quintilian’s **Institutio oratoria*, ed. by Pieter Burman(n) the Elder, Leiden 1720\. Public domain. The orator must also avoid the wrong kind of performance. Quintilian warns against distorted facial expression, crude gestures, theatrical obscenity, and ribald jokes. Humor can be bitter or abusive in court, but not all jokes are fitting for an orator or respectable man. The rule is practical. A man defending a pitiful client should not turn the trial into comedy, and a man prosecuting a terrible crime should not make the horror seem light. A joke must fit the case. Roman courtroom laughter therefore belonged to judgment, not to casual amusement. It could weaken an opponent’s dignity, expose a contradiction, make false seriousness collapse, or reveal cruelty and bad taste in the speaker. A trial could contain both kinds of pressure. The advocate might make the jurors laugh at one person and pity another. He might turn one household into a joke and another into a scene of suffering. This mixture is part of the Roman courtroom world, where shame and pity, mockery and tears, insult and appeal could stand beside the law. ### Violence and the Case of Milo The trial of Milo shows Roman courtroom performance under political pressure. The background was violent. Milo and Clodius were enemies. Their followers clashed. Clodius was wounded on the Appian Way and later killed. His supporters burned his body in the senate house. The state treated the disorder as a public crisis. Milo was tried before a special court. Pompey placed soldiers around the tribunal, and Cicero had to speak in a court surrounded by armed force. The published *Pro Milone* opens with that atmosphere. Cicero addresses the sight of weapons and troops. The court is not cut off from the crisis. The soldiers, the crowd, Pompey’s authority, and the memory of Clodius are all present. Cicero’s famous line gives the tone of the defense: > “For laws are silent among arms.” The [Latin](https://romanempiretimes.com/contrary-to-what-you-think-not-all-romans-spoke-latin-heres-what-they-actually-spoke/), silent enim leges inter arma, has often outlived the case itself. The line does not remove law from the trial. It places the killing inside a world of violence and self-defense, asking the judges to think about what happens when public life is already armed. The speech then turns strongly on character. Clodius is presented as violent, dangerous, shameless, and destructive. Milo is presented as the man who faced that danger. The published speech goes further than a narrow defense, presenting Clodius’ death as a benefit to the state and making the defense into a story of public deliverance. The surviving speech is a crafted published version, not the failed speech as delivered. It gives a Roman example of how a case could be reshaped in writing after the courtroom was lost. The trial itself ended badly for Milo, while the speech survived as Cicero’s version of what the defense should have been. ### Sicily on Trial in Rome The case against Verres shows the prosecution side. Verres had governed Sicily. Cicero accused him of extortion, theft, sacrilege, cruelty, and abuse of Roman citizens and allies. The trial brought Sicily into the Roman forum. The speeches are full of things that can be seen: stolen statues, [temple](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/) [treasures](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-roman-empire-treasure-ever-found/), grain, accounts, witnesses, [cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), punishments, ships, and bodies. Provincial suffering becomes public Roman speech. The most famous episode is the punishment of Publius Gavius. Cicero describes a Roman citizen beaten in the forum of Messana. The man’s only cry, amid pain and the sound of blows, was: “I am a citizen of Rome.” The Latin line, *civis Romanus sum*, became powerful because the whole passage turns on whether Roman citizenship could protect a man from a Roman magistrate. Cicero repeats the horror. Gavius believed that the name of citizenship would protect him from rods and crucifixion. It did not. As he kept invoking his citizenship, > “a cross—a cross I say—was got ready” for him. The passage turns one man’s body into a test of Roman rule. If the cry of Roman citizenship has no force, Roman citizenship itself has been humiliated. The trial against Verres therefore does not only ask whether money was taken. It asks what Roman government means in the provinces, what protection citizenship gives, and whether a Roman magistrate can behave like a tyrant among allies. The Sicilians appear as witnesses, victims, allies, and subjects of Roman power. Their suffering is not kept far away. It is placed before Roman jurors. Verres’ crime is presented as greed, but it is also presented as an injury to Rome’s name. ### How Evidence Became a Public Story Roman trials were not only speeches without evidence. The Verrines use witnesses, documents, accounts, city delegations, and detailed accusations. But the evidence entered through performance. Cicero had to arrange it, explain it, repeat it, and give it emotional shape. Records and witnesses did not speak by themselves. The advocate gave them force. In *In Verrem*, the evidence was so strong that Verres went into exile before the second hearing. Cicero still published the long second action. The trial was over, but the public performance continued in writing. That published performance allowed Cicero to present himself as the defender of Roman citizens, Sicilian allies, public justice, and senatorial honor. The case became part of his own public career. The same mixture of evidence and performance appears in other speeches. A witness could be attacked through background. A household could be made suspicious. A missing [slave](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-zoninus-collar-the-iron-collar-that-spoke-for-the-silenced/) could become part of the story. A written record could be made to seem decisive or corrupt. Roman courtroom speech did not replace evidence. It gave evidence a public meaning. That is why the same kind of proof could look different in different hands. Records, witnesses, and facts entered a world of reputation and speech, and the advocate’s task was to make them visible, believable, and morally powerful. ### When Murder Became a Question of Family and Power *Pro Roscio Amerino* turns a murder case into a story of family, property, and civil-war danger. Sextus Roscius of Ameria was accused of murdering his father. Parricide was one of the most horrifying accusations a Roman could face. Cicero does not treat it as ordinary killing. It is a crime against the deepest bond of family. ![Copy of one of Cicero's orations (Pro Roscio Amerino) which are found in a 15th century codex from Italy. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Pro-Roscio-Amerino--1--1.jpg) Copy of one of Cicero's orations (**Pro Roscio Amerino*) which are found in a 15th century codex from Italy. Credits:PGS 1984, CC BY 4.0 The defense asks who had motive. Cicero invokes the old judicial habit of asking, > “to whom it had been any advantage?” The son, Cicero insists, gained nothing. The property had been seized and sold. The men around Chrysogonus, a powerful freedman connected with Sulla, had benefited. The argument turns from the son to those who profited. Cicero also uses the rural life of Roscius. He presents him as a man of the fields, not the city; a man accustomed to work, not plots; a son made vulnerable by power. The trial takes place under the shadow of the proscriptions. Property, fear, influence, and accusation are bound together. The murder charge becomes a way to finish the theft of an estate. Cicero’s defense therefore asks the judges to see the accused not as a monster son but as the victim of men who used violence, confiscation, and accusation together. The horror of parricide gives the speech emotional force. The danger of Sulla’s aftermath gives it political force. The property seizure gives it motive. The defendant’s rural life gives it character. The case becomes more than whether the son killed the father. It becomes a question of how far violence and greed had entered Roman life. ### A Young Man, a Scandal, and a Roman Trial *Pro Caelio* uses another world: youth, city life, love, rumor, and scandal. Caelius was not presented as a rustic victim like Roscius. He was a young man in public life, gifted and exposed to attack. Cicero does not claim that youth is always pure. He admits that young men may pass through pleasures and errors. The question is whether those charges destroy the man or explain a stage of life. Clodia becomes central because the prosecution’s story is tied to her. Cicero attacks her moral authority. If the accusation comes from a corrupt source, the charge loses force. The speech therefore fights over credibility. Who should be believed? The young man with public promise? The woman presented as angry and shameless? The household associated with scandal? The accusers connected to her? The courtroom becomes a public contest of social reading. The judges are asked to read youth, womanhood, family ancestry, sexual rumor, and urban luxury. Cicero’s method is aggressive, but it is also revealing. A Roman trial could become a place where private life was dragged into public judgment. Caelius’ youth does not remove all blame. Cicero does not present him as untouched by city life. He presents his faults as forgivable, ordinary, and not equal to the crimes alleged. ### The Courtroom and the Crowd Roman trials were not always closed legal events. They often unfolded before a wider public. The forum mattered. The calendar mattered. [Public games](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-greek-glory-to-roman-spectacle-the-olympic-games-evolution/) mattered. Armed men mattered. Provincial visitors mattered. Political factions mattered. In *Pro Caelio*, the public games help frame the opening. The trial continues while other business is interrupted, and Cicero makes the judges ask why. *In Pro Milone*, [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/) and crowds surround the tribunal. The violence outside the court enters the speech inside the court. In In Verrem, Sicily enters Rome through witnesses and accusation. The province is distant, but Cicero makes it present. A Roman trial could therefore gather more than the parties. It could gather public memory, rumor, grief, anger, laughter, fear, and civic identity. The audience did not only listen. Its assumptions shaped what could be said. That is why Cicero could use imagined spectators, ancestral voices, provincial cries, public shame, and crowd emotion. The trial was not sealed away from Roman public life. It was one of the places where public life spoke, and the crowd around the court might not cast the verdict, but it helped form the world in which verdicts were understood. ### What the Public Court Judged The Roman public court judged acts, but the act was often placed inside a larger story of the community. Bribery could threaten elections. Violence could threaten the state’s control of force. Murder could threaten family order and public safety. Extortion could threaten Roman rule abroad. A governor’s cruelty could make citizenship look powerless. That is why Roman trials could sound so large. They were not simply private disputes. They dealt with public wrongs. This public scale helps explain the use of moral portraits. If the wrong harmed the community, the accused man’s relation to the community could be placed before the judges. Was he greedy? Was he violent? Was he shameless? Was he luxurious? Was he loyal? Was he a danger? Was he believable? Was he the sort of man who could have done this? Roman advocacy did not always separate these questions from the formal charge. The same habit explains the attacks on accusers and witnesses. A case did not rest only on what was said. It also rested on who said it, from what household, with what motive, with what reputation, and for whose benefit. The public court judged credibility as much as statement, and it judged people as well as claims. Roman trials were law. They involved charges, statutes, jurors, evidence, and verdicts. They were also performances. Advocates staged scenes, shaped memories, provoked laughter, summoned pity, attacked bodies and names, exposed houses, praised ancestors, shamed enemies, and turned single acts into public stories. Cicero’s speeches preserve that world better than any other surviving evidence. They must be handled carefully because they are speeches by an advocate, not neutral records. But that is also why they are valuable. They show Roman trials in the form in which Roman jurors met them: spoken, emotional, public, personal, and political. Quintilian later described the tools openly. The orator could move judges through anger, favor, hatred, pity, laughter, and tears. Laughter could weaken seriousness, while tears could make a judge’s emotion visible before the verdict. The Roman courtroom was therefore not a silent chamber of law alone. It was a public space where law met reputation, speech, shame, humor, violence, and the expectations of the community. The question before the court might be murder, extortion, violence, or scandal. Around that question stood another one: what kind of person could Rome accept, condemn, pity, laugh at, or fear? 💡 ****Sources used:** Cicero, Pro Caelio, translated by C. D. Yonge. Cicero, Pro Milone, translated by C. D. Yonge. Cicero, In Verrem, translated by C. D. Yonge. Cicero, Pro Roscio Amerino, translated by C. D. Yonge. Cicero, Pro Cluentio, translated by C. D. Yonge. Cicero, De Oratore, translated by E. W. Sutton and H. Rackham. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, translated by H. E. Butler. Andrew M. Riggsby, Crime and Community in Ciceronian Rome. University of Texas Press, 1999. Anthony Corbeill, Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic. Princeton University Press, 1996. ### Sidonius Apollinaris: A Life Told Through Letters URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/sidonius-apollinaris-a-life-told-through-letters/ Last updated: 2026-08-16T19:13:58.000Z Sidonius Apollinaris was born under the Roman Empire around 430, probably at Lyons. He died sometime between 480 and 490 as a subject of Euric, king of the Visigoths. He was a Gallo-Roman aristocrat, the son-in-law of an emperor, a poet, an officeholder, a landowner, bishop of Clermont, exile, and witness to the passage from Roman to Visigothic Gaul. As a young man, Sidonius married Papianilla, daughter of Avitus, who became western emperor in 455\. Through that marriage, he acquired Avitacum, an estate near Clermont in the Auvergne, which became his “second homeland.” His surviving letters fill nine books. The first seven appeared in 477, and two more were added later. The letters are among the most important sources for fifth-century Gaul, but they were reworked for publication. They were not arranged in strict chronological order, and they often give only incidental dating clues. They belong to a literary genre, not to a private diary. ### A Gallo-Roman Aristocrat Sidonius came from the [high aristocracy](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) of Roman Gaul. His father and grandfather had both held the office of praetorian prefect of Gaul, governing western imperial territory from Britain to Spain. In 452, Sidonius married Papianilla, daughter of Eparchius Avitus, another praetorian prefect of Gaul and later emperor. His public life joined literature and politics. A panegyric for Avitus in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-burned-books/) brought him honor. After Avitus fell, Sidonius returned to Gaul. In 458, he composed a panegyric for [Majorian](https://romanempiretimes.com/majorian-a-different-kind-of-emperor-with-a-plan/). In 468, after leading a delegation of the Arverni to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/), he delivered a panegyric for Anthemius and received the urban prefecture and patrician rank. After Clermont was handed over to the Visigoths, Sidonius was exiled to Liviana, near Carcassonne, and later appeared at Euric’s court in Bordeaux. He eventually returned to Clermont as bishop. His life moved from imperial Rome to Gothic rule, from aristocratic office to episcopal leadership, and from public panegyric to letters written after political defeat. ### Letters, Not a Diary The opening of the letter collection explains the project. Constantius had urged Sidonius to > “correct, revise, and bring together in one volume” the letters that > “matters, men, and times” had drawn from him. Sidonius places the collection in a Roman literary line. The path before him had been traced by > “Symmachus of the ample manner” and > “Pliny of the perfected art.” [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) is treated as too large a model to approach easily: > “Of Cicero as letter-writer I had best be dumb.” The letters were therefore arranged and revised. They should not be read as simple notes in the order in which events happened. The book as a unit matters. Book 2 begins with political danger and then moves into villa leisure. Books 7 to 9 hold the hardest material: Clermont, betrayal, exile, Visigothic rule, and the weakening of Roman power. ![The beginning of Sidonius’ letters in the manuscript Berlin, Staatsbibliothek](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Sidonius-Apollinaris--Letters--1--1.jpg) The beginning of Sidonius’ letters in the manuscript Berlin, Staatsbibliothek. Public domain. The refusal to write history is part of the same caution. When Sidonius is asked to turn from letters to history, contemporary history is treated as dangerous ground. Falsehood would be shameful, while truth could bring danger. Writing about good men brings little gratitude; writing about infamous men brings offence. ### Rome and the Duties of an Aristocrat On his way to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-went-dark-life-after-sunset-in-the-ancient-city/), Sidonius writes to Eutropius and urges him to leave rural ease for public service. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/) is not treated as foreign territory for a man of senatorial descent. It is > “the abode of law,” “the training-school of letters,” “the fount of honours,” “the head of the world,” and “the motherland of freedom.” Rome is also > “the city unique upon earth, where none but the barbarian and the slave is foreign.” The line places Roman identity in law, letters, honor, liberty, and public life. The rebuke is direct. Eutropius should not bury himself among > “cow-keeping rustics” and > “grunting swineherds.” Sidonius tells him that ease has weakened his mind, then asks: > “Is it a less duty in a man of your descent to cultivate himself than his estate?” The letter presents noble life as more than landholding. Vineyards, granaries, and herds are not enough. A Roman aristocrat must cultivate himself, seek public service, and connect birth with education and office. ### A Gothic King Seen Through Roman Eyes One early letter describes Theodoric II, king of the Visigoths. Agricola, the addressee, was the son of Avitus and Sidonius’ brother-in-law. The Gothic settlement in Aquitaine had already existed for more than a generation when the letter was written. ![A possible representation of Theodoric, King of the Visigoths. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Theodoric-II-1.jpg) A possible representation of Theodoric, King of the Visigoths. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Theodoric is introduced as > “a man worth knowing.” The portrait begins with his body: height, head, hair, eyes, nose, lips, beard, skin, shoulders, arms, chest, waist, back, thighs, knees, ankles, and feet. The letter then moves from appearance to conduct. Before daybreak, Theodoric attends the service of his priests. He hears envoys, receives petitions, inspects the treasury or stable, hunts, eats, plays, and returns to government business. Sidonius also describes the king’s meals. > “The board does not groan beneath a mass of dull and unpolished silver.” The weight lies > “rather in the conversation than in the plate.” At table, there is > “elegance of Greece, good cheer of Gaul, Italian nimbleness,” public dignity, private service, and > “the discipline of a king’s house.” The portrait remains a letter, not a history. Sidonius stops himself: > “I never promised a whole chapter on the kingdom, but a few words about the king.” His aim was > “to write a letter, not a history.” ### When Roman Law Gave Way to Gothic Power Book 2 opens with Auvergne in trouble. Sidonius writes to Ecdicius and attacks Seronatus, a Gallic official connected with Gothic power. Seronatus is presented as > “This Catiline of our day,” a destructive figure inside the Roman world. The accusations are fierce. Seronatus is charged with cruelty, greed, theft, corruption, and contempt for Roman order. His actions are > “filling the woods with dangerous fugitives from the estates, the churches with scoundrels, the prisons with holy men.” He > “cries the Goths up and the Romans down.” He > “tramples under foot the Theodosian Code to set in its place the laws of a Theodoric.” The appeal ends in urgency: > “Our people are at the last gasp; freedom is almost dead.” If the state cannot help, and if [Emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/) Anthemius is without resources, the nobility must follow Ecdicius and choose whether to give up > “their country or the hair of their heads.” Seronatus stands at the point where Roman law, Gothic authority, local elites, and Auvergne’s freedom meet. Book 2 is a book of leisure, but it begins with political alarm. The quiet leisure of the following letters is framed by the threat that opens the book. ### Avitacum, Sidonius’ Roman Retreat After Seronatus, Book 2 turns to Avitacum. The estate stood near present-day Aydat in Auvergne, southwest of Clermont-Ferrand. Its name came from Avitus, Papianilla’s father. The estate reached Sidonius through [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/), either as dowry or inheritance. Sidonius presents the estate through heat, escape, architecture, water, and social display. The letter to Domitius begins with summer discomfort. > “The whole world glows.” The snow melts on the Alps, the earth is seamed with heat-cracks, the streams barely move, and the water “boils.” Avitacum offers relief from that heat. The estate is also dear because of Papianilla. Sidonius describes Avitacum as > “a name of sweeter sound in my ears than my own patrimony because it came to me with my wife.” The wife’s estate is preferred over the father’s estate, while the letter also presents marital harmony. The villa includes [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), rooms, water channels, lake views, shade, fishing, birds, games, and places for guests. The bath receives detailed attention. The hot bath is close to the wooded slope, so cut timber can slide almost by its own weight toward the furnace. Hot water presses through > “sinuous lead pipes” and issues > “with a sobbing sound.” The piscina receives water from the hill through channels that curve around the basin. The water comes through six pipes ending in lions’ heads, which seem to show > “real fangs, authentic fury of eyes, indubitable manes.” When people stand there together, the noise of falling water forces ordinary conversation into > “an amusing air of secrecy.” The portico commands the lake. The dining room opens toward the water and has almost the whole lake in view. From the table, the guest can watch fishermen row out, spread nets with cork floats, or set lines for trout. The description moves like a tour. The guest is led through bath, lunch, siesta, and afternoon at the lake. The sounds of the estate are also listed: cicalas at noon, frogs in the evening, swans and geese at night, cocks before dawn, rooks greeting the morning, nightingales in the bushes, and swallows under the eaves. These sounds are not separate from the villa. They belong to the same presentation of cultivated retreat. ![A possible representation of Sidonius' Villa.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Sidonius--Villa.jpg) A possible representation of Sidonius' Villa. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Writing about [villas](https://romanempiretimes.com/domus-romana-the-roman-villa-of-rabat-malta/) was also a form of self-presentation. Avitacum displays cultural identity, social[ status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/), and the obligations of an aristocrat in residence. Book 2’s villa material does not present idleness. The book contains congratulation, recommendation, legal help, [mourning](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/), marriage, friendship, and hospitality. Sidonius appears retired from office, but not inactive. He remains friend, patron, helper, and writer. ### The Daily Life of a Roman Aristocrat The second villa letter, 2.9, moves from architecture to daily life. Sidonius describes stays at the adjoining villas of Tonantius Ferreolus and Apollinaris. The day includes ball games, dice, reading, scholarly conversation, a library, lunch, stories, siesta, and a bath. The library is carefully described. Books are > “in abundance ready to your hand.” A visitor might think himself among > “the shelves of some grammarian,” “the tiers of the Athenaeum,” or “a bookseller’s towering cases.” Devotional works stand near the ladies’ seats, while the books near the master are those > “ennobled by the great style of Roman eloquence.” The hosts compete to entertain him and make him feel at home. The leisure is social, literary, and aristocratic. It is a world of visits, books, meals, games, baths, conversation, and hospitality. Book 2 also contains mourning. Letter 2.8 consoles the bereaved and includes an epitaph for Filimatia. The epitaph is part of friendship and commemoration. Sidonius’ correspondence preserves not only public office and political fear, but also family reputation, grief, literary gifts, and social duty. ### The Fight to Preserve Latin Sidonius’ concern for [Latin](https://romanempiretimes.com/contrary-to-what-you-think-not-all-romans-spoke-latin-heres-what-they-actually-spoke/) appears in Book 2, Letter 10\. He warns that, unless his circle preserves > “the purity of the Latin tongue,” they may soon mourn its > “abolition and decease.” The threat is described as > “the rust of sorry barbarisms.” The concern is elite literary culture, not ordinary speech. It belongs with the opening of the collection, where Symmachus, [Pliny](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/), and Cicero stand behind Sidonius’ letters. Latin is part of aristocratic identity, literary memory, education, and social rank. The same concern appears in his praise of younger talent. Literary education is something to be handed on. Younger minds growing into discipline give Sidonius > “the richest reward” of his labor. ### Clermont, the Last Roman Holdout Book 7 opens with danger. > “Rumour has it that the Goths have occupied Roman soil.” Auvergne is always > “their gateway.” The Arverni are hated because, > “by Christ’s aid,” they are the > “sole obstacle” to Gothic ambition. ![A view of Clermont-Ferrand taken from the top of a Ferris wheel.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/A-view-of-Clermont-Ferrand-taken-from-the-top-of-a-Ferris-wheel.-1.jpg) A view of Clermont-Ferrand taken from the top of a Ferris wheel. Credits: bebatut, CC BY-SA 2.0 That ambition is to extend Gothic frontiers to the Rhône and hold all the country between that river, the Atlantic, and the Loire. Clermont and Auvergne are therefore not presented as an isolated local problem. They are placed on the frontier of Roman survival in Gaul. Book 7 moves into Clermont, the surrender of Auvergne, exile, and the new reality of Visigothic rule. The language is no longer the calm language of Avitacum. It is the language of a threatened city. Clermont is shown as a city with weak defenses. Sidonius does not rely on burned walls, rotting palisades, or ramparts worn by exhausted sentries. Help is sought through the Rogations associated with Mamertus. A later Book 7 letter places Clermont in its provincial setting. It is the last city in Aquitanica Prima left to Rome by the fortune of war. The city is not only a local trouble spot. It is the remaining Roman point in the province. ### Euric and Christian Law Book 7 also presents pressure on Catholic communities under Euric. Sidonius writes that Euric has broken the old treaty and extends the boundaries of his kingdom > “by armed force.” The danger is not only military. Sidonius fears Euric less as the attacker of walls than as > “the subverter of our Christian laws.” The word “Catholic” is said to embitter the [king](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-king-who-preached-peace/)’s face and heart. Euric is presented as closer to a leader of his Arian sect than a monarch of his people. The letter describes a > “hidden malady” of the Catholic church and asks for an open remedy. [Cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) including Bordeaux, Périgueux, Rodez, Limoges, Javols, Eauze, Bazas, Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges, and Auch are listed as deprived of bishops by death. The request is practical. If these regions cannot be kept for the Roman state by treaty, they should at least be held > “by religion for the Roman Church.” The bishop’s concern is territorial, political, and ecclesiastical. Walls play their role, but churches, bishops, ordinations, Catholic law, and Arian pressure are also important. ### The Peace That Ceded Auvergne The strongest letter is 7.7, addressed to Graecus of Marseille. The setting is the peace of summer 475, by which Auvergne was ceded to the Visigoths in exchange for Provence. Graecus acted on the Roman side with bishops Basilius of Aix, Leontius of Arles, and Faustus of Riez, while Julius Nepos was in Italy. The letter begins in grief. The condition of Auvergne had been > “better in war-time” than after peace was concluded. Sidonius writes: > “Our enslavement was made the price of security for a third party.” The Arverni are placed inside Roman memory. By old tradition, they claimed > “brotherhood with Latium and descent from the sons of Troy.” In their own time, they had stood alone > “to stay the advance of the common enemy.” Even when closely besieged, they > “so little feared the Goth” that they sallied out against him and put fear into his heart. Their common soldiers were > “as good as captains,” but the benefit of victory passed elsewhere, while they bore > “all the crushing burden of defeat.” They also brought Seronatus to judgment. He is called a > “betrayer of imperial provinces to the barbarian.” The state for which the Arverni had risked so much barely had the courage to carry out the capital sentence after conviction. The letter is not simple autobiography. The crisis is written through epic and history: Troy, Lucan, Decius, Capua, [Hannibal](https://romanempiretimes.com/hannibal-ad-portas-how-37-african-elephants-crossed-the-alps/), Roman fidelity, and resistance. The Arverni are cast as kin of Rome, and the cession of Auvergne is framed through Roman memory and literary example. The suffering is physical. Sidonius asks whether this is the reward for > “destitution, fire, sword, and pestilence,” for fighting the enemy, and for going > “starved into battle.” The peace once dreamed of is remembered bitterly. It was dreamed of > “when we tore the grass from the crannies in the walls to eat,” and when they sometimes ate poisonous weeds by mistake, plucking them > “with livid hands of starvation, hardly less green than they.” The appeal to the negotiators is direct: > “may you live to blush for a peace without either honour or advantage.” Sidonius asks pardon for telling > “hard truths.” His distress, he writes, must take > “all colour of abuse” from what he says. The later appeal becomes sharper. The conditions of the agreement must be broken. > “Oh, break this infamous peace at any cost.” If necessary, the people are ready > “to continue the struggle and to undergo more sieges and starvations.” Then comes the central line: > “But if we are to be betrayed, we whom force failed to conquer,” then they will know that > “a barbarous and cowardly transaction” was inspired by those who negotiated it. The ending moves from anger to survival. Other conquered regions can expect only servitude, but Auvergne must prepare for punishment. If liberty cannot be saved, the people must live. Sidonius asks for land for exiles, ransom for captives, and provision for emigrants. The last request is personal and communal at once: > “If our own walls must offer an open breach to the enemy, let yours be never shut against your friends.” ### Sidonius Under Gothic Rule After the cession of Auvergne, Sidonius suffered exile and confinement. He was lodged at Liviana, near Carcassonne. Later letters belong to life under Euric’s rule. ![Aerial panorama of the City of Carcassonne](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Carcassonne-city--1--1.jpg) Aerial panorama of the City of Carcassonne. Credits: Chensiyuan, CC BY-SA 4.0 The conditions of communication also changed. In one letter, regular correspondence between distant cities becomes dangerous because of the movements of peoples. Letter-carriers face questioning from guards. A nervous answer may make them suspected of carrying secret instructions. Book 4 had shown restraint about the most painful material. Sidonius could mention that exile had broken him, but the fuller treatment of Clermont, surrender, and exile comes later, especially in Books 7 and 8. In Book 8, the realities of Visigothic rule appear more openly. Sidonius had been in Bordeaux for two months and gained access to Euric only once. He had been deprived of estates connected with his mother-in-law and denied equal treatment with Goths at court. Under these conditions, even poetry gives way to losses; he dreams of > “losses rather than poems.” ### Culture as the Last Roman Status Book 8 gives one of Sidonius’ clearest statements about what remained after older Roman structures weakened. Writing to Johannes, he praises him for delaying the > “decease of Literature.” Literature seemed > “dead and buried,” but Johannes revived, supported, and championed it. The image is maritime. In the > “tempest of war which has wrecked the Roman power,” Johannes brought > “the Latin tongue safely into port.” The social conclusion follows. The old grades of rank had been abolished. Those grades had once distinguished the high from the low. Now, > “in future culture must afford the sole criterion of nobility.” The sentence remains aristocratic. It belongs to elite education, literary memory, and Roman speech. But it shows a changed situation. When offices and ranks lose force, letters carry identity. ### The Last Roman Language of Sidonius Sidonius appears first as a Gallo-Roman aristocrat born under the empire. He is linked by family to Avitus, by office to Rome, by property to Avitacum, by letters to Pliny and Symmachus, by bishopric to Clermont, and by later life to Euric’s Visigothic kingdom. His letters show Rome as > “the abode of law,” and “the motherland of freedom.” They show Theodoric II as a Gothic king observed in detail by a Roman aristocrat. They show Seronatus trampling the Theodosian Code and offering the laws of Theodoric in its place. They show Avitacum as a house of baths, water, guests, family, and literary identity. They also show Clermont and Auvergne under pressure. The Goths occupy Roman soil; the Arverni are > “always their gateway.” Euric is feared as a threat to > “Christian laws.” The peace of 475 makes Auvergne the price of another region’s security. In the bitterest letter, the Arverni claim Roman and Trojan kinship, remember hunger, and ask that if liberty must die, their people at least survive. The letters do not give a simple history of the end of the Roman West. They give a shaped collection of Roman aristocratic memory. Through Sidonius, the end appears in villas and letters, in law and rank, in bishops and city walls, in hunger and exile, in Gothic courts and Latin schooling. The final note is preservation. When Roman power has suffered shipwreck, the Latin tongue can still be brought into port. When old ranks are swept away, culture can still remain > “the sole criterion of nobility.” 💡 ****Sources used** Sidonius Apollinaris, Letters, translated by O. M. Dalton, 1915. Alexander Callander Murray, ed. and trans., From Roman to Merovingian Gaul: A Reader. University of Toronto Press, 2008. Judith Hindermann, Sidonius Apollinaris’ Letters, Book 2: Text, Translation and Commentary. Edinburgh University Press, 2022. Roy Gibson, “Reading the Letters of Sidonius by the Book,” in New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris, edited by Johannes A. van Waarden and Gavin Kelly. Peeters, 2013. Sigrid Mratschek, “Creating Identity from the Past: The Construction of History in the Letters of Sidonius,” in New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris, edited by Johannes A. van Waarden and Gavin Kelly. Peeters, 2013. ### Roman Astronomy: How did Romans See the Planets URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-astronomy-how-romans-see-planets/ Last updated: 2026-07-26T21:52:00.000Z Our understanding of the universe's structure and origins is known as *cosmology*, a term derived from Greek. Prior to the advent of telescopes, humans relied solely on their senses to form a picture of the cosmos. Ancient civilizations developed cosmological models that combined their direct observations of the skies with extensive philosophical and religious symbolism. Three thousand years ago, people believed that the Earth was supported by massive pillars. They thought the sun rose in the east every morning, traveled overhead, and set in the west each evening, then passed under the Earth during the night to reappear in the east the next morning. 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in July 2024\. It was updated in July 2026.* This view of the universe was challenged by Pythagoras around 500 BCE, when he proposed that the Earth was spherical and that the sun circled it daily from east to west. By the second century BCE, this idea had been around for about 400 years and was further developed by Hipparchus, the renowned Greek scientist. The Romans inherited much of their astronomical knowledge from the Greeks, especially the works of figures like Ptolemy, Hipparchus, and Aristotle. Roman astronomy was largely practical, focusing on the calendar and timekeeping for agricultural, civic, and religious purposes. ![The Antikythera mechanism was an analog computer from 150–100 BCE designed to calculate the positions of astronomical objects.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/07/NAMA_Machine_d-Anticyth-re_1.jpg) The Antikythera mechanism was an analog computer from 150–100 BCE designed to calculate the positions of astronomical objects. Credits: Marsyas, CC BY 2.5 ### Is the Earth round or flat? Educated individuals in the eastern Mediterranean region recognized Earth's round shape at least 2000 years before Columbus. This understanding may trace back to Pythagoras, who, 2500 years ago, proposed that Earth was spherical due to his belief that circles and spheres were "perfect forms." Greek scholars like Aristotle, who lived between 384–322 BCE, documented these ideas, explaining that the Moon’s phases result from viewing different parts of its sunlit side and that lunar eclipses revealed Earth's round shadow. Aristotle also noted that travelers heading south saw new stars and that the North Star's height decreased, indicating a curved Earth surface. Aristarchus of Samos (310–230 BCE) proposed that Earth orbited the Sun, but this idea was dismissed by Aristotle and his contemporaries because they expected to see stellar parallax—a shift in nearby shift in nearby stars' positions against the background stars as Earth moved around the Sun. However, despite meticulous efforts by Greek astronomers, no such parallax was observed, which could mean either Earth was stationary or the stars were extraordinarily distant, making the parallax imperceptible. The latter idea required an enormous leap in imagination that most ancient philosophers were unwilling to make, leading to the continued acceptance of the Earth-centered model for almost two thousand years. *(pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/: Observing the Sky: The Birth of Astronomy)* ### Ancient Greek and Roman Astronomy The Greeks and Romans placed a significant emphasis on time and timekeeping, particularly in relation to the moon and planets. Accurate time-telling was seen as a fundamental drive behind Greek astronomy. This necessity influenced various human activities both on land and sea, prompting the Greeks and Romans to rely on celestial bodies as indicators for agricultural tasks such as sowing and harvesting, determining safe times for maritime voyages, scheduling religious festivals, organizing political activities, and planning significant ventures. Although farmers, sailors, priests, and politicians were not entirely reliant on these astronomical cues, they served as an additional set of guidelines for determining the appropriate timing of various activities. ![Aristarchus's 3rd-century BCE calculations on the relative sizes of (from left) the Sun, Earth and Moon, from a 10th-century CE Greek copy](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/07/Aristarchus_working.jpg) Aristarchus's 3rd-century BCE calculations on the relative sizes of (from left) the Sun, Earth and Moon, from a 10th-century CE Greek copy. Public domain For a long time, the primary focus on understanding the movements of the sun and moon for calendar purposes took precedence over detailed studies of the other planets. The term "planet" (πλάνης in Greek) means "wanderer," and both the sun and moon were included in this category as they moved across the sky, unlike the "fixed" stars that formed the night sky backdrop. However, starting from the 4th century BCE, the Greeks increasingly focused on the movements of the planets. They sought geometric methods not only to calculate and predict planetary positions for practical purposes but also to philosophically explain their apparent deviations from uniform circular motion to "save the phenomena." By combining older arithmetic methods borrowed from the Babylonians with geometric models, the Greeks were able to create geared mechanisms and planetary position tables that were remarkably accurate for their time and purposes. *(The Moon and the Planets in Classical Greece and Rome by Robert Hannah, University of Waikato)* ### Which planets did Romans see? Ancient Romans identified seven planets, categorized by Ptolemy as the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and [Saturn](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-saturnalia-the-roman-christmas/). The Greeks initially named the planets after their gods, but the Romans, upon studying Greek astronomy, assigned their own gods' names to these celestial bodies: Mercurius (Hermes), Venus (Aphrodite), Mars (Ares), Iuppiter (Zeus), and Saturnus (Cronus). Mercury was named after Mercurius, the god of commerce and communication, due to its swift movements. Venus, the brightest and most beautiful "star" in the night sky, was named after the goddess of love. Mars, with its red hue reminiscent of blood, was named after the god of war. Jupiter, the largest planet, was named for the chief deity, god of the sky and thunder. Saturn, the seventh planet in Ptolemy’s model, was named after Jupiter's father and also inspired the name for Saturday, *Sāturni diēs*. When new planets were discovered in the 18th and 19th centuries, the tradition continued with [Neptune](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-caligula-really-declare-war-on-neptune/) named after the Roman god of the sea. Uranus, however, retained a Greek name, representing the god of the sky. Earth did not receive a Greco-Roman mythological name because it was recognized as a planet much later. As one can imagine, both the Sun and the Moon were mistakenly categorized as planets by the Roman astronomers, due to their lack of insight for the existence of natural satellites, or the science behind stars and gravity; this however led to significant worship for both celestial objects, a key element of [Roman daily life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/). ![A copy of the Quadripartitum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/07/Ptolemaeus_-_Quadripartitum-_1622_-_4658973.jpg) A copy of the **Quadripartitum*. Public domain ## Cosmology in the early Greek and Roman times A healthy number of Ancient Greek and Roman astronomers were observing the night sky with unwavering pathos, cataloguing stars and making valiant efforts to understand the mysteries of the cosmos. ### Hipparhus Hipparchus, considered one of the greatest astronomers of antiquity, was born in Nicaea, in what is now Turkey. Around 150 BCE, during the expansion of the Roman Republic, he established an observatory on the island of Rhodes. There, he meticulously measured the positions of celestial objects, creating a pioneering star catalog with about 850 entries. For each star, he determined its celestial coordinates, akin to specifying the latitude and longitude of a point on Earth. He also classified stars by their apparent brightness, introducing a system of apparent magnitudes. The brightest stars were called "stars of the first magnitude," the next brightest "stars of the second magnitude," and so on. This classification system, albeit somewhat arbitrary, is still used in a modified form today, though it holds less relevance for professional astronomers. One of Hipparchus's most significant discoveries came from comparing his star observations with older data. He noticed that the position of the north celestial pole had shifted over the previous century and a half. Hipparchus correctly deduced that this movement was ongoing, indicating that the direction around which the sky appears to rotate changes slowly but continuously. This wobbling of the north celestial pole, now known as precession, is akin to the motion observed in a spinning top. Just as a top's axis describes a conical path due to gravitational forces, Earth's axis experiences a similar wobble. In Hesiod's "Works and Days," the state of Greek astronomy during the seventh century B.C. is detailed. Hesiod discusses the phases of the Moon, the annual solar cycle, and the annual cycle of the stars' appearances and disappearances, representing the popular and practical astronomy of the Greeks. These topics reflect an ancient tradition predating written records. From the fifth century B.C. onward, three distinct astronomical traditions emerged from this early practical astronomy: literary, philosophical, and scientific. The era in which Hipparchus lived lacked the necessary conveniences for his ambitious projects, making the conditions entirely unsuitable for his endeavors. Consequently, it is unsurprising that he was unable to achieve any triangulation to the stars. As a result, he concluded that the stars must be too distant to measure and stated, "the heavenly bodies are infinitely distant." This remarkable conclusion by Hipparchus forms a fundamental basis in astronomy and has led to a series of misconceptions among its proponents from that time to the present. ### Sosigenes The next notable astronomer is Sosigenes of Alexandria, who developed the [Julian](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) Calendar during Caesar's reign. He found no flaws in Hipparchus's theories and passed them on to Ptolemy. *(Kings dethroned: a history of the evolution of astronomy from the time of the roman empire up to the present day by Hickson, Gerrard)* ![To honour his work, a Lunar crater was named after Sosigenes. Rimae Sosigenes, Mare Tranquillitatis.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/07/8876012596_40d8de6e03.jpg) To honour his work, a Lunar crater was named after Sosigenes. Rimae Sosigenes, Mare Tranquillitatis. Credits: StatelessPerson, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ### Ptolemy Claudius Ptolemy, often simply known as Ptolemy, is recognized as the culminating figure of Greek mathematical astronomy. He lived and worked in Alexandria during the first half of the second century A.D. Ptolemy advanced Greek planetary theory to its most refined form through his seminal work, which is now known as the **Almagest**. The original title of this work was likely "The 13 Books of the Mathematical Composition of Claudius Ptolemy," and it was later referred to as the Megale Syntaxis or "Great Composition." The term *Almagest* evolved from the superlative form of the Greek word megale (meaning great), combined with the Arabic article al-, used by early medieval Arabic astronomers. This linguistic evolution, later adopted and corrupted by medieval Latin writers, reflects the continuous influence of Greek, Arabic, and Latin traditions in Western astronomy. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/07/IMG_0593.jpeg) ## Ptolemy's work, particularly the Almagest, is regarded as the definitive treatise on mathematical astronomy. First page of the manuscript of the Almagest of Ptolemy. Public domain The Almagest stands among the greatest scientific texts in history, comparable in importance and influence to Euclid's Elements, Newton's Principia, and Darwin's Origin of Species. This monumental work dominated the study and practice of astronomy from its creation until the sixteenth century. Ptolemy not only influenced all subsequent astronomers but also overshadowed his predecessors. Consequently, earlier technical works on mathematical astronomy ceased to be read and copied, as their findings were either included in or surpassed by Ptolemy's Almagest. For instance, none of Hipparchus's technical writings have survived to the present day. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/07/Bodleian_Library_Pococke369_roll332_frame38.jpg) Pages from the Almagest in Arabic translation showing astronomical tables. Credits: MartinPoulter, CC BY 4.0 Three introductory Greek textbooks on astronomy were composed around the start of the Christian era. These include works by Geminus, Theon of Smyrna, and Cleomedes. These primers, though nontechnical and meant for beginners, contain numerous details that shed light on the evolution of Greek astronomy before Ptolemy's time. For instance, Geminus offers an insightful discussion on calendrical cycles, a topic that Ptolemy does not cover. Additionally, Cleomedes is our primary source for the [renowned measurement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes?ref=romanempiretimes.com#:~:text=With%20a%20stade%20of%20185,also%20calculated%20the%20Sun's%20diameter.) of the Earth's size conducted by Eratosthenes. We also have some encyclopedic works by Latin authors. For instance, the second book of [Pliny'](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-the-author-of-the-worlds-first-encyclopaedia-was-roman/)s Natural History is focused on astronomical topics. While Pliny's account is nontechnical and his grasp of astronomical concepts is often flawed, he had access to sources that are now lost. This allows his work to shed some light on the development of planetary theory during the nearly three centuries between Hipparchus and Ptolemy. Additionally, several other Latin works on specialized subjects are useful. For example, Vitruvius's On Architecture provides significant, though occasionally disappointing, information on the theory and practice of sundial construction. *(The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy by James Evans)* ![Ptolemy with a armillary sphere model. With a large version he claimed his solstice observations.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/07/Ptolemy_1476_with_armillary_sphere_model.jpg) Ptolemy with a armillary sphere model. With a large version he claimed his solstice observations. Public domain ## Roman Literature and Astronomy ### Pliny the Elder‘s works on Astronomy Despite dedicating Book 2 of the Naturalis Historia to celestial matters, Pliny the Elder proves to be a frustrating source for those seeking insights into the state of astronomy in the obscure period between Hipparchus and Ptolemy. While he referenced numerous astronomical texts that have not survived otherwise, **Pliny lacked both the scientific expertise** to fully comprehend these works **and the technical Latin vocabulary** to convey their content clearly to his readers. Nevertheless, when his often confusing accounts are cross-referenced with other fragmentary evidence from the period, some clarity about the astronomy of that era can be achieved. Pliny describes the observable phases of the outer planets and their significance in ancient astronomy, detailing their positions and movements relative to the sun, which were used for making predictions and observations. This discussion reflects the continuity and importance of these cycles in both Babylonian and Greek astronomical traditions. He describes the phases of the outer planets in relation to their positions from the sun, including conjunctions, elongations, and additional phases at right angles. He explains these phases as being influenced by the sun's rays, emphasizing their importance in ancient astronomical observations and predictions. Pliny's writings on the movement of celestial bodies are **often confusing**, but there is evidence for Greek influence on his understanding of astronomy. It is possible that Pliny either had access to, or summarized Greek astronomical theories. As a Latin author writing between the times of Hipparchus and Ptolemy, he incorporated Greek astronomical concepts into his work. These adaptations were not likely original, but we can infer that by the mid-first century, Greek longitudinal motion of planets was well integrated into Roman astronomical thought. This integration is evident because the Greeks' detailed work on planetary movement significantly influenced Roman astronomers, whose primary focus remained observational and predictive astronomy. *(Pliny on the Planetary Cycles by Alexander Jones)* ### Aratus Phaenomena and its significance Imagine relying solely on the stars to determine the time of year. Observers would need to know the positions and movements of constellations and the weather patterns associated with them. This is precisely what Aratus' "*Phaenomena*" provides: a map of the stars, a celestial calendar, and weather expectations based on constellations. (Aratus was a Greek didactic poet) The Julian calendar reform made star observations unnecessary by aligning the celestial and civil years, ensuring events in the human calendar reliably occurred at the right time of the cosmic year. Thus, Romans no longer needed a mental database of constellations to know when to plant or harvest. After 46 B.C., agricultural festivals like the *Parilia* and *Vinalia* could be celebrated at the correct times. Despite this, the tradition of celestial relative chronology persisted in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/great-fire-of-rome/) until at least the fourth century A.D. Roman interest in Aratean celestial chronology began with [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)’s "Aratea," a translation of Aratus in the first century B.C., and continued through Virgil's use in "*Georgics*," *Germanicus' "Phaenomena"* around A.D. 17, and *Avenus* in the fourth century, even extending into the Middle Ages with the *"Aratus Latinus."* Cicero’s engagement with the Aratean chronology spanned his lifetime. He wrote the *"Aratea"* around 89 B.C. and referenced it again in 45 B.C. in his philosophical work "*De Natura Deorum*." This shows Cicero’s sustained interest in Aratus’s work, while his other youthful poems faded into obscurity. A letter to Atticus in 60 B.C. indicates Cicero might have revised his "*Prognostica,*" another translation of Aratus, around this time. ![Phenomena](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/07/Hug._Grotii_Bataui_Syntagma_Arateorum_981373_00009.jpg) **Phenomena*. Public domain The "Aratea" continued to thrive into the medieval period, likely due to its adaptability to new contexts and the symbolic richness of its subject, the stars. *(Cicero’s Astronomy by Emma Gee, University of Exeter)* > “By the left wing of the Bird lies the prancing horse. The two Fishes range about the Horse as it prances among them. Beside the Horse's head the right hand of the Water-pourer stretches out: he rises after Capricorn. Capricorn lies ahead and lower down, where the powerful sun turns.” > > Aratus, *Phaenomena* > “Next, the forceful hoof of the powerful horse slopes near the wing of the pinioned figure. The Horse himself, gliding across the sky, is held by the silent Fish, and his neck is stroked by Aquarius' right hand. > > This powerful horse reaches the horizon later than Capricorn, who breathes out icy cold from his strong breast, with his half-beast body in the great circle \[of the Zodiac\]; when at the winter solstice the Sun has clothed Capricorn with his eternal light, he wheels his chariot and changes direction.” Cicero, *Aratea* Until the 17th century, the lines between astrology and astronomy were not clearly defined as they are today. Ancient civilizations believed that the positions and movements of celestial bodies could foretell the future. This belief was rooted in the practical applications of astronomical knowledge, such as predicting seasons, tides, rainfall, droughts, and significant events like solar eclipses or river floods. The Romans used their understanding of the night sky to navigate their empire, and astronomy was central to their culture, politics, religious beliefs, and philosophical thought. In essence, astronomy profoundly influenced human history over millennia. ### Antiochus III: The Last Great Rival of Rome URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/antiochus-iii-the-last-great-rival-of-rome/ Last updated: 2026-08-16T19:14:10.000Z Very few rulers in ancient history were called “Great” during or close to their own lifetimes. Cyrus of Persia and Alexander of Macedon belonged to that rare category because their achievements seemed almost beyond belief. Cyrus founded the first Persian Empire, while Alexander built one of the largest empires the world had seen before he was 30\. Such a title was not earned by winning a single war. It required achievements that appeared extraordinary even to those who lived through them. ### Antiochus III or Antiochus The Great Antiochus III, later known as Antiochus the Great, came after [Alexander](https://romanempiretimes.com/alexander-the-great-in-roman-thought-hero-rival-and-legend/) in a world where many rulers tried to imitate the Macedonian conqueror and use his legacy to strengthen their own authority. Like Alexander, Antiochus came to power young. Unlike Alexander, however, he had not been prepared from childhood to rule. He was the second son, not the expected heir, and his rise came after a sudden crisis in the Seleucid royal family. There is little known about Antiochus’ early life. Since his elder brother Seleucus III was expected to inherit the throne, Antiochus had not received the same preparation normally given to a future [king](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-king-who-preached-peace/). When Seleucus III’s campaign failed and he was murdered by his own army, Antiochus suddenly became king in 223 BC. He inherited not a stable empire, but a troubled realm marked by dynastic tensions, old rivalries, territorial ambitions, and external threats. Antiochus therefore began his reign at a disadvantage. He had to learn how to rule while also trying to hold together a kingdom that was already fragmenting. Rival claimants threatened his authority, and neighboring powers looked for opportunities to take Seleucid territory. His early reign was not simply about expansion, but about survival and restoration. ### Polybius, Rome, and the Place of Antiochus III To understand Antiochus III in Polybius, the starting point is not only Antiochus himself, but the historian who describes him. [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-and-the-architecture-of-roman-power/) is the main reliable source for much of the period, so his account needs to be read with attention to where his information came from and to the personal or literary influences that may have shaped the way he presented events. Polybius gives an important clue at the beginning of his work. His introduction ends with the question: > “For what man is so indifferent or so lazy that he does not care to know how, and under what form of government Rome brought virtually the whole oecumene under her rule in barely fifty-three years, a result never achieved before ?” That question sets the direction of the history. Polybius wanted to explain [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)’s rise to power over much of the known world. He returned to the idea of world rule again after his account of the First Punic War, where he rejected the claim made by some [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) writers that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) had gained its position through Tyche (τύχη), or blind chance. In his view, Rome did not become dominant by accident. The Romans aimed at world rule, and because they were capable of achieving it, they succeeded. ![ Greek coins Antiochus III, 223 – 187.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Greek-coins-Antiochus-III-1.jpg) Greek coins Antiochus III, 223 – 187\. Credits: Antiksikkeler, CC BY-SA 4.0 This argument also gives practical value to the study of history. If [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s rise had happened only by chance, then its history would not offer much instruction to later statesmen. But Polybius did not treat [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s success as accidental. He presented it as the result of institutions, decisions, character, and political fitness. The [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) writers criticized by Polybius should not necessarily be dismissed as imaginary opponents. Some Greek historians, out of national pride, may have wanted to reduce the scale of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-burned-books/)’s achievement. Later Roman and Greek writers show that this debate did not disappear. [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) later minimized the achievements of Alexander the Great, while Dionysius of Halicarnassus, writing under [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), still felt the need to insist that the Romans were not savages who had gained [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-roman-empire-a-brief-history/) undeservedly. [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/) also returned to the question in *De fortuna Romanorum*. Polybius’ main point was that Rome achieved world dominion through a deliberate process. In this respect, he differed from Thucydides. Polybius accepted imperial competition as a central force in history. He saw world rule almost as a prize offered to the power most capable of winning it: [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-went-dark-life-after-sunset-in-the-ancient-city/) or [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spartan-who-saved-carthage-and-broke-a-roman-invasion/) in the West; Syria or Egypt in the East. His history therefore judged these powers by their ability to compete for supremacy. By a striking coincidence, the period with which he began saw the appearance of several important figures at almost the same time. Antiochus III came to power in the Seleucid kingdom, Philip V in Macedon, Ptolemy IV Philopator in Egypt, while Hannibal emerged in the western Mediterranean. Within this structure, Antiochus’ career had a major place. His achievements in the East stood alongside [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/)’s rise in the West. After a series of earlier conflicts, the final contest came between the two regional powers: the Seleucid kingdom and Rome. The battle of Magnesia became the intended climax of this part of the story, because after that defeat there was no longer another great power capable of matching Rome. Antiochus III therefore appears within a wider historical contest. He was not simply another eastern king in Polybius’ narrative. His career belonged to the final eastern challenge to Rome before Rome stood without a rival capable of matching it on the same scale. ### Antiochus Lands in Greece After the Aetolian council reached its decision, Antiochus III assembled a relatively small expeditionary force: about 10,000 infantry and 500 cavalry. His fleet was also limited, with 40 quinqueremes, 60 triremes, and 200 transports for grain and horses. The size of the army was restricted by the amount of shipping available, which meant Antiochus could not bring anything close to the full strength of the Seleucid military into Greece. ![The statue of Athena in the Museum of Art History (Kunsthistorisches Museum), Vienna](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Dome-figure-Athena-at-the-Kunsthistorisches-Museum--1--1.jpg) The statue of Athena in the Museum of Art History (Kunsthistorisches Museum), Vienna. Credits: Hubertl, CC BY-SA 4.0 Before crossing fully into the campaign, Antiochus made a symbolic visit to Ilium, where he sacrificed to Athena. The act carried several layers of meaning. Troy was central to Greek heroic memory, and Athena was the goddess who had aided the Greek side against the Trojans. Athena was also important to the Athenians, who were then debating whether to support the Aetolian-Seleucid coalition. Alexander the Great had sacrificed at Troy before invading Asia, but Antiochus was moving in the opposite direction: from Asia into Greece. Since the Romans claimed descent from the Trojan refugee Aeneas, the gesture could also be read as a request that Athena support the Greeks against the descendants of Troy. After returning from the Troad, Antiochus gathered his fleet at Imbros and sailed to the Bay of Volos. He landed at Demetrias, a strategic port already secured, and then moved inland to Lamia. There, he received an invitation to the Aetolian assembly. The invitation was announced before the crowd, and the cheers reassured Antiochus that he might be welcomed in Greece as a liberating figure. ### The Aetolian Alliance and the First Failure at Chalcis Antiochus was greeted loudly when he entered the Aetolian council, but the enthusiasm hid some disappointment. The Aetolians had expected a larger royal army. Antiochus explained that winter sailing conditions had prevented him from bringing more troops and promised reinforcements when the sailing season opened. In return, he asked the Aetolians for [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/) and grain. Despite their reservations, they elected him strategos autokrator (στρατηγός αυτοκράτωρ) of the Aetolian League, giving him authority to command the Aetolian levy. Antiochus then sent out 1,000 troops and moved south against Chalcis (Χαλκίδα). The city was one of the key “fetters” of Greece, a stronghold controlling important sea-lanes and access to Attica and Boeotia. Antiochus did not have enough men to storm it, so he tried pressure and persuasion instead. He approached with Aetolian ambassadors and urged the Chalcidians to join him. The Chalcidians were not convinced. A representative of the Achaean League, Micythio, urged them to stay out of Antiochus’ coalition and challenged the Aetolian claim that Rome oppressed the Greeks. Rome had not installed garrisons or imposed tribute after Flamininus’ declaration of Greek freedom, and the Chalcidians remembered the harsher Macedonian garrison they had previously endured. They asked Antiochus to prove his friendship by withdrawing from Euboea. Without the troops to take the city, Antiochus returned to Demetrias. ### Athens, Amyander, and the Roman Response The refusal at Chalcis warned Antiochus that Greek support would not be automatic. He had more success with Amyander, king of the Athamanians, whose people already had ties to the Aetolians. Antiochus courted him further by hinting that Amyander’s brother-in-law Philip, who claimed descent from Alexander the Great, might be advanced as a possible candidate for the Macedonian throne. The promise was not serious, especially since Antiochus was also reaching out to the actual Macedonian king, Philip V. It was a convenient lie used to win troops, supplies, and support. [Athens](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrian-gate-in-downtown-athens-below-acropolis-a-gateway-to-history/) was divided between pro-Roman and pro-Antiochus factions. Wealthier Athenians tended to support [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/), while the populist faction leaned toward Antiochus. The city was close to internal conflict. Flamininus arranged for Achaean troops to enter Athens, secure the Piraeus, and silence the democratic faction. After street violence, the pro-Roman side prevailed, and Athens remained aligned with Rome. ![View of Chalkida, from Karababa castle, Greece.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Bay-of-Chalkida-from-Karababa-castle--1--1.jpg) View of Chalkida, from Karababa castle, Greece. Public domain. Rome had not yet formally declared war, but it began forward deployment. The praetor Marcus Baebius crossed from Brundisium to Apollonia with two legions, 15,000 Italian allied infantry, and 500 allied cavalry, a force of roughly 25,000 men. His main task was to watch Macedonia, since Rome feared Philip V might exploit the instability. Even so, a smaller detachment was sent toward Chalcis, where Achaean and Attalid troops were already reinforcing the city. ### Antiochus Takes Chalcis and Moves Into Thessaly The presence of Roman, Achaean, and Attalid soldiers at Chalcis forced Antiochus to choose. Any attack could kill Roman soldiers and give the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) a convenient cause for war. Antiochus moved anyway. He ordered Polyxenidas to take the fleet and 3,000 men against the city, while he followed with 6,000 troops and some Aetolian reinforcements. The Roman detachment had not yet crossed to Euboea and was paused at Delium. Antiochus’ forces attacked the isolated Roman cohort and inflicted heavy losses. The Achaean and Attalid soldiers inside Chalcis were allowed to leave under truce. Antiochus took control of Chalcis and the whole island of Euboea, giving him two of the three “fetters” of Greece. His next target was Thessaly, a rich northern plain famous for horses. Many Thessalian [cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) had been freed from Macedonian control by Rome, though some had joined the Aetolian League. Antiochus first negotiated in the language of liberation, but when Thessalian communities used the talks to prepare their defenses, he attacked. He captured Pherae and massacred some defenders. Several cities then fell, though Larissa continued to resist. ### The Funeral After Cynoscephalae In central Thessaly, Antiochus encountered the remains of nearly 8,000 Macedonian soldiers killed years earlier at Cynoscephalae. Philip V had retreated too quickly to bury them, and the Romans had left the bodies unburied as a reminder of their victory. Antiochus sent 2,000 men to gather the bones and bury them properly. The act may have been pious, but it was also political. It allowed Antiochus to contrast Greek [funerary](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) decency with Roman brutality. However, he made the mistake of allowing Philip of Megalopolis, the ambitious pretender connected to Amyander’s family, to join the burial party. Philip V of Macedon saw the funeral as an insult to his own royal standing. Already uncertain in his loyalty, he now moved firmly toward Rome. The Roman commander Baebius grew concerned about Antiochus’ successes in Thessaly and sent Appius Claudius with 2,000 men to relieve Larissa. The Roman detachment exaggerated its numbers by lighting extra fires and building a larger camp. Antiochus, believing a stronger Roman force had arrived, abandoned the siege and returned to Chalcis. Both sides waited for spring before launching larger operations. ### Rome Prepares for War In November 192 BC, according to the solar calendar, the Roman consuls Scipio Nasica and Manius Acilius Glabrio took office. Both were connected to [Scipio Africanus](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-was-the-best-roman-warrior-scipio-africanus-a-man-who-never-lost-a-battle/): Nasica was his cousin, and Glabrio had risen politically with Scipionic support. A formal vote for war with Antiochus passed easily, since Roman soldiers had already been involved in fighting. ![Artaxias and Hannibal Barca](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Scipio-Nasica-by-Taddeo-di-Bartolo--1--1.jpg) Artaxias and Hannibal Barca. Credits: José Luiz Bernardes Ribeiro, CC BY-SA 4.0 The provinces were then assigned. Scipio Nasica received Italy, including the troubled regions of Cisalpine Gaul, Liguria, and Bruttium. Glabrio received Greece and would command the first phase of the Roman war against Antiochus. Glabrio built a command team that balanced political factions. He brought Marcus Porcius Cato and Valerius Flaccus as senior military tribunes. Both had been consuls, and both were linked to circles opposed to the Scipios. Their inclusion offered political unity and added experienced officers to Glabrio’s army. Glabrio himself had not commanded a field [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) before, so having two [veteran](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) lieutenants strengthened the campaign. In spring 191 BC, he crossed to Apollonia with 20,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalry, and 15 elephants. ### Antiochus’ Wedding at Chalcis While at Chalcis, Antiochus [married](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/) a young woman from a local noble family and gave her the royal name Euboea, after the island. The marriage may have been intended as a political signal. By formally marrying a woman from Chalcis, rather than taking her as a [mistress](https://romanempiretimes.com/mistress-of-rome-servilia-caesar-and-the-politics-of-passion/), Antiochus could present himself as respecting Greek autonomy. The message was that he would be an ally of Greek cities, not their master. The message failed. To Greeks already doubtful about his commitment, the marriage looked like a distraction. Rumors spread that Antiochus cared more about his young bride than the war. Polybius reports that Antiochus, > “getting married in Chalcis, passed the winter there, indifferent to the affairs at hand.” The accusation should not be accepted too quickly, because his winter campaign included several diplomatic and military efforts. Still, the marriage damaged his image among allies who wanted a warrior king, not a royal bridegroom. Cultural differences added to the problem. Greek aristocratic drinking parties valued restraint, while Macedonian royal drinking could be far heavier and more competitive. The Seleucid court combined Greek symposium customs with Macedonian court behavior, and this made Antiochus appear uncontrolled to some Greek observers. His enemies could present him as “wine-sotted and revelling in strong drink,” lacking the self-control expected from a Greek aristocrat. ### Rome Advances and Antiochus Falls Back By the 191 campaigning season, Antiochus’ position had worsened. Roman troops were landing at Apollonia in large numbers, and his plan of using a small expeditionary force and diplomacy to win Greece looked weak. During a diplomatic tour through Achaea and Athens, [Cato](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/) mocked him by saying that > “Antiochus wages war through letters, and fights with pen and ink.” Cato was using a famous phrase from Demosthenes to reassure educated Athenians that Romans were not barbarians. The Roman offensive began. With help from Philip V, Glabrio moved against Antiochus’ allies. The Athamanians were crushed, and Philip of Megalopolis, the would-be Macedonian king, was captured and chained. Philip V mocked him by calling him “brother” and ordering Macedonian soldiers to salute him as “king.” After the campaign, Athamania was given to Philip V as a reward for supporting Rome. Roman forces then recovered Thessalian cities that Antiochus had recently taken. Antiochus did not have enough [men](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-thought-made-a-man-weak/) to risk an open battle in Thessaly. Outnumbered and weak in cavalry, he retreated to the one place where he might slow the Roman advance: Thermopylae. ### Thermopylae and Its History Thermopylae, the “Warm Gates,” was a narrow coastal pass in eastern Greece. The cliffs of Mount Callidromus rose close to the sea, leaving only a limited strip of flat land. It was a natural choke point, difficult for a large army to force from the front. Its waters and terrain had already seen famous battles. ![Aerial view of Thermopylae, Greece](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Aerial-view-of-Thermopylae--Greece--1--1.jpg) Aerial view of Thermopylae, Greece. Public domain. The pass, however, had a weakness. Mountain paths allowed attackers to move behind a defensive position if they had local knowledge or guides. Around 500 BC, Phocians trying to block Thessalians were outflanked by those paths. In 480 BC, Leonidas and his Spartans became famous for their stand against Xerxes, but they too were turned when the Persians learned of the mountain tracks. In 279 BC, a Greek force holding the pass against Gauls was also outflanked, though an Athenian naval rescue prevented destruction. The history of Thermopylae offered mixed lessons. The pass could be defended, but only if the mountain routes were properly guarded. Antiochus had little choice but to try. Glabrio had about 22,000 men, while Antiochus’ Seleucid-Aetolian force numbered about 14,500\. On open ground, the Romans had the advantage. At Thermopylae, terrain might reduce that advantage. ### Antiochus’ Defensive Plan Antiochus took precautions. He assigned 4,000 Aetolians to guard the mountain paths. Their light equipment made them better suited for rough ground than his heavy phalangites. He also chose to defend the eastern pass rather than the western gate associated with Leonidas, hoping the position would be harder to envelop. He placed his phalanx at the gates and set light troops on higher ground in front, forming a kind of “L” shape. From there they could attack the Roman right flank with missiles as the legions advanced. Like the Spartans before him, Antiochus built a wall, but he added catapults and ballistae, a rare use of siege engines in a pitched battle. From the front, the position was extremely strong. The obvious Roman answer was to use the heights. Glabrio sent Cato and Valerius Flaccus with 2,000 men each to try separate mountain routes during the night. If they succeeded, Glabrio’s main force would pin Antiochus from the front while the detached Roman columns struck from behind. The plan was risky. Night movement in mountains could easily go wrong, and it did. Flaccus lost the path and never reached the battle. Cato also had difficulty. His guide became confused, and Cato had to find and mark the path himself before returning to lead his men forward. ### The Battle of Thermopylae At the pass, Glabrio’s main attack stalled. The Romans advanced in a narrow column, as the terrain forced them to do. After fighting Antiochus’ light troops, they met the phalanx. With the sea on one side and the mountain on the other, the dense wall of pikes could not be moved from the front. Cato, however, reached the heights by morning. He and his men found themselves near the Aetolian rear guard. He formed his men and attacked. The Aetolians panicked and fled, uncertain how large the Roman force behind them really was. Once Cato’s troops came down into Antiochus’ rear, the position collapsed. Antiochus understood that the trap had closed. He did not repeat Leonidas’ stand and fled with the men who could escape. Most of his cavalry got away with him, but the phalanx was surrounded. About 10,000 of his men were killed or captured, while Roman losses were very small. Antiochus retreated to Chalcis with only a small cavalry escort, collected his bride, and sailed for Ephesus. ### Why the Greek Expedition Failed A major reason for Antiochus’ failure in Greece was logistical. The Seleucid Empire had large armies, perhaps far more men available overall than Rome had faced in Greece. But Antiochus lacked the transport capacity to bring enough of them across the sea. His expeditionary force was small because he could not move a larger one easily. Rome had much more experience with large overseas operations. Since the First Punic War, the Romans had learned how to assemble transports, supply armies by sea, and move large forces between theatres. Compared with Antiochus’ difficulty crossing shorter distances with fewer men, the Roman ability to move 20,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry across the Adriatic showed the growing importance of seaborne logistics. ![Jean-Pierre Granger.  Antiochus sends his son back to Scipio, 1800, Paris, École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Jean-Auguste-Dominique-Ingres-Antiochus-sending-Scipio-s-son-back--2--1.jpg) Jean-Pierre Granger. Antiochus sends his son back to Scipio, 1800, Paris, École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts. Public domain. Diplomacy also failed Antiochus. His small army might have been enough if he had recruited large numbers of Greek allies. But the Aetolians never fully committed their strength. Athens stayed with Rome. Chalcis resisted before being taken. Philip V of Macedon chose Rome. Antiochus entered Greece hoping to appear as a liberator, but he never gained the allied support needed to match Roman manpower. ### Cato’s Report and the Scipios Take Command After Thermopylae, Roman political unity quickly weakened. Glabrio sent an official report of the victory, but Cato obtained leave and rushed back to Italy first. There he gave his own version of the battle, glorifying his actions and criticizing Glabrio’s command. With Antiochus out of Greece, Roman factional politics resumed. The war against the Aetolians continued. Glabrio’s command was extended, but his harsh conduct, including chaining an Aetolian peace delegation, helped prolong the conflict until 189 BC. The elections of 191 BC then strengthened the Scipionic faction again. Lucius Scipio, brother of [Scipio Africanus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-continence-of-scipio-a-legacy-of-clemency-in-roman-history-and-art/), became consul, along with Gaius Laelius, Africanus’ long-serving lieutenant. Laelius had strong military credentials, but Africanus intervened for his brother. He offered to serve as lieutenant if Lucius received the command against Antiochus. Because of Africanus’ prestige, the Senate accepted, and Laelius was assigned Italy. The Scipio brothers crossed to Greece and took over the armies in the theatre. They brought reinforcements of 13,000 infantry and 500 cavalry, including 5,000 clients of Scipio Africanus who volunteered to serve under him. The total Roman force in Greece and Illyria exceeded 50,000 men, though much of it was needed for garrisons. The Scipios planned to bring a more modest field army of about 25,000 into Asia. ### The Naval War Begins Before invading Asia Minor, Rome had to deal with Antiochus’ navy. The Seleucid fleet had more than 150 warships and represented a serious force in the eastern Mediterranean. Rome sent the praetor Gaius Livius Salinator to assemble more than 100 ships, many of them old vessels from the Second Punic War brought back into service. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-sack-of-rome-in-410/) also needed allies at sea. King Eumenes II of Pergamon joined the Roman effort, and Rhodes also entered the war. Rhodes had already been uneasy about Antiochus’ naval activity and wanted to preserve its influence in the Aegean. Defeating Antiochus’ fleet would restore the sea to Rhodian advantage. Near Cissus, Salinator and Eumenes fought the Seleucid admiral Polyxenidas. The battle began badly for the Roman side when Seleucid ships captured one Carthaginian allied ship and drove off another. Salinator responded by steering his flagship into the fight, grappling two Seleucid ships and boarding them with marines. This played to Roman strengths. Instead of relying on maneuver and ramming, Roman tactics turned naval battle into close infantry fighting. The heavier Roman quinqueremes proved effective. Salinator’s line extended beyond the Seleucid flank and rolled it up. Ten Seleucid warships were destroyed and thirteen captured. Polyxenidas retreated with fewer than 50 quinqueremes. ### Polyxenidas, Hannibal, and the Battle for the Sea Polyxenidas was not finished. He sent letters to the Rhodian commander Pausistratus, pretending that he wanted to desert and betray the Seleucid fleet. The letters bought him time to repair ships, train rowers, and enlist help from the pirate Nicander. When ready, he attacked the Rhodian fleet near Samos, trapping it between his own ships and the pirate squadron. Pausistratus, his political enemy, was killed. The victory did not last strategically. Roman, Attalid, and remaining Rhodian forces soon converged and pinned Polyxenidas at Ephesus. Salinator then sailed to Ilium and sacrificed to Athena, deliberately echoing Antiochus’ earlier sacrifice. For a Roman who could claim Trojan ancestry, the gesture also mocked Antiochus and marked the invasion as now moving in the opposite direction: from Greece into Asia. Antiochus also gave Hannibal Barca his first major military command in Seleucid service: command of a new fleet from Syria. The choice was strange because Hannibal had no naval experience, though he was one of the greatest land commanders of the age. Antiochus may have wanted to keep him away from the land campaign while still using his fame. ![Hannibal with Artaxias I of Greater Armenia in Ayrarat.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Artaxias-and-Hannibal-Barca-1.jpg) Hannibal with Artaxias I of Greater Armenia in Ayrarat. Public domain Hannibal gathered 47 ships and sailed north, but a Rhodian fleet intercepted him near Side. The Rhodians won the engagement, damaging many of his ships. Hannibal withdrew to Seleucia Pieria and played no further part in the war. It was an anticlimactic end to his military career. ### Myonessus and Roman Naval Superiority The Roman naval campaign continued under the praetor Lucius Aemilius Regillus. After a frustrating period, the Roman fleet moved along the coast of Asia Minor. Polyxenidas left Ephesus and tried to ambush the Romans near Teos, but the Romans learned of his movement in time and formed for battle. At Myonessus, the Romans and their allies again won. Polyxenidas lost 29 ships, and another 13 were captured. Although both Polyxenidas and Hannibal still had surviving ships afterward, neither had enough strength to challenge Roman and allied control of the sea. The naval victories made the Roman invasion of Asia Minor possible. Antiochus’ fleet could no longer prevent the Scipios from crossing into his territory. ### Skirmishes in Asia Minor As the Roman fleet drew Eumenes away, Antiochus’ son Seleucus invaded Attalid territory and attacked Pergamon. Antiochus moved up from Sardis, sent reinforcements to Seleucus, and detached troops to besiege Elea, Pergamon’s main port. Eumenes rushed to defend his capital, while the Roman fleet moved to protect Elea. Antiochus had reason to worry. [Roman naval strength](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-navy-the-forgotten-force-that-helped-rule-the-sea/) was growing, and the Scipios were approaching from Europe. He sent a herald to the Roman praetor Aemilius with peace proposals, but Eumenes opposed any settlement that would leave him exposed to Antiochus. Aemilius replied that he did not have authority to make peace and that talks would have to wait for the consul. An Achaean force of 1,000 infantry and 100 cavalry then helped turn the situation near Pergamon. Its commander Diophanes defeated a large Gallic mercenary force in a sharp engagement, watched by the people of Pergamon from the walls. Seleucus withdrew to the coast, and Antiochus captured several cities that had resisted his authority. ### The Roman March Toward Asia The Scipios planned to march north through Macedonia and Thrace, then cross the Hellespont into Asia Minor. Scipio Africanus warned that this required careful diplomacy with Philip V. The young military tribune Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was sent ahead to coordinate with the Macedonian king. Gracchus found Philip V after a night of heavy drinking, but the king had already made extensive preparations. Supplies were stockpiled, [bridges](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-phenomenal-roman-bridges-connecting-past-with-present-2/) built, and [roads](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/) prepared. Philip also accompanied the Roman army across Macedonia and into Thrace, and allowed Macedonians and Thessalians to join the expedition. Philip had his own motives. He had little ability to refuse Roman requests, but he also hoped for rewards. He received them: his son Demetrius was returned from Rome, some territorial concessions were granted, and the remaining indemnity was cancelled. Philip also hoped that Antiochus’ defeat would reduce the Seleucid king to the same humbled position that Macedonia had already accepted. As Rome advanced, Antiochus suffered another diplomatic loss. Prusias of Bithynia, who had stayed neutral while Antiochus courted him, chose Rome once Roman victory looked more likely. Cities in Asia Minor also began to choose sides. Heraclea-ad-Latmos submitted to the Scipios in a form that blended Roman and Greek diplomatic language: surrender into Roman fides in exchange for promises of freedom and autonomy. ### Final Negotiations Before the Decisive Battle Antiochus still hoped to avoid a battle he might lose. Roman victories by land and sea had made the danger clear. He sent an envoy with generous terms. Rome would receive Lampsacus, Smyrna, Alexandria Troas, and other cities that wished to leave the Seleucid sphere. Antiochus also offered to pay half of Rome’s war costs. ![Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres: Antiochus sending Scipio's son back ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Jean-Auguste-Dominique-Ingres-Antiochus-sending-Scipio-s-son-back--1--1-1.jpg) Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres: Antiochus sending Scipio's son back. Public domain The envoy also had secret instructions to approach Scipio Africanus and offer him a bribe in return for supporting the Seleucid position. Scipio refused. These terms were close to what Rome had demanded before the war, but the situation had changed. Rome had now won major victories. Antiochus did have one possible advantage: he had captured Scipio Africanus’ son Publius in a small skirmish. Scipio’s reply, preserved in family tradition, was sharp. In exchange for his son, he offered Antiochus advice: accept Roman terms and avoid battle. Rome’s answer was much harsher than Antiochus’ offer. To make peace, Antiochus had to pay the full cost of the war and evacuate all territory in Asia Minor north of the Taurus Mountains. After years spent asserting Seleucid rights in Asia Minor, these terms were unacceptable. Negotiations ended. Antiochus released the young Publius Scipio, either as an act of royal generosity or as an attempt to preserve goodwill in case the war went badly. Both sides then prepared for the decisive battle. Antiochus had entered the war hoping to defend Seleucid influence, rally Greek support, and meet Rome as a rival power. Instead, the campaign exposed the limits of his expedition in Greece: too few troops, uncertain allies, weak transport capacity, and a Roman enemy already skilled at fighting overseas. The final decision would come in Asia, but by the time negotiations failed, the balance had already shifted. Rome was no longer only another Mediterranean power. It was becoming the power that other kings had to measure themselves against. 💡 ****Sources used:** "Antiochus the Great", Michael J. Taylor Polybius' account of Antiochus III, T.S.Brown "Antiochus the Great: Deserving or Not?", Kevin Li ### Did Ancient Romans Exercise to Keep Fit? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-ancient-romans-exercise-keep-fit/ Last updated: 2026-07-23T18:54:51.000Z The Romans' fitness philosophy was rooted in earlier traditions, particularly the Greek idea that mental and physical health were interconnected. However, the Romans, being more pragmatic, focused heavily on the physical aspect. They believed that maintaining one’s body through hygiene and regular exercise was crucial to health, emphasizing prevention as more effective than any cure. Cleanliness and physical activity were seen as the essential foundations for a healthy life, during the Roman era. 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in July 2025\. It was updated in July 2026.* ### The Journey to a Healthy Lifestyle One of the most influential figures in ancient health and wellness was the second-century A.D. physician and philosopher Galen. He viewed health as more than just the absence of disease, believing it could be achieved by maintaining a balanced lifestyle, with moderate exercise being a key factor. For the Greeks, physical exercise was closely tied to competition, particularly in events like the [Olympics](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-greek-glory-to-roman-spectacle-the-olympic-games-evolution/). These contests were reserved for young men of certain social classes, and exercise was also essential for preparing them for [military service](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/), excluding [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) from participation. In contrast, in [Roman society](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/), exercise was embraced more widely, and both men and women were regular participants. Public baths were popular gathering spots for physical activity, where men engaged in activities such as ball games, running, wrestling, boxing, and weightlifting. Women, on the other hand, often swam, played a hoop-rolling game called *trochus*, and favored ball games. Galen advocated for ball games as effective exercises for both mental and physical fitness, showing how the [Romans saw exercise as a means of enhancing overall well-being](https://archaeology.org/issues/september-october-2021/collection/wellness-greek-roman-exercise/the-pursuit-of-wellness/?ref=romanempiretimes.com). ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/10/Roman-athletes-painting-.jpg) ## During the Roman Empire (up to around 500 AD), the health benefits of exercise were widely acknowledged. **Aniello Falcone - Roman Athletes. Credits: Prado, Public domain* Physical fitness was vital for military readiness, but it was also part of a broader approach to health. Fitness and health were viewed as aspects of dietetics, a branch of medicine focused on regulating [food](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-flavors-of-vesuvius/), [drink](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/), exercise, and bathing. Trainers at Roman baths often gave advice on fitness and diet, while doctors, located in small booths near the bathhouses, prescribed treatments, including bathing, for both maintaining health and curing illnesses. [Roman baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/) ranged from small private buildings to large public complexes that served as social and fitness centers. These facilities, such as the [Baths of Caracalla](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/), featured hot, cold, and warm immersion pools as well as rooms for exercise. Romans had 159 public holidays each year, and much of their leisure time was spent at these baths, engaging in various recreational and therapeutic activities. Unlike the Greeks, who emphasized athletic competitions, Romans preferred to engage in sports as spectators rather than participants. Athletic festivals similar to the Greek Olympic Games were not popular in Roman society, though they were open to fitness through sport. *(A history of physical activity, health and medicine, by Domhnall MacAuley)* ![Roman baths at Avon England, at night](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/10/Roman-Baths-Night.jpg) Roman baths at Avon England at night. Credits: olliemtdog from Getty Images, by Canva ### Did the Romans Play Football? The word *harpastum* is described in both Greek and Latin dictionaries as a type of handball. Literary references identify it both as a ball game and a handball. It's unclear whether the name of the ball came from the game or vice versa, but it is certain that the Greeks had multiple names for it. Athenaeus, a Greek scholar from the second and third centuries A.D., states that *harpastum* was originally called *phaininda*, while Clemens of Alexandria also refers to the game by the same name. Additionally, Eustathius, a 12th-century archbishop of Thessalonica, supports this claim. No ancient sources distinguish these games as separate, and both Athenaeus and Pollux identify them as the same. Athenaeus, in his writings, expresses a personal fondness for *harpastum*, noting it was his favorite game, further affirming the connection between the two names. The *Etymologicum Magnum,* the oldest Greek lexicon from the 10th century, traces the term *phaininda* to *phennis*, meaning trickery. This etymology is relevant to the game's play style, which, as described by Julius Pollux *(a Greek scholar and rhetorician)*, involved deceptive maneuvers where players pretended to throw the ball in one direction and then threw it in another. Athenaeus provides a detailed description of *phaininda*, explaining how one player seized the ball and passed it to another while avoiding a third, amidst cries of "out-of-bounds" and the game's rough physical movements. Archaeological evidence, though sparse, includes a sculptured relief found in Athens in 1922, depicting six players engaged in a ball game, supporting these literary descriptions. Some scholars who claim to have reconstructed *harpastum* base much of their understanding on Galen’s treatise, "The Small Ball." However, Galen is more interested in various exercises through ball games, and there is no conclusive evidence that he refers solely to *harpastum*. Galen does provide useful clues, mentioning that the exercise involves "the arms in throwing and the legs in running," without mentioning kicking, suggesting the absence of that element. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/10/Roman-ball-terracotta-Samothrace.jpg) ## In such a comprehensive treatise, Galen would likely have noted the leg exercise involved in kicking if it had been part of the game. **Terracotta miniature in the form of a leather ball, from Samothrace. Credits: diffendale, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0* The information available on *harpastum* is limited and can be summarized as follows: it was a game, where two or more players passed the ball while trying to avoid a middle player. Beyond this, most details are speculative. Martial’s use of words like *puloerulenta* (dusty) and *arenaria* (sandy) implies that the ball may have hit the ground before being caught, though there is no indication that catching the ball on a rebound earned points. *(more information below on Ball Games)* Some believe the players stood in a circle, based on a passage from Isidore, although this text is unclear. Sidonius Apollinaris may describe *harpastum* when he refers to a middle player (*medicurrens*) who loses balance and leaves the game breathless, similar to modern "Keep the Ball" games. However, players seemed to enter and exit freely, suggesting *harpastum* wasn’t a traditional team game. Some scholars also confuse *harpastum* with *episkyros*. While there is no evidence of kicking in episkyros, there are signs that it might have been an early form of soccer. Pollux explains *episkyros* as a game where teams sent the ball across a middle line, the *skyros*: > “There was a middle line, the skyros, upon which the ball was placed... This performance continued until one team succeeded in throwing the ball beyond the goal line of the other team.” There is no conclusive evidence that the Greeks or Romans played football. Perhaps they were not skilled enough to meet a flying ball with their feet, or, as Epictetus said, they struggled to catch the ball even with their hands. *(Did the Greeks and the Romans Play Football?, by Norma D. Young, State University of Iowa)* ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/10/HARPASTUM-game-roman-football-handball-rugby-how-was-it-played-01.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/10/HARPASTUM-game-roman-football-handball-rugby-how-was-it-played-02-1.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/10/HARPASTUM-game-roman-football-handball-rugby-how-was-it-played-03-1.jpg) 🏛️ A representation of Harpastum, credits: FIFA Museum **Image #1*, ****The Pitch**: No historical accounts provide specifics about the pitch’s size, layout, or location. It remains ambiguous how the playing field for Harpastum was structured. **Image #2*, ****The Players and the Ball**: Galen of Pergamon described players lining up on opposite sides, trying to prevent a central player from gaining the ball. However, many details, such as the number of players or the game’s start and end conditions, remain unknown. The central player likely belonged to one of the two teams. Pollux described the ball used in Harpastum as “soft,” possibly resembling the feather-stuffed ball from the Greek game Phaininda, where the name comes from the Greek word “arpazo,” meaning “to snatch.” **Image #3*, ****The Gameplay**: The most intense form of Harpastum involved participants shouting instructions and launching the ball at or over the central player. The objective was to intercept or avoid the ball, utilizing tackles and wrestling moves. If the ball was intercepted, the roles shifted, with the thrower becoming the person in the middle. Unlike modern sports, Harpastum had no concept of scoring through nets or goals, a feature introduced in Roman ball games much later. ### Ancient Roman Ball Games Martial tells us that there were several types of balls and in consequence, many ways of playing with them. One could play with different types of balls in ancient [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/), including the common *pila*, which was firm and bounced on the floor. Another option was the *follis*, a soft, lightweight ball filled with air, described by Martial in his 47th epigram of his 14th book: “A follis is for children and old men to play with." This ball, unlike the others, was light and soft. In between the pila and follis, in terms of firmness, was the *pila paganica* or "peasant ball," which was likely filled with farm feathers, as suggested by an inscription found in Africa that mentions a *paganicum*, probably a room for playing this ball game. While there aren't many detailed descriptions of the rules for these ball games, Martial offers some insight, particularly about a game called *pila trigonalis*, which was likely played by three participants in a triangular formation. In one of his epigrams, the ball says: > "If you know how to drive me with swift left-handers, I am yours. You cannot? Then, you rabbit, give up the game." ![Mosaic of Roman women enjoying sports, ball games and leisure time, in Villa del Casale](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/10/Roman-mosaic-women-sports-exercise-ball-games-bikini-1.jpg) Mosaic of Roman women enjoying sports, ball games and leisure time, in Villa del Casale. Credits: Holger Uwe Schmitt, CC BY-SA 4.0 This suggests that skill with the left hand may have been crucial, perhaps even a requirement for the game. The Romans were aware of the advantages of being left-handed in sports, as seen in [gladiatorial contests](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/) where left-handedness (*scaevae*) was often highlighted. Martial also notes this left-hand emphasis in another poem, praising the left-handed technique in *pila trigonalis*: > “So may the oiled circle’s favoring judgement give you a victor’s palm from the nude trigon, nor praise [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/)’ left-handers more.” In another humorous epigram, Martial describes a persistent individual named Menogenes, who, even after bathing and dressing, tirelessly participates in ball games, retrieving the follis from the dust to keep playing. This playful imagery reflects the prominence of these ball games in Roman culture. In addition to *trigon*, which is frequently referenced in ancient texts, *harpastum* (mentioned above) is also mentioned, with its origins rooted in Greek, referring to both the ball and the game. Martial notes that, like the *follis*, it was played on a light, dusty ground. Beyond literary sources like Martial, inscriptions, stucco reliefs, mosaics, and paintings also provide evidence of these games. ![A recreation of the famous Roman Trigon Ball, as featured in the Villa del Casale mosaic. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/10/Trigon-ball-roman.jpg) A recreation of the famous Roman Trigon Ball, as featured in the Villa del Casale mosaic. Credits: [Sazzaloo](https://sazzaloo.wordpress.com/2018/08/24/roman-trigon-ball/?ref=romanempiretimes.com) For example, stuccoes in the Porta Maggiore ‘basilica’ depict children playing ball, and paintings on a tomb along the via Portuense, dated to the mid-second century AD, show two men and two women, dressed in tunics and long dresses, respectively, trying to catch a small ball. This could be a simple representation of everyday life rather than symbolic of something ritualistic or mythological. A notable mosaic at the Porta Marina Baths in Ostia, shows sports instruments such as a ring with three [strigils](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-legends-about-gladiator-sweat-heres-what-we-found/), a hoop, and a ball that appears similar to modern footballs, though depicted with hexagonal faces, a likely artistic mistake. The mosaic also features a [dodecahedron](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-dodecahedron-mystery-magic-use-plato-pentagon/), reminiscent of Plato's description of the Earth, adding an artistic layer to the representation of athletic equipment. As for women, they, too, were depicted playing ball, as seen in the Piazza Armerina mosaic, where women in athletic attire engage in various activities like discus throwing, long jumping, racing, and playing ball. These young women may have even been depicted as *pentathletes*, with the ball game possibly replacing wrestling, which was deemed too rough for females. Despite Ovid's advice to young women against participating in certain physical activities, including quick ball games (*pilae celeres*), it's evident that women found suitable forms of exercise, as demonstrated by these mosaics. Interestingly, in some cases, women are shown playing with their left hands, suggesting the significance of left-handedness even in sports like trigon, though the third player of this triangular game may not be shown due to space constraints in the artwork. ![One of the most famous Roman mosaics depicting athletic activities, and a clear representation of a ball in its middle-left section, in Ostia, Baths of the Porta Marina.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/10/30947878534_25a4c03955.jpg) One of the most famous Roman mosaics depicting athletic activities, and a clear representation of a ball in its middle-left section, in Ostia, Baths of the Porta Marina. Credits: Roger B. Ulrich, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ### Training for the Army Romans typically engaged in physical activities primarily for military training. Young Romans were introduced to sports as part of their preparation for military service. Vegetius, a fourth-century AD author, discusses the exercises imposed on military recruits, which included running, jumping, and throwing, likening it to a "military obstacle course." Although Vegetius is a later source, he references practices from the Republican era, including the training of [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/), highlighting that similar exercises were in place earlier. Additionally, Cato the Elder, in the third century BC, refused to delegate his son's physical training, taking on the role himself. He taught his son essential skills like javelin throwing, armored combat, horseback riding, boxing, enduring extreme temperatures, and swimming in the [Tiber River](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/). These activities were central to [Roman education](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-ancient-romans-calculate/), emphasizing practical skills over "Greek" sports like discus throwing, which did not align with Roman sensibilities. Although military training played a significant role, especially in Rome's early centuries, it wasn't the only reason Romans engaged in physical activities. They also recognized the importance of exercise for relaxation and health, much like people today. Both Aeneid and Ovid's Fasti depict characters from Rome's mythic past, such as Aeneas' companions and [Romulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-remus-legendary-founders-rome-tragic-sibling-struggle/)' followers, participating in physical activities like racing, boxing, and wrestling. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/10/Aeneas-companions-wrestling.jpg) ## However, these depictions might have been inspired by Homer, drawing from The Iliad and The Odyssey rather than reflecting actual early Roman practices. **A representation of Aeneas’ companions training in wrestling. Illustration: Midjourney* Nevertheless, historical records, such as those from the Samnite Wars, reveal the existence of figures like Papirius Cursor, who earned his name from his running speed. During *ludus militaris*, young Roman soldiers would engage in competitive physical tests, though these were not formal public competitions, setting Roman practices apart from the Greeks, who valued public sporting events. This contrast shapes how we view Roman attitudes towards sports. ### The Campus Martius At the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/), there is the most detailed information available on Roman sporting activities, particularly in the city of Rome. Although the military aspect of exercise diminished over time, the *Campus Martius* (often just called "the Campus") remained a central location for physical activity. Both Ovid and Persius referenced this location as synonymous with sport. Vegetius also highlighted the military roots of these exercises, noting that Romans traditionally used the Campus Martius for training, where young men would wash off sweat and dust in the Tiber after practicing with arms, running, and swimming. Horace, a key literary source, illustrates the dual nature of Roman sport by contrasting the *militia Romana*, which included hunting and horse riding, with the Greek games like ball playing (*pila*) and discus throwing. Additionally, hoop-bowling (*trochus*), a male activity, is frequently depicted in mosaics found in public baths, along with other athletic equipment such as strigils and dumbbells. ![Model of the Campus Martius in about 300 BC. Above are the Tiber Island and the Theatre of Marcellus , already at the foot of the Capitoline Hill . Below, the Theatre of Balbus . In the center is the Theatre of Pompey and, below, the Odeon of Domitian.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/10/Campus_Martius--1-.jpg) Model of the Campus Martius in about 300 BC. Above are the Tiber Island and the Theatre of Marcellus , already at the foot of the Capitoline Hill . Below, the Theatre of Balbus . In the center is the Theatre of Pompey and, below, the Odeon of Domitian. Public domain Strabo, a Greek geographer, offers a vivid description of the Campus Martius during the [Augustan era](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), mentioning how ball games and hoop rolling were among the favored exercises, alongside horse shows and wrestling, which were part of the *ludus campestris*. Both Horace and Strabo also emphasize the bustling activity of the Campus, where spectators gathered to either cheer for the strongest athletes or jeer at the weakest. However, these events were informal; Roman citizens did not engage in public, official competitions like the Greeks. The Campus Martius was the largest and most frequented location for exercise in Rome, but it wasn't the only place dedicated to physical activity. There was a “Little Campus” near the Campus Martius, possibly another name for the “Martial Campus” on the Caelian Hill, used for games during religious festivals, especially when the Campus Martius was flooded. By the late Republic, the *Campus Agrippae* also existed, located on the east side of the Via Lata (modern Via del Corso), which was likely part of the Campus Martius. However, Rome was just one city in the vast Roman Empire, albeit an exceptional one with nearly a million inhabitants at the start of the Empire. In Italy and the western provinces, smaller *campi* existed, functioning as public spaces often lined with trees, sometimes with additional facilities like porticoes, swimming pools, latrines, and enclosing walls. These provincial campi served multiple functions, primarily for the youth of the local elite but were also likely used by gladiators and regular athletes. Considered as significant as the forum, baths, [theaters](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-epic-roman-theater-of-philadelphia-amman/), or amphitheaters, these *campi* were overlooked later, dismissed as "insignificant material remains." Inscriptions from various cities reflect the importance of these spaces, with local benefactors not only funding construction or renovation but also providing amenities like oil, akin to public baths or Greek gymnasiums. This generosity is seen in places like Como, where the campus was located near a lake, ideal for swimming. Archaeological discoveries suggest *campi* were often located on the outskirts of cities rather than in the center. Examples can be found in cities like [Pompeii,](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/) [Herculaneum](https://romanempiretimes.com/ancient-roman-beach-herculaneum-reopened/), Alba Fucens, Narbonne, and Frejus. Some archaeologists even describe these areas as "multi-sport complexes," comparable to those in cities such as Aphrodisias. Additionally, besides the civilian campus, there was also a military campus, where soldiers trained under the supervision of a *campidoctor*. ![Engraving by Piranesi ( 18th century ) of the Campus Martius, showing the boundaries of the region: the Capitoline is above (south). To the right is the Tiber (west), the Quirinal and Pincian hills to the left (east) and a narrow strip of land between the Pincian and the Tiber below (north)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/10/campus-martius.jpg) Engraving by Piranesi ( 18th century ) of the Campus Martius, showing the boundaries of the region: the Capitoline is above (south). To the right is the Tiber (west), the Quirinal and Pincian hills to the left (east) and a narrow strip of land between the Pincian and the Tiber below (north). Public domain ### The Roman Baths: The Equivalent of the Greek Gymnasium By the beginning of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall/), the *thermae* (public baths) became the central place for physical activity. This is reflected in much of the athletic literature, which frequently references baths. These baths often featured [mosaics](https://romanempiretimes.com/asarotos-oikos-the-unswept-floor-of-the-roman-elite/) and artistic depictions of athletes, such as those seen in Ostia and Africa, or in stucco works found in Pompeii and Stabiae. Athletic scenes were commonly portrayed on the walls of these buildings, with examples of such decorations found in Tunisia, Boscoreale, and even as late as 465 AD, as mentioned by Sidonius Apollinaris. In addition to the *palaestrae* (exercise areas), swimming pools (*natatio or piscina*) held significant importance in Roman baths. A prime example is the Antonine Baths in Carthage, which featured a nearly 50-meter-long seaside pool, along with several other pools in the *frigidarium* and *caldarium*. These baths, although exceptional in size, highlight the central role of swimming in Roman culture, particularly in regions like Africa where water was more scarce. ![Roman Baths letting off steam](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/10/Roman-Baths-Steam.jpg) Roman Baths letting off steam. Credits: JayKay57 from Getty Images Signature, by Canva ### Romans and their Love for Swimming Swimming was more than just a leisure activity; it was seen as an athletic exercise. Even smaller baths had their own *natatio*, and this tradition extended to private villas, like [Pliny the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/)’s famous Laurentine villa near Ostia, which featured a heated pool where swimmers could enjoy a view of the sea. Interestingly, Romans were the only ones of their time to practice swimming as a sport, distinguishing it from bathing. [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/), for instance, differentiates between *lavari* (to bathe) and *natare* (to swim). Recent archaeological findings, such as those in Baetica, further support this, with swimming pools designed more for athletic activity than hygiene. Romans even categorized different swimming styles, including breaststroke and underwater swimming, as described by Manilius in his Astronomica. One notable example of Roman swimming prowess is Julius Caesar's famous swim during the siege of Alexandria: > ‘… The Egyptians sailed up against him from every side, so that he threw himself into the sea and with great difficulty escaped by swimming. > > At this time, too, it is said that he was holding many papers in his hand and would not let them go, though missiles were flying at him but held them above water with one hand and swam with the other.’ ![A representation of Julius Caesar swimming away from the Egyptian army, saving the important papers in the process. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/10/Julius-Caesar-swimming-escape-egyptians.jpg) A representation of Julius Caesar swimming away from the Egyptian army, saving the important papers in the process. Illustration: Midjourney Roman women likely practiced swimming, as suggested by historical accounts such as the legend of Cloelia. Both [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) and Plutarch recount the story of Roman maidens, including Cloelia, who escaped captivity by swimming across the Tiber River, despite its strong currents. According to the story, they took advantage of the still waters in a river bay, where they had gone to bathe, and seized the opportunity to swim away when they noticed no guards nearby. This tale indicates that swimming was part of Roman women's lives, at least in some circumstances. Another notable example is Agrippina, who famously survived an assassination attempt in Baiae by swimming to safety, thwarting her son [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/)'s plot to have her drowned. These examples, while legendary, suggest that Roman women may have been more familiar with swimming than previously thought. *(Athletic exercises in ancient Rome. When Julius Caesar went swimming, by Jean-Paul Thuiller)* 📜 For those interested to have a taste of ancient Roman rugby****,** we hope you’ll enjoy [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z%5FXqYu5hcfI&ref=romanempiretimes.com): ### The Roman Hostage System URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-hostage-system/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:31:16.000Z In Roman foreign relations, a hostage was not simply another kind of prisoner. Prisoners could be seized in battle. Captives could be enslaved, ransomed, exchanged, displayed in triumph, or kept after defeat. A formal hostage belonged to a narrower category. He, or sometimes she, was handed over in connection with a surrender, a truce, a treaty, or a pledge of good faith. The Latin word usually used for such a hostage was *obses*. (In Latin, obses, is a third-declension noun meaning "hostage", "pledge," or "security". It was frequently used by classical writers like Caesar and Livy to describe individuals given as guarantees for peace treaties. Its plural form is *obsides*.) In Roman interstate dealings, the word normally referred to a person held as a surety for another party’s conduct. That did not make the arrangement gentle or voluntary. Hostages were often demanded after defeat, under military pressure, or during negotiations in which [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) held the stronger position. Still, the formal hostage was not just a body taken in war. The hostage represented an obligation. That obligation was often connected with *fides*, the Roman idea of trust, loyalty, and good faith in public dealings. A hostage could be a pledge of peace, a sign of surrender, or a guarantee that a treaty would be observed. The hostage’s value came from rank and relationship. A king’s son, a senator’s child, or a noble youth was very important, because their family or community cared what happened to them. This is why hostages appear in so many different settings in Roman history. They could be part of a formal surrender. They could be written into a treaty. They could be demanded from a community suspected of disloyalty. They could be paraded in a triumph. They could be released for political effect. In each case, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) used a person of value to secure, display, or test a political relationship. ### A Pledge of Peace [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/)’s story of Cloelia connects hostages directly with public faith. After [Rome ](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/)made peace with the Etruscan king Porsena, Roman hostages were included in the settlement. Cloelia, one of those hostages, escaped with other girls and crossed the [Tiber](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/) back to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/). Porsena demanded her return, and [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) sent her back. ![Guidoccio Cozzarelli: The Legend of Cloelia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Cloelia-the-hostage--1--1.jpg) Guidoccio Cozzarelli: The Legend of Cloelia. Public domain. The point is not only Cloelia’s courage. The hostage had escaped, but she was still part of a treaty. Livy says that honor was kept on both sides, and that the Romans returned the: > “pledge of peace according to the terms of the treaty.” The person in custody was not treated only as an escaped captive. She was part of a public agreement, and restoring her preserved that agreement. The story of Falerii makes the same distinction from another direction. During [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-went-dark-life-after-sunset-in-the-ancient-city/)’s siege of the city, a schoolmaster brought the children of leading Faliscans into the Roman camp and offered them to Camillus. The children had not been delivered by their city. They had been betrayed by a private act. Camillus refused the offer and sent them back. Afterward, the Faliscans surrendered formally. Livy has their envoys say: > "Send men to receive our arms, our hostages, our city with its gates thrown open.” The hostages belonged to public surrender, not to kidnapping by a traitor. These early stories are shaped as moral examples, but they preserve a clear distinction. A hostage was not just any vulnerable person in enemy hands. A formal hostage entered Roman control through a public act: treaty, surrender, truce, or pledge. ### Surrender Before Treaty In the earlier Roman pattern, formal hostages were closely connected with surrender. A defeated community could place itself in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-burned-books/)’s power, giving up arms, territory, possessions, and hostages. Rome could then decide how harshly or mildly to treat the surrendering people. This explains why hostages often appear where war is becoming controlled peace. The defeated side might not be destroyed. Its people might continue to live under their own local authorities. But hostages made the new relationship visible. They were proof that the community had accepted Roman superiority and had given [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/) something valuable as security. This also helps explain why the use of hostages changed as Rome expanded. In Italy, hostages were often tied to surrender or local loyalty. Outside Italy, especially from the Second Punic War onward, hostage clauses became more common in formal settlements with major powers. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) was no longer dealing only with nearby Italian communities. It was negotiating with [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spartan-who-saved-carthage-and-broke-a-roman-invasion/), Macedon, Sparta, the Aetolians, and the Seleucid kingdom. A hostage clause could therefore move from surrender practice into treaty practice. It could be attached to a temporary truce, a final peace, or a wider diplomatic settlement. The person handed over still carried the same basic meaning: someone else was expected to keep faith. ### The Children of Leading Families Hostages were often selected from the leading families of a community. Their value came from the importance of the people behind them. A royal son could stand for a [king](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-king-who-preached-peace/)’s promise. A senator’s child could stand for a local [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/)’s loyalty. A noble youth could represent a [city](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/)’s future and the families who governed it. During the Second Punic War, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/) became worried about Arretium. Reports of possible disloyalty grew more serious, and written orders were sent that hostages should be taken from the Arretines. A Roman commander entered the city with troops, summoned the local [senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/), and demanded hostages. ![Arezzo (Tuscany, Italy) - Roman amphitheatre](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/roman-theater-in-Arezzo--1--1.jpg) Arezzo (Tuscany, Italy) - Roman amphitheater. Credits: Syrio, CC BY-SA 4.0 When the senators asked for time, the threat became direct. Livy says the commander ordered them to provide hostages immediately, > “forthwith, or he would the next day take all the children of the senators.” The next day, 120 children of senators were taken and sent to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-defeat-rome-never-forgot-teutoburg-forest-9-ce/). This was not a foreign treaty after a decisive battle. It was a case of suspected disloyalty inside Italy while [Hannibal](https://romanempiretimes.com/hannibal-ad-portas-how-37-african-elephants-crossed-the-alps/)’s war still threatened [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/some-of-rome-worst-rulers-nobody-talks-about/). The hostages were taken because [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-story-rome-wanted-to-hear/) feared what the local elite might do. Their children became the guarantee. The Arretium episode shows the pressure built into the system. The hostages were not chosen because they themselves had power. They were chosen because their fathers did. Rome used family bonds to secure political obedience. ### Hostages in Peace Treaties After Zama, hostage-taking became part of the peace imposed on Carthage. The treaty did not only demand money. It also restricted Carthage’s military power, required the surrender of ships and elephants, dealt with prisoners and deserters, and limited Carthage’s future freedom of war. The hostage clause was precise. Livy records that Carthage was ordered to provide: > “a hundred hostages,” selected by Scipio, > “not younger than fourteen nor older than thirty.” This was not a random seizure after victory. It was a formal condition of peace. The same settlement made hostages part of a broader peace. They stood beside restitution, indemnity, military restrictions, and Rome’s control over Carthage’s future wars. The hostages were not the whole treaty, and they were not only attached to the money payments. They were part of the peace structure imposed after defeat. The treaty of Apamea, after Rome’s war with Antiochus III, shows the same practice in another major settlement. Antiochus had to pay, withdraw from territories, give up enemies of Rome, and provide hostages. Livy gives the hostage clause as follows: > “Let him deliver to the Romans twenty hostages, and change them every third year; none of which are to be younger than eighteen, or older than forty-five years.” This was not a one-time gesture. The hostages had to be replaced at regular intervals. The clause made hostage-taking a continuing obligation written into the peace. The age limits were also of great importance . The treaty did not ask for anyone at random. It wanted hostages within a defined age range, usually young enough to matter for the future but old enough to be politically valuable. This was a practical system, not merely a symbolic one. ### Where Hostages Were Kept Hostage-taking did not end when the hostages were handed over. They had to be moved, guarded, and kept somewhere. Some were sent to Rome. Some were kept in Italian towns. Some royal hostages lived long enough under Roman control to form relationships that later mattered politically. A practical glimpse appears in the case of Carthaginian hostages kept at Setia. Livy describes them as: > “the children of the principal families,” and says they had [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) with them. Their status remained visible even while they were under Roman custody. The same episode also shows the anxiety created by foreign hostages in Italy. After a [slave](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-zoninus-collar-the-iron-collar-that-spoke-for-the-silenced/) conspiracy, there was fear that Carthaginian hostages and prisoners had encouraged the plot. Watches were set in Rome, and prison guards were tightened. Hostages were diplomatic guarantees, but once they were inside Italy, they also became a security concern. This practical side is easy to miss. A hostage clause was not only a line in a treaty. It created years of responsibility. Hostages had to be housed. Their [status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/) had to be managed. Their families and cities continued to care about them. Their release, replacement, or death could become political events. ### Hostages Before the Roman People Hostages could also be displayed in triumphs. This placed them in [Roman public life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/). A hostage in a treaty secured future conduct. A hostage in a triumph showed that a foreign ruler or people had submitted. Livy says that “captives and hostages” were led before the chariot of Titus Quinctius Flamininus in his triumph. Among them were Demetrius, son of Philip V of Macedon, and Armenes, son of Nabis of Sparta. ![Philip V of Macedon sitting enthroned in a room, with his sons Perseus and Demetrius standing on either side and arguing; illustration to Charles Rollin's 'The Ancient History of the Egyptians, Carthaginians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, and Persians' (first published in London: Knapton, 1738-1740); finished state. 1740 Etching with some engraving](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Philip-King-of-Macedon-hearing-his-sons-Perseus-and-Demetrius--1--1.jpg) Philip V of Macedon sitting enthroned in a room, with his sons Perseus and Demetrius standing on either side and arguing; illustration to Charles Rollin's 'The Ancient History of the Egyptians, Carthaginians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, and Persians' (first published in London: Knapton, 1738-1740); finished state. 1740 Etching with some engraving. Public domain. This was extremely important because both were sons of defeated rulers. They were not ordinary prisoners. Their presence showed that Rome had forced [kings](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-philosopher-king-who-never-came-how-rome-succeeded-where-plato-failed/) to give up members of their own families. The crowd saw not only captured goods and defeated soldiers, but living pledges of royal submission. A triumph turned diplomatic leverage into public spectacle. Hostages were part of the proof that a Roman commander had not merely fought a war, but ended it on Roman terms. ### Demetrius of Macedon Demetrius, son of Philip V of Macedon, is one of the clearest examples of how a hostage’s importance could outlast the treaty that produced him. After Philip’s defeat in the Second Macedonian War, Demetrius was given to Rome. He was part of the settlement that followed the war and later appeared in Flamininus’ triumph. In the final peace, his role is stated plainly. Livy says that hostages were received for the performance of the conditions, and that Demetrius was among them. The hostage was security for the peace terms. Demetrius was later restored to his father. His return did not erase his Roman connection. When Philip later sent him to Rome as an envoy, the Senate received him favorably. Livy says Rome had restored his person to Philip, but still had: > “his mind as a hostage.” That phrase shows the political afterlife of hostage-taking. Demetrius was no longer physically held in Rome. Yet his Roman experience still lived inside him. He had lived among Romans, was known by senators, and could be trusted by them in a way that other Macedonian envoys could not. In Macedon, that same connection became dangerous. Demetrius’ brother Perseus used his Roman ties against him. Philip became suspicious. A former hostage who had once been useful because Rome trusted him now looked dangerous because Rome trusted him. The story ends violently. Demetrius was accused, isolated, and secretly killed. The former hostage’s Roman connection had not protected him. It had made him politically exposed inside his own royal house. ![Demetrius being strangled by two soldiers; scene set in a courtyard with a group of onlookers standing amongst columns and classical architecture in the background. Illustration to Livy, 'Romanae Historiae Principis Libri Omnes...', Frankfurt: Rab, Feyerabend, Han Heirs, 1568. 1568 Woodcut](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Execution-of-Demetrius-son-of-Philip-V--1--1.jpg) Demetrius being strangled by two soldiers; scene set in a courtyard with a group of onlookers standing amongst columns and classical architecture in the background. Illustration to Livy, 'Romanae Historiae Principis Libri Omnes...', Frankfurt: Rab, Feyerabend, Han Heirs, 1568\. 1568 Woodcut. Public domain. ### Sparta, the Aetolians, and Greek Politics The hostage system also appears in Roman dealings with Sparta and the Aetolians. These cases show that hostage-taking was not limited to Carthage, Macedon, or the Seleucid kingdom. It also belonged to the complicated [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) politics of the second century BC. Nabis of Sparta had to provide hostages after his defeat. His son Armenes was among them. Like Demetrius, he later appeared in a Roman triumph. The sons of two rulers, Philip and Nabis, were displayed before the Roman people as proof that both had submitted to Roman terms. The Spartan hostages later played a role in another political setting. Questions about their release became connected with disputes over Sparta, exiles, and the Achaean League. Their value did not end with the original settlement. Hostages could remain useful in later negotiations. The Aetolians also had to deal with hostage demands after the defeat of Antiochus at Thermopylae. The evidence is less full than for Carthage or Macedon, but the pattern is familiar: defeat, negotiation, Roman demands, and hostages as part of the political settlement. These [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-greek-glory-to-roman-spectacle-the-olympic-games-evolution/) cases show the flexibility of the Roman system. A hostage could secure peace, mark submission, or remain part of a later dispute between Rome and Greek communities. ### Seleucid Hostages The treaty of Apamea brought Seleucid royal hostages to Rome. Antiochus III had to provide hostages after his defeat, and the agreement required their replacement. This created a continuing link between the Seleucid royal house and Rome. Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the king’s son, spent years in Rome as a hostage. Later, Demetrius, son of Seleucus IV, was sent in his place. These were not minor figures. They were royal men whose later careers mattered in eastern politics. The formal purpose was clear: they were guarantees for the treaty. But royal hostages could become more than guarantees. A prince who lived at Rome learned Roman politics, met Roman aristocrats, and returned home with a reputation shaped by his Roman stay. Livy says that, while Antiochus was at Rome, > “he was treated as a sovereign, not as a hostage.” The phrase shows the difference between legal status and social treatment. A royal hostage could still be received as a prince. That did not always make a returned hostage safer. A returned hostage might be useful to Rome, but suspect at home. He might have contacts that made him diplomatically valuable, but those same contacts could make rivals fear him. ![Noel Halle, Antiochus Falling from His Chariot](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Antioche-falling-from-his-chariot-1.jpg) Noel Halle, Antiochus Falling from His Chariot. Public domain. The Seleucid cases therefore resemble Demetrius of Macedon without being identical. The treaty first created hostages as guarantees. Their years in Rome then created political consequences that could last beyond the treaty clause itself. ### Hostages and Roman Influence The ancient evidence does not need to be forced into a single explanation. Some hostages clearly formed Roman connections. Some returned home with Roman knowledge, Roman relationships, and a changed political position. Demetrius of Macedon is the clearest example. But the treaty clauses themselves usually speak first of security. They require hostages as sureties, pledges, or guarantees. They do not normally describe hostages as students sent to Rome for cultural training. Roman influence could grow from custody, but the formal reason for taking hostages was usually to secure conduct. This distinction makes a point. Rome did not need a cultural program for hostages to become useful. A hostage could become useful simply by living in Rome, knowing Roman aristocrats, and later returning to a court where Roman friendship mattered. The system could therefore shape politics without always needing to begin as a plan of education. A hostage was first a pledge. Over time, that pledge could become a contact, an envoy, a rival, or a future ruler. ### Caesar’s Hostages in Gaul [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/)’s [Gallic War](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/) gives a different view of the system. In Gaul, hostages appear repeatedly in negotiations, surrenders, tribal disputes, and campaign decisions. They are not confined to one grand treaty after a major war. They appear as a practical tool of control. During the Helvetian campaign, [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/caesar-comet-how-a-seven-day-star-helped-found-an-empire/) demanded hostages before making peace. [Caesar ](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/)says Divico refused the humiliation and answered that it was the ancestral practice of the Helvetii: > “to receive, not to offer, hostages.” The answer shows what hostage-giving meant. To give hostages was to accept the weaker position. To receive them was to stand above the other party. After the Helvetii were defeated, [Caesar ](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/)demanded the surrender of hostages, arms, and deserters. The terms came together. Hostages were one part of submission after defeat. The Veneti episode shows that hostages mattered enough to provoke danger. Caesar says the Veneti detained Roman envoys because they hoped: > “to recover their own hostages” previously given to [Crassus](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/). The affair is then presented as a serious violation that led to war. Hostages also reached into the families of leaders. In the case of *Indutiomarus* of the Treveri, Caesar demanded 200 hostages. These included the leader’s son and relatives. The point was not only to take numbers. It was to take people whose loss would matter. Gallic chiefs were also taken when the army sailed to [Britain.](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-leave-britain/) Caesar feared a rising in Gaul during the expedition, so he took many chiefs with him: > “by way of hostages.” This was not a treaty clause. It was a way to reduce the risk of revolt while the Roman army was away. At *Noviodunum*, the political value of hostages appears from the opposite direction. Caesar had gathered there: > “all the hostages of Gaul,” along with corn, [money](https://romanempiretimes.com/credit-loans-and-risk-how-ancient-rome-handled-money-without-a-central-bank/), baggage, and horses. When the Aeduan revolt spread, the guards were killed and the hostages were sent to Bibracte. Caesar had concentrated political leverage in one place, and his opponents understood its value. ![ Caesar in the Gallic Wars from the Story of Caesar and Cleopatra tapestry series](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Caesar-in-the-Gallic-Wars-from-The-Story-of-Caesar--1--1.jpg) Caesar in the Gallic Wars from the Story of Caesar and Cleopatra tapestry series. Public domain. In Caesar’s account, hostages repeatedly mark submission and control. A people gives hostages when it yields. A leader’s relatives are taken when loyalty is uncertain. Hostages are moved or held to manage risk. They are also recovered, seized, or transferred when control breaks down. ### Scipio and the Hostages at New Carthage The hostage system was not only Roman. Carthage used hostages in Spain, and Rome later turned that fact to its advantage. When [Scipio](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-was-the-best-roman-warrior-scipio-africanus-a-man-who-never-lost-a-battle/) planned the attack on New Carthage in 209 BC, he knew the city held Carthaginian money, war material, and hostages from across Spain. These people had not been given to Rome. They belonged to Carthage’s system of control over Iberian communities. After the city was taken, [Scipio](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-continence-of-scipio-a-legacy-of-clemency-in-roman-history-and-art/) did not treat those hostages as ordinary prisoners. [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/) says he invited the hostages, > “over three hundred in number,” to visit him. Then, > “calling the children to him one by one,” he reassured them and told them that they would soon see their parents. He also told the others to write home that they were safe and that Rome was willing to restore them if their relatives became allies. In the narrative, the release of hostages became a political act. Carthage had held them to control Iberian communities. Rome could release them to win support from those same communities. The effect is shown when Iberian leaders came to Scipio. Edeco wanted his wife and children restored and asked to be recognized as a friend. Scipio returned them and made him an ally. Other Iberians followed. The hostage relationship had changed hands. This episode shows the system’s flexibility. Taking hostages was one kind of power. Releasing hostages could be another. Rome did not need to be the original hostage-taker to profit from the hostage relationship. ### When Hostages Did Not Work Hostage-taking did not always prevent conflict. Communities rebelled despite having given hostages. The Veneti tried to recover theirs by seizing Roman envoys. Gallic hostages gathered at *Noviodunum* were removed when the Aeduan revolt spread. Demetrius’ Roman connection did not make Macedon stable or make him safe. This does not mean hostages were useless. It means their value was broader than simple prevention. They could delay revolt, provide leverage, mark surrender, support a treaty, strengthen a Roman commander’s public standing, or create relationships that mattered years later. Their failure in one sense could coexist with success in another. A hostage might not permanently secure a treaty, but still show that Rome had imposed terms. A royal hostage might not create a loyal client king, but still give Rome a contact inside another court. A group of noble youths might not prevent future war, but their presence in Italy still represented the defeat of their city or kingdom. The system was therefore not a guarantee that always removed future danger. It was a recurring instrument of Roman power, used because it could serve several purposes at once. ### A System Between War and Diplomacy The Roman hostage system worked by turning people of rank into pledges of political conduct. That is why the sources so often speak of children of senators, royal sons, noble youths, and relatives of leaders. Rome wanted hostages whose absence would be felt. The system developed as Rome expanded. In early Italian practice, hostages often appear with surrender. In Mediterranean diplomacy, they become part of treaties and long-term settlements. In Greek and eastern politics, royal hostages could become figures in later dynastic struggles. In Caesar’s Gaul, hostages appear as tools of campaign control. The ancient sources show the system in many forms: Cloelia returned under treaty, the Faliscans offering hostages after surrender, Arretine senators’ children sent to Rome, Carthaginian youths chosen after Zama, Seleucid hostages replaced under treaty, Demetrius displayed and later destroyed by suspicion, Gallic hostages demanded by Caesar, and Iberian hostages restored by Scipio. In each case, the hostage was more than a prisoner. The hostage was a pledge, a sign, a guarantee, and sometimes a future political problem. Rome used hostages because they stood at the point where defeat, agreement, loyalty, and power met. 💡 ****Sources used**: Livy, **History of Rome*, Books 1–8, trans. Daniel Spillan. Project Gutenberg. Livy, **History of Rome*, Books 27–36, trans. Cyrus Edmonds. Project Gutenberg. Livy, **History of Rome*, Books 37 to the End, trans. W. A. McDevitte. Project Gutenberg. Polybius, **The Histories*, trans. W. R. Paton. LacusCurtius / University of Chicago. Julius Caesar, **The Gallic War*, trans. W. A. McDevitte and W. S. Bohn. LacusCurtius / University of Chicago. Maurice James Moscovich, **The Role of Hostages in Roman Foreign Policy*. Doctoral thesis, McMaster University, 1972. Simon Thijs, “Hostages of Rome,” **Athens Journal of History*, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2016. Jason Governale, “Hostages in Imperial Rome: ‘Romanization’ and Resistance.” Elinor Grace Cosgrave, **Captive-taking in the Late Roman Republic and Early Principate: Historical Realities and Elite Representations*. Doctoral thesis, University of Leeds, 2021. ### On the Horns of Revolutionary Change URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/on-the-horns-of-revolutionary-change/ Last updated: 2026-07-21T21:00:48.000Z Governments fail and fall frequently. Rarely however, does significant systemic change actually occur. Usually there are several competing countries struggling consecutively for control. Occasionally we have complete civilizations involved in the attempt. The strengths and weaknesses of the competing countries and their alliances determine the order of power and control internationally. The competition is never ending but the players come and go with varying residual effects on succeeding struggles. ## From Ancient Greece to the Roman Model Ancient Greece as always is our model for governmental organizations. Greece began as most all countries with the claim that their government was divinely integrated through royalty. The Hellenes then began the progression through Kings, royalty, oligarchy to democracy. The common man rose from slave to serf to citizen. Rome is the usual western subject of reference and development because of the empires’ longevity and surviving history. Its’ cycle extended through thousands of years instead of decades as we see today. ## Diocletian and the Problem of Imperial Control The Emperor Diocletian was the creator of the feudal system that lasted 1400 years. This certainly is the epitome of stability that could not exist today. The system was a reaction to the inability to control the vast Roman Empire. Communication was the greatest problem of the day. How to quickly get word to Rome from Hadrians’ Wall was a serious difficulty. This left the option of the local lord ruled at the pleasure of the emperor who required complete fealty. Rome had developed a huge bureaucracy that was required to control the world. It grew to be quite unwieldy as it was stuffed with mediocrities desperate for power and money. Does this sound familiar? Its’ twin developed in Constantinople at the behest of Diocletian. When Africa Province finally fell to the Visigoths, the bureaucracy in Rome was at its’ height. Unfortunately there were no citizens left to tax to feed the bureaucrats. The rats in Rome had to abandon the city and its’ population dropped to less than 25,000 for the next 1000 years. ![Head of Diocletian, Getty Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Head-of-Diocletian--Getty-Museum-2.jpg) Head of Diocletian, Getty Museum. Public domain ## The United States and the Future World Order That brings us to today. The US is teetering on insolvency but still in the only super power. Who will replace us at the top of the world order? There is much discussion about the rise of China, but it is already dissolving into a second tier state. They cannot complete the ultimate task of government which is to feed the people. The Emperor has already decreed that food waste is restaurants and at home must end. This is not an indicator of financial or long term political stability. Imports of all types are necessary for its’ survival. Without money through trade from the US and EU, they will continue to cycle downward with the usual civil wars and governmental breakdowns. This equation does not even include the population shrinking rapidly or the usual border wars with neighbors. Russia is insignificant economically and is really only a source of mines and foodstuffs. Its’ global reach is fading rapidly as is shown by its’ inability to defeat the ex-Soviet province of Ukraine without assistance. Britain and the EU are quickly descending into muzlim colonies. This indicates that purchasing politicians has not changed since Alcibiades. The rest of the globe is too divided to be of any significance. ## Global Elites and the Return of Competing States The enemy within consists of a global self-appointed elite that owes its’ existence to our world system of corporate imperialism and dominance operated by the United States for the past 100 years. The globalists are on the verge of success. But their ignorance of the situation they have constructed is amazing. What government steps up if the US is self-reduced to a regional power? Will we return to a Hellenic model of states with varying alliances and governmental systems? Sparta, Athens, Thebes and Epidarus were in competition using different governmental systems for centuries. That certainly is not a recipe for stability. Monetary control and the power it encompasses is always is always the basis of bureaucratic existence. If our financial-political system reaches an endpoint, government of various types are waiting in the wings. ![Πνύκα (Pnyx) in Athens, Greece](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/--------------Pnyx--in-Athens--Greece-2.jpg) Πνύκα (Pnyx) in Athens, Greece. Credits: Rakoon, CC BY-SA 2.0 ## Bureaucracy, Lawyers and Political Control The current US system has devolved into rule by the legal/bureaucrat industry. As always the end goal is control by a few. Everyone knows who is the best student in the law class, they work in top tier law firms. Then we have the barely functional lawyers that write wills and defend drunk driving arrests on an independent basis. Politicians are mostly these third tier lawyers. These people are quite aware of their station in the system. They gravitate to the political scene hoping for new clients or possibly even election or appointment to a small government post with a guaranteed income. These are the people who rule our country. This is the basis of their lack of morality. They do not let their personal morals (if any) intrude on their paycheck. This easily continues in Washington as they can rationalize that they are representing someone else’s views not their own. Unfortunately they do not represent your views, only the big check crowd from anywhere. This weakness of our system is quite evident. It is the mirror image of the Roman republic. ## Debt, Political Conflict and a Modern Sulla As the chancellor of Germany recently admitted, they cannot continue in this manner of socialism and militarism as they will have no money to survive. At 34 trillion dollars of debt, we have passed our limits as well. Hatred of lack of complete control of our current system is unbounded by the marginalized intellectual elite. They receive and spend billions in their plans to rule the world. Trump is our Sulla at the Colline Gate trying to repel the traitors. They will stop at nothing to eliminate him and support for his progress. ### The Emperor Who Ruled Rome for 77 Days URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-emperor-who-ruled-rome-for-77-days/ Last updated: 2026-07-21T17:35:32.000Z Petronius Maximus became western emperor in 455, after the murder of Valentinian III. His reign lasted 77 days. The sources preserve little about his government, but they record how he came to power, how he tried to connect himself to Valentinian’s family, and how his rule ended when Genseric’s Vandals approached Rome. ### The Murders Before the Throne The first death in the sequence was not Valentinian’s, but that of Flavius Aëtius. Aëtius had been one of the most important military figures in the western empire, and one chronicle gives two explanations for the events that led to his death. In one version, Valentinian was persuaded that Aëtius had dangerous plans and that the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-stoic-emperor-how-marcus-aurelius-outwitted-death-in-the-germanic-wilds/) would be safer if he acted first. In another version, Aëtius was pressing too strongly for agreements involving his son, and this helped turn Valentinian against him. In both versions, Aëtius was brought into the inner part of the palace and killed there by Valentinian and those around him. Boethius, the [praetorian](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/) prefect, was killed at the same time, and the chronicle places him beside Aëtius because of their close friendship. A later narrative gives Maximus a more direct role in Aëtius’ fall. In this account, Maximus wanted to act against Valentinian, but Aëtius was too powerful to ignore. His military reputation and influence made him an obstacle to any move against the emperor. Maximus therefore worked first against Aëtius. He used people close to Valentinian to persuade the emperor that Aëtius was preparing a revolt. Valentinian believed this and killed Aëtius. Valentinian was killed not long afterward. One chronicle says he was killed at [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/some-of-rome-worst-rulers-nobody-talks-about/) by two barbarian intimates of Aëtius while he was among his army. It gives his age as thirty-six and places the murder in the thirty-first year of his reign. ![Flavius ​​Aetius](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Flavius-Aetius--1--1.jpg) Flavius ​​Aetius. Public domain. Another account gives a fuller setting. Valentinian had gone outside the city and was waiting for a military display. The men who attacked him followed him secretly, chose their moment, and stabbed him unexpectedly. Heraclius was killed beside him, and the same account adds that no one from the emperor’s party acted to avenge him. ### Maximus Takes Power After Valentinian’s murder, Petronius Maximus took imperial power at [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/). He was not an unknown figure. The sources present him as a man from the highest Roman ranks: he had held the consulship, and one chronicle says he had been [consul](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-consuls-in-ancient-rome-a-pillar-of-republican-governance/) twice. He also had the dignity of patrician. Another account describes him as a senator and links his family to the earlier Maximus who had once tried to take imperial power and was defeated by Theodosius I. Because of this rank, some initially expected him to be useful to the state. That expectation quickly changed. The same chronicle says Maximus did not punish the men who had killed Valentinian. Instead, he received them as friends. This is one of the first details preserved about his reign: the sources do not describe a ruler restoring order after an emperor’s murder, but a ruler accepting the men involved in that murder. ### The Widow and the Caesar Maximus then married Licinia Eudoxia, the widow of Valentinian III. The marriage is presented as forced. One chronicle says Maximus did not allow Eudoxia to mourn her husband and compelled her to marry him only a few days after Valentinian’s death. Another chronicle also records that Maximus married Valentinian’s widow when he became emperor. The marriage had political meaning, because Eudoxia was not only Valentinian’s widow. She was also the daughter of Theodosius II, and through her Maximus could connect himself to the Theodosian family, whose western line had continued down to Valentinian. Maximus also arranged a second marriage. Valentinian’s daughter was given to Palladius, Maximus’ son from an earlier marriage. Palladius had been made Caesar. This joined Maximus and his son to Valentinian’s family, but the sources do not present these marriages as a successful settlement. They place the marriages among the events that came between Valentinian’s murder and Maximus’ death. The same chronicle that records the marriage to Palladius also says Maximus was troubled by serious disturbances and fear. ### The Story of the Ring One account gives a longer explanation for the hostility between Maximus and Valentinian. In this version, Valentinian desired the wife of Maximus. Since he could not approach her openly, he used a trick. He played a game with Maximus and won his ring as a pledge. ![Bust of Valentinian III set in a modern bust in the Louvre.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Bust-of-Valentinian-1.jpg) Bust of Valentinian III set in a modern bust in the Louvre. Credits: Tintero21, CC BY-SA 4.0 The ring was then sent to Maximus’ wife with a message telling her to come quickly to the palace to greet Eudoxia. Because the ring seemed to prove that the message came from her husband, she obeyed and went to the palace. Procopius gives the next part directly: > “And she was received by those who had been assigned this service by the emperor, and led into a certain room far removed from the women's apartments, where Valentinian met her and forced her, much against her will. And she, after the outrage, went to her husband's house weeping and feeling the deepest possible grief because of her misfortune, and she cast many curses upon Maximus as having provided the cause for what had been done.” In this account, Maximus then began to plot against Valentinian. The same account does not move directly from the assault to Valentinian’s death. It first explains why Aëtius had to be removed. Maximus believed Aëtius was strong enough to prevent a plot against the emperor. He therefore helped turn Valentinian against him. Once Aëtius was dead, Valentinian was more exposed, and the account then places Valentinian’s murder after the removal of Aëtius. The chronicle accounts are shorter. They do not give the ring story in this form. They give the public sequence: Aëtius killed, Valentinian killed, Maximus made emperor, Eudoxia forced into marriage. ### Eudoxia and the Vandal Rumour After Maximus married Eudoxia, the longer account says he spoke to her privately. He told her that what had happened had been done because of love for her. In that account, Eudoxia already hated Maximus and wanted vengeance for Valentinian. His words made her anger stronger, because she understood from them that Valentinian had been killed because of her. The same account then says she sent a message to Genseric, king of the Vandals, in [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spartan-who-saved-carthage-and-broke-a-roman-invasion/). In this version, Eudoxia asked Genseric to avenge Valentinian and free her from Maximus. She appealed to him as someone connected by friendship and alliance to the imperial house. The account also says she did not expect help from the East, because Theodosius II was dead and Marcian held power there. Another chronicle treats the matter more cautiously. It records the idea that Genseric came at the invitation of Valentinian’s widow, but presents it as a rumour that had spread. The sources allow us to say that ancient accounts connected Eudoxia with Genseric’s intervention; they do not allow us to state without caution that she certainly summoned the Vandals. The same narrative also gives Genseric a practical reason to sail. Eudoxia’s appeal is part of the story, but the Vandal king is not presented as acting only for her. Procopius writes: > “Gizeric, for no other reason than that he suspected that much money would come to him, set sail for Italy with a great fleet.” Even in this version, the expedition is tied to expected plunder as well as to Eudoxia’s message. ### When Genseric Approached When news of Genseric’s approach reached [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/), people began to leave. One chronicle says many fled, including [nobles](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) and [commoners](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/). Maximus also wanted to leave. The same chronicle says he gave everyone permission to go wherever they wished and then tried to get away quickly himself. Another chronicle says he was trying to abandon both imperial power and [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/). The accounts agree on the general setting of his final moments: Genseric was approaching, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) was afraid, people were leaving the city, and Maximus tried to flee. He was killed before Genseric entered [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/). One chronicle says Maximus died on the seventy-seventh day after taking power. It says his body was torn apart, thrown into the [Tiber](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/), and denied burial. Another chronicle says he was killed in Rome during an uprising of the people and a mutiny of the troops, while he was trying to leave both the rule and the city. Procopius gives a more brutal version of the same moment: > “Now while Maximus was trying to flee, the Romans threw stones at him and killed him, and they cut off his head and each of his other members and divided them among themselves.” The details differ, but the sequence is the same. Maximus tried to escape when Genseric was approaching, and he died before the Vandal king entered the city. ![ Engraving in a medallion of Petronius Maximus.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Petronius-Maximus-1.jpg) Engraving in a medallion of Petronius Maximus. Public domain. ### Rome After Maximus After Maximus’ death, Genseric entered Rome. One chronicle says the city had no defence. It also says Bishop Leo met Genseric outside the gates. In that account, Leo’s appeal restrained Genseric from burning the city, killing the population, or using torture. Rome was still plundered. The city was searched openly for fourteen days and stripped of its wealth. Many thousands of captives were taken. Genseric entered without opposition and took possession of the palace. He took Eudoxia captive, together with Eudocia and Placidia, her daughters by Valentinian. Another chronicle also says Genseric returned to Carthage with Valentinian’s widow and two daughters, and adds that Gaudentius, the son of Aëtius, was taken as well. Genseric loaded a very large amount of gold and other imperial treasure onto his ships. He did not spare the palace, and he temple of Jupiter Capitolinus was plundered, including part of its gilded bronze roof. Genseric then returned to Carthage. Eudocia, one of Eudoxia’s daughters, was married to Honoric, Genseric’s elder son. Placidia, who was the wife of Olybrius, was later sent to Byzantium together with her mother Eudoxia, at the request of the emperor. After these events, Avitus was proclaimed emperor in Gaul. One chronicle says he was hailed first at Toulouse and then at Arles by the army of Gaul and by distinguished citizens. It then says he went to Rome and was accepted there. Another entry says Avitus sent envoys to Marcian to seek agreement over imperial power. The same chronicle marks Valentinian as the end of the Theodosian line in the West. Petronius Maximus ruled for 77 days. The sources preserve little about his government. They preserve the events around his accession and death: the killing of Aëtius, the murder of Valentinian, the marriage to Eudoxia, the marriage arranged for Palladius, the story connecting Eudoxia with Genseric, the panic in Rome, Maximus’ death, and the sack that followed. His reign stands in the sources between the death of Valentinian and the arrival of Genseric. Maximus took power after one emperor was killed, tried to attach himself to that emperor’s family, and died before Rome was plundered. 💡 ****Sources used:** Procopius, "History of the Wars, Book III, The Vandalic War" translation by H. B. Dewing Prosper of Aquitaine, "Epitoma Chronicon", in Alexander Callander Murray, "From Roman to Merovingian Gaul: A Reader" Hydatius, Chronicle, in Alexander Callander Murray, "From Roman to Merovingian Gaul: A Reader" ### The Roman King Who Preached Peace URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-king-who-preached-peace/ Last updated: 2026-07-19T14:46:39.000Z Before Rome became the city of consuls, legions, and empire, its own tradition remembered a king who ruled without war. Numa Pompilius was placed after Romulus, at the beginning of Rome’s legendary monarchy, and the ancient sources present him as the ruler who tried to turn a violent city toward religion, law, and peace. ### Rome’s Second King Numa Pompilius belongs to Rome’s legendary monarchy. [Plutarch ](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/)and [Livy ](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/)both present him as the second king of Rome, after [Romulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-and-remus-the-legendary-founders-of-rome/). They also present him as a very different kind of ruler. [Romulus ](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-romulus-kill-remus-the-tragic-tale-of-the-founders-of-rome/)is linked with the founding of [Rome ](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)through force and arms. Numa is linked with religion, law, ritual, and peace. Plutarch introduces Numa as a man already known for virtue before he became king: > “By natural temperament he was inclined to the practice of every virtue, and he had subdued himself still more by discipline, endurance of hardships, and the study of wisdom.” Plutarch says Numa lived among the [Sabines](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-truly-happened-with-the-sabine-women/) and avoided luxury. He describes him as a man who served as a judge and counsellor, and who spent his private life in the service of the gods and in thought about divine matters. ### The City Romulus Left Behind After Romulus disappeared, Plutarch says [Rome ](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-burned-books/)entered a period of uncertainty. The city was still divided between the Romans and the Sabines. Both groups wanted a king, but there was disagreement over which side should provide him. ![Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, Romulus, Victor of Acron, Carrying the Spoils to the Temple of Janus, 1812](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Romulus-carrying-the-spoils-of-temple-Janus--1--1.jpg) Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, Romulus, Victor of Acron, Carrying the Spoils to the Temple of Janus, 1812\. Public domain. Numa was chosen as a compromise. He was a Sabine from Cures, but Plutarch says his reputation made him acceptable to both sides: > “They took counsel, therefore, among themselves, and nominated Numa Pompilius from among the Sabines, a man who had not joined the emigrants to Rome, but was so universally celebrated for his virtues that, when he was nominated, the Sabines accepted him with even greater readiness than those who had chosen him.” In Plutarch’s account, Numa is chosen because of his character. He is not presented as a military ruler seeking power. ### The King Who Did Not Want Power Plutarch says Numa did not immediately accept the offer of kingship. He argued that his own way of life did not suit Rome. He says that the qualities for which he was praised were not the qualities Rome seemed to need: > “Moreover, the very traits in my disposition which are to be commended, are far from marking a man destined to be a king, namely, my great love of retirement, my devotion to studies inconsistent with the usual activities of men, and my well-known strong and inveterate love of peace, of unwarlike occupations, and of men who come together only for the worship of the gods and for friendly intercourse, but who otherwise live by themselves as tillers of the soil or herdsmen.” Numa then explains that [Rome ](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-went-dark-life-after-sunset-in-the-ancient-city/)still needed a commander more than a peaceful ruler: > “I should therefore become a laughing-stock if I sought to serve the gods, and taught men to honour justice and hate violence and war, in a city which desires a leader of its armies rather than a king.” Plutarch says Numa accepted only after persuasion. His father and Marcius urged him not to leave his justice and wisdom inactive. They argued that Rome needed a ruler who could lead it toward piety and peace. ### A Crown Approved by Heaven When Numa came to Rome, the people approved him. But Plutarch says he did not immediately take the insignia of kingship. He first asked for divine approval: > “But when the insignia of royalty were brought to him, he bade the people pause, and said his authority must first be ratified by Heaven.” The augur then performed the ritual. Numa’s head was covered, prayers were made, and the signs were watched. When favourable birds appeared, Numa accepted the kingship. ![An augur stands behind the covered body of Numa Pompilius at an auspicium ceremony to look at the sign from the birds on whether Numa was fit to be the future king of Rome. Engraving.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Augur-and-Numa--1--1.jpg) An augur stands behind the covered body of Numa Pompilius at an auspicium ceremony to look at the sign from the birds on whether Numa was fit to be the future king of Rome. Engraving. Public domain. Livy also says Numa’s rule began through augury. In both accounts, his kingship is connected with religious approval from the beginning. ### Softening Rome Like Iron in Fire Plutarch gives a clear description of what Numa tried to do after becoming king: > “After taking such measures to secure the goodwill and favour of the people, Numa straightway attempted to soften the city, as iron is softened in the fire, and change its harsh and warlike temper into one of greater gentleness and justice. For if a city was ever in what Plato calls a "feverish" state, Rome certainly was at that time.” Plutarch says Rome had grown through wars, dangers, and expeditions. Numa’s aim was to change the habits of that city. He says he used sacrifices, processions, religious dances, and solemn rites. He also says Numa used religious fear and divine signs to make the Romans less fierce. Livy gives the same basic contrast. After Numa becomes king, Livy says he begins to establish Rome again, but not by arms: > “Having thus obtained the kingdom, he sets about establishing anew, on the principles of laws and morals, the city recently established by violence and arms.” Livy’s contrast is simple: Rome had been founded by violence and arms; Numa tried to establish it through laws and morals. ### The Temple That Showed War or Peace Livy says Numa built the temple of Janus as a sign of peace and war. When the temple was open, [Rome ](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/)was at war. When it was closed, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) was at peace with the surrounding peoples. Numa knew that a warlike people could not be softened while wars continued: ![This is the famous, corner "Capital of Justice", given to Niccolò di Pietro Lamberti and Giovanni di Martino da Fiesole. In the detail, "Numa Poppilio imperador edifichador di tempi e chiese" ("Numa Pompilius, emperor, builder of temples and churches". Credits: Giovanni Dall'Orto](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/colona-de-Numa-Pompilius--1--1.jpg) This is the famous, corner "Capital of Justice", given to Niccolò di Pietro Lamberti and Giovanni di Martino da Fiesole. In the detail, "Numa Poppilio imperador edifichador di tempi e chiese" ("Numa Pompilius, emperor, builder of temples and churches". Credits: Giovanni Dall'Orto. > “When he saw that their minds, as having been rendered ferocious by military life, could not be reconciled to those principles during the continuance of wars, considering that a fierce people should be mollified by the disuse of arms, he erected at the foot of Argiletum a temple of Janus, as an index of peace and war; that when open, it might show the state was engaged in war, and when shut, that all the neighbouring nations were at peace with it.” Livy says Numa closed Janus after securing peace with neighbouring peoples. ### Egeria and the Story Behind the Reforms Plutarch and Livy both connect Numa with Egeria, but they do not present the story in exactly the same way. Plutarch says that after the death of his wife Tatia, Numa withdrew from city life and spent much time alone in sacred places. He says this helped create the story of Numa’s divine companion: > “Then Numa, forsaking the ways of city folk, determined to live for the most part in country places, and to wander there alone, passing his days in groves of the gods, sacred meadows, and solitudes. This, more than anything else, gave rise to the story about his goddess.” Plutarch discusses the story carefully. He compares it with other ancient stories about gods and special human beings. He also gives another possible explanation: rulers who introduced major changes sometimes claimed divine support. > “Indeed there is no absurdity in the other account which is given of Lycurgus and Numa and their like, namely, that since they were managing headstrong and captious multitudes, and introducing great innovations in modes of government, they pretended to get a sanction from the god, which sanction was the salvation of the very ones against whom it was contrived.” ![ The nymph Egeria dictating the laws of Rome to Numa Pompilius](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Egeria-and-Numa--1--1.jpg) Ulpiano Checa. The nymph Egeria dictating the laws of Rome to Numa Pompilius. Credits: Poniol60, CC BY-SA 3.0 Livy is more direct. He says Numa used the Egeria story because religious fear would not easily enter the minds of the Romans without something miraculous: > “But as it could not sink deeply into their minds without some fiction of a miracle, he pretends that he holds nightly interviews with the goddess Egeria; that by her direction he instituted the sacred rites which would be most acceptable to the gods, and appointed proper priests for each of the deities.” So Plutarch preserves the story and discusses it cautiously. Livy presents it as a fiction used to support Numa’s religious reforms. ### Priests, Fire, and Sacred Duties Plutarch says Numa was credited with creating the order of the Pontifices. He also says Numa himself was said to be the first of them: > “To Numa is also ascribed the institution of that order of high priests who are called Pontifices, and he himself is said to have been the first of them.” Plutarch describes the *Pontifex Maximus* as responsible for sacred rites, sacrifices, religious custom, and instruction in the proper worship of the gods. Numa is also connected with the[ Vestal Virgins](https://romanempiretimes.com/vestal-virgins-keepers-of-romes-eternal-flame-and-protectors-of-the-state/). Plutarch says the consecration of the Vestals and the care of the perpetual fire were attributed to him: > “He was also overseer of the holy virgins called Vestals; for to Numa is ascribed the consecration of the Vestal virgins, and in general the worship and care of the perpetual fire entrusted to their charge.” Plutarch notes that some traditions connected the Vestals with Alba before Numa. But in the Roman tradition he records, Numa is closely tied to their order and to the sacred fire. ### The Shield That Fell from Heaven Plutarch also connects Numa with the Salii, the priests of Mars who carried sacred shields. The story begins during a pestilence, when a bronze shield was said to have fallen from heaven: > “The story goes that while the people were disheartened by this, a bronze buckler fell from heaven, which came into the hands of Numa, and a wonderful account of it was given by the king, which he learned from Egeria and the Muses.” Numa said the shield had come for the safety of Rome. He ordered eleven copies to be made so that the original could not easily be identified: > “The buckler came, he said, for the salvation of the city, and must be carefully preserved by making eleven others of like fashion, size, and shape, in order that the resemblance between them might make it difficult for a thief to distinguish the one that fell from heaven.” Plutarch says the Salii were connected with this sacred shield tradition. ### Farming Instead of Raiding Plutarch says Numa also used agriculture to change Roman habits. He distributed land and turned the people toward farming: > “He wished to remove the destitution which drives men to wrongdoing, and to turn the people to agriculture, that they might be subdued and softened along with the soil they tilled. For there is no other occasion which produces so keen and quick a relish for peace as that of a farmer's life, where so much of the warrior's daring as prompts a man to fight for his own, is always preserved, while the warrior's licence to indulge in rapacity and injustice is extirpated.” Plutarch presents this as another way Numa tried to make the people less violent. ![Drawing, Numa Pompilius Worshipping Jove on the Aventine, Ceiling Design for the Sala di Numa Pompilius, Palazzo Milzetti, Faenza, 1804–05. Public domain.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Drawing--Numa-Pompilius-Worshipping-Jove-on-the-Aventine--Ceiling-Design-for-the-Sala-di-Numa-Pompilius--Palazzo-Milzetti-Faenza---1---1--1.jpg) Drawing, Numa Pompilius Worshipping Jove on the Aventine, Ceiling Design for the Sala di Numa Pompilius, Palazzo Milzetti, Faenza, 1804–05 He also says Numa divided the people by trades and crafts. This was meant to reduce the old division between Romans and Sabines. People were organized by their work rather than only by their older group identities. ### Ordering Roman Time Numa was also remembered as a king who organized [time](https://romanempiretimes.com/marking-the-hours-the-roman-way-of-measuring-time/). Plutarch says Numa corrected the calendar by adjusting the year to the movements of the sun and moon. He says Numa added January and February, and that March had previously been the first month. Livy also credits Numa with arranging the year into twelve months. He says Numa distinguished between sacred and ordinary days. In both sources, Numa’s reforms include the ordering of religious time, ### Numa in Ovid’s Fasti Ovid also remembers Numa as a religious king. In the *Fasti*, Numa is connected with Rome’s calendar, sacred rites, Vesta, Jupiter Elicius, the Salii, and the sacred [shield](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-soldiers-shield-that-never-returned-home/). Roman tradition often credited Numa with the structure of Roman religion, although this should not be treated as strict historical fact. In Ovid’s version, the old wildness of the early Romans gives way to justice and religious ritual. Numa is also connected with Vesta and remembered as a peace-loving king. This matches the same tradition found in Plutarch and Livy: Numa is remembered as a king of religion, order, and peace. ### A Reign Without War Plutarch says Numa’s reign was remembered as free from war and internal conflict: > “For there is no record either of war, or faction, or political revolution while Numa was king. Nay more, no hatred or jealousy was felt towards his person, nor did ambition lead men to plot and conspire against his throne.” Livy says Numa’s religious arrangements moved Roman attention away from violence and arms: > “The whole multitude having been diverted from violence and arms to the considering and adjusting these matters, both their minds had been engaged in doing something, and the constant watchfulness of the gods now impressed upon them, as the deity of heaven seemed to interest itself in human concerns, had filled the breasts of all with such piety, that faith and religious obligations governed the state, no less than fear of the laws and of punishment.” Livy adds that neighbouring peoples, who had once seen Rome as a camp rather than a [city](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), came to respect it because it was so devoted to the worship of the gods. ### The Books Buried with the King Plutarch says Numa died at an advanced age. He was not cremated. Instead, he ordered two stone coffins: one for his body and one for his sacred [books](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-burned-books/). Plutarch then records a later story. Many years after Numa’s death, heavy rains exposed the coffins. One was empty. The other contained writings. When the books were read, they were judged improper to publish, and the [Senate ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/)ordered them burned. ![Drawing, Retrieval of Books from the Tomb of Numa, Sala di Numa Pompilius, Palazzo Milzetti, Faenza, 1802–05](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Retrieval-of-Numa-s-books--1--1.jpg) Drawing, Retrieval of Books from the Tomb of Numa, Sala di Numa Pompilius, Palazzo Milzetti, Faenza, 1802–05\. Public domain This is a later tradition attached to Numa’s memory. Plutarch includes it because Numa was remembered as a king connected with sacred knowledge and religious law. In these ancient accounts, Numa stands in the quiet space between Romulus and the later kings of Rome. He is not remembered for conquest, but for the attempt to make a young and violent city live under ritual, law, and the fear of the gods. Rome would not remain that kind of city for long. But in the tradition around Numa, there was a moment when its greatest achievement was not expansion, but peace. 💡 ****Sources used:** Plutarch, "Life of Numa" Livy, "History of Rome, Book 1" R. J. Littlewood, “imperii pignora certa: The Role of Numa in Ovid’s Fasti" ### The Sack of Rome in 410 URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-sack-of-rome-in-410/ Last updated: 2026-07-18T20:25:31.000Z Before Rome was sacked in 410, Alaric had spent years trying to secure a place for himself and his followers inside the Roman world. The city fell only after negotiations failed, imperial politics broke down, and Rome became the pressure point in a crisis that Ravenna could not resolve. ### Rome Was No Longer Where the Emperor Ruled In August 410, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/) was no longer the city from which [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) ruled the western empire. The emperor Honorius was at Ravenna, protected by marshes and supplied by sea. Yet [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) still carried the weight of its name. It was the old capital, the city of [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/the-year-of-the-four-emperors/), senators, triumphs, [temples](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/), basilicas, and centuries of Roman memory. When Alaric and his Goths entered Rome, the event did not come from nowhere. It followed years of failed negotiations, broken alliances, court rivalries, and a settlement problem that the western government never solved. The sack lasted three days, from 24 to 27 August 410\. It was not the first time Alaric had threatened [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/). It was not even the first time he had used the city as pressure against Honorius’ government. This time, however, the threat became reality. Alaric was not a simple foreign invader from outside the Roman world. He had spent years moving inside Roman politics. He had held Roman military rank, negotiated with Roman officials, fought [Roman armies](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/), and tried to secure a recognized place in the imperial military order. He was also the leader of a Gothic following whose loyalty was personal, not institutional. His followers could serve Roman purposes, but they were not simply regular imperial troops. ### The Goths Inside the Empire The deeper crisis went back to the fourth century. In 376, groups of Goths crossed the Danube into Roman territory. They were under pressure from the Huns and asked to enter the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-the-eastern-roman-empire-did-not-collapse/). The Romans allowed them in, but the arrangement soon broke down. Supplies were mishandled, Roman officials exploited the newcomers, and the Goths rebelled. The rebellion led to one of the greatest Roman military defeats of late antiquity. In 378, at Adrianople, the Goths defeated an eastern Roman army and killed the emperor [Valens](https://romanempiretimes.com/valens-the-emperor-rome-remembered-through-disaster/). The battle did not make the Goths masters of the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), but it changed the situation. They were now inside Roman territory, and the Roman state could not simply remove them. Theodosius reached a settlement with Gothic groups in 382\. They remained inside the empire and were drawn into Roman military service and Roman political conflicts. This meant that later Gothic leaders were not operating only beyond the frontiers. They were part of the world of Roman armies, treaties, payments, ranks, and imperial rivalries. ![An 1894 photogravure of Alaric I taken from a painting by Ludwig Thiersch.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Alaric-the-goth--2--1.jpg) An 1894 photogravure of Alaric I taken from a painting by Ludwig Thiersch. Public domain. Alaric became prominent after the death of Theodosius in 395\. The [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/empire-size-comparison-how-did-the-roman-empire-compare-to-alexanders-or-the-mongols/) was divided between Theodosius’ two sons: Arcadius in the East and Honorius in the West. Both were young. Around them stood powerful ministers, generals, and court factions. In the West, [Stilicho](https://romanempiretimes.com/stilicho-the-general-who-tried-to-hold-the-west-together/) became the main military figure behind Honorius. In the East, other officials resisted Stilicho’s claims and influence. Alaric and his followers became involved in these rivalries. He moved through the Balkans and [Greece](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-greece-is-restoring-a-roman-monument-to-its-former-glory/), negotiated with imperial officials, and fought when negotiations failed. His demands changed according to circumstances, but the basic problem remained the same: he needed office, supplies, recognition, and a secure future for the people following him. ### Alaric’s Search for a Place in Roman Power Alaric’s followers were not only a raiding force looking for a single campaign. They included fighting men, dependants, and people who needed food and settlement. Their position depended on their leader’s ability to obtain supplies, rewards, and a stable place inside or alongside Roman power. When negotiations dragged on, Alaric’s own position became harder. His followers needed more than promises. They needed food, pay, land, or some reliable future. In the early fifth century, Alaric entered Italy more than once. Stilicho fought him and checked him, but he also later tried to use him. Around 406, Stilicho planned to employ Alaric in a western campaign connected with the eastern empire. Alaric moved as expected, but the plan did not proceed. Other crises hit the West, including the movement of Germanic groups into Gaul. Alaric waited and then demanded compensation. His forces had moved and waited as part of an arrangement that had not delivered results. Stilicho agreed that payment should be made. The amount was large, and the decision angered some Roman senators. One senator described the payment not as peace but as servitude. The payment weakened Stilicho politically. His enemies at Ravenna turned Honorius against him. Stilicho was accused of dangerous ambitions, and his background made him easier to attack in a court atmosphere hostile to barbarian influence. In August 408, Stilicho was executed. His son and many close associates were also killed. ### Stilicho’s Fall and the Road to Crisis The consequences went beyond the death of one general. After Stilicho’s fall, violence spread against the families of barbarian soldiers serving in the Roman army. These families were killed in Italian cities. Many surviving [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/) then went over to Alaric. The western government lost soldiers, and Alaric gained men who had direct reason to abandon Ravenna. ![Invasion of the Goths into the Roman Empire.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Invasion-of-the-goths-in-the-roman-empire-1.jpg) Invasion of the Goths into the Roman Empire. Public domain. Stilicho’s death also removed the main figure who had negotiated with Alaric. Alaric now had to deal with Honorius’ court without the Roman commander who had previously been able to bargain with him. Ravenna refused the terms he wanted. Alaric asked for gold, hostages, and a settlement for his people, but no lasting agreement followed. Honorius was difficult to force directly. Ravenna was not an easy target. Its marshes and access to the sea made it safer than [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/). Rome, by contrast, could be reached by land. It was not the emperor’s residence, but it could be used to pressure the emperor’s government. ### Why Rome Could Be Pressured Rome’s [food](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/) supply made the city vulnerable. The city depended heavily on imported grain, especially grain that arrived through Portus, the harbour downstream on the [Tiber](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/). Supplies moved from the coast toward the city. A hostile force did not need to break through the walls immediately. It could threaten the food route. The Aurelian Walls were large and impressive, and repairs had been made in the early fifth century. But the city was vast, heavily civilian, and dependent on supplies from outside. A siege did not have to begin with an assault on the walls. Hunger could force decisions before a storming attempt became necessary. Alaric used this weakness in 408\. His forces threatened the line between Portus and Rome. Food shortage and disease worsened conditions inside the city. Panic also spread among the population and elite. Serena, Stilicho’s widow and a member of the Theodosian family, was killed on suspicion of collusion with Alaric. [The Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) negotiated. Rome agreed to pay a large ransom. The payment included gold, silver, luxury goods, and other valuables. Wealthy Romans were taxed to raise the amount. Some pagan statues were stripped or melted down to complete the payment. Alaric then withdrew. The ransom ended the immediate crisis, but it did not settle the conflict. Alaric still had no secure settlement for his followers and no firm recognition from the western government. The Senate sent an embassy to Ravenna, and negotiations continued. ### Attalus, Africa, and Failed Negotiations In 409, talks took place at Rimini. Alaric asked for money and grain, but also for high military command. The office he wanted was the great command once held by Stilicho, the command of both services. The imperial side was prepared to grant supplies, but not the office. The refusal broke the negotiation. Alaric moved again toward [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/). Afterward, he reduced his demands. He asked for grain and for settlement in less central provinces, including Noricum. These reduced demands were also rejected. With no agreement from Ravenna, Alaric turned to another solution. In December 409, he elevated the Roman senator Priscus Attalus as emperor. Attalus had served as urban prefect of Rome and had already been involved in embassies to Ravenna. His elevation created an alternative emperor who could meet Alaric’s demands and put pressure on Honorius. Attalus gave high military commands to Alaric and to Athaulf, Alaric’s brother-in-law. But Attalus also formed his regime from Roman senatorial figures and did not act only as Alaric’s instrument. He had his own ambitions and made his own decisions. ![The Sack of Rome by the Barbarians in 410. Painting by Joseph-Noël Sylvestre](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/visigoths-sacking-rome-1.jpg) The Sack of Rome by the Barbarians in 410\. Painting by Joseph-Noël Sylvestre. Public domain The main problem was Africa. Rome depended heavily on African grain. Without Africa, Attalus could not control the food supply that Rome needed. He sent a general named Constans to take the province, but the attempt failed. Heraclian, the official in Africa loyal to Honorius, defeated and killed him. After the failure in Africa, Alaric proposed sending a small Gothic force to seize the province. Attalus refused. This refusal left the food problem unresolved and weakened Attalus’ usefulness. An emperor who could not secure Africa could not easily feed Rome or force Honorius into submission. Attalus and Alaric then marched toward Ravenna and opened negotiations from Rimini. Honorius offered some kind of shared rule. Attalus refused and demanded that Honorius be deposed and sent into exile. Then the balance changed. Nearly 4,000 eastern soldiers arrived at Ravenna by sea. Ravenna was already difficult to attack because of its marshes. With fresh troops inside the city, Honorius no longer needed to negotiate from weakness. Alaric deposed Attalus early in 410\. The deposition may have followed secret talks with Ravenna, or it may have been a condition for reopening negotiations. Attalus had failed to take Africa, failed to force Honorius into agreement, and failed to solve the settlement problem. ### Sarus and the Final March on Rome After removing Attalus, Alaric tried again to negotiate with Honorius. He moved close to Ravenna, to a distance of about sixty stades, a little under thirteen kilometres. The surviving textual tradition does not preserve the location clearly. Before an agreement was reached, Sarus attacked Alaric. Sarus was a Gothic general in imperial service and had served since the time of Stilicho. The reason for the attack is uncertain. One account says Sarus feared that an agreement between Alaric and Honorius would harm his own position. It is not clear whether Sarus acted on Ravenna’s orders. Alaric treated the attack as proof that Honorius could not be trusted. He ended the negotiation and marched back to Rome for the third time. By then, the other routes had failed. Stilicho was dead. The first siege had produced ransom but no settlement. The Rimini negotiations had failed. Alaric’s reduced demands had failed. Attalus had failed. The attempt to reopen talks near Ravenna had ended with Sarus’ attack. Rome became the place where those failures arrived. ![Siege of Rome by Alaric I, 410](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Siege-of-rome-by-alaric-1.jpg) Siege of Rome by Alaric I, 410\. Public domain. The sack began on 24 August 410 and lasted three days. The Goths looted the city and carried away wealth accumulated over centuries. The sack ended on 27 August. The city was not erased. The sources and archaeological evidence do not support a picture of Rome being completely destroyed. There was real damage, including damage to public buildings and aristocratic houses, but not the destruction of the whole city. Rome was looted, not wiped out. Some parts of the city suffered. The area around the Salarian Gate appears in later traditions about the entry into Rome. Damage is also connected with parts of the Forum area, elite houses, and public buildings. Rebuilding inscriptions from after the attack show that repairs followed. The city still had the ability to restore damaged structures. ### Rome in Gothic Hands The sack brought plunder, but it did not give Alaric what he had sought for years. It did not give him a recognized Roman office. It did not provide a legal settlement for his followers. It did not create a stable future for the Goths inside the empire. After leaving Rome, Alaric moved south. Sicily and then Africa may have been intended as the next destination. The attempt failed. Alaric died within a few months of the sack, near Consentia in southern Italy. His followers remained together after his death. Leadership passed to Athaulf. The group did not dissolve, but Alaric himself did not live to secure the settlement he had pursued. The sack of Rome in 410 was not the beginning of the Gothic presence inside the empire, nor was it the first failure in relations between Alaric and the western court. It was the result of a long chain of events: the Gothic entry into the empire, the aftermath of Adrianople, the settlement under Theodosius, Alaric’s rise after 395, the rivalries between imperial courts, Stilicho’s fall, the killings that followed, the pressure on Rome’s food supply, the failed ransom settlement, the failure of Attalus, the failure to secure Africa, and the attack by Sarus before the last negotiations could succeed. For three days, the old capital was in Gothic hands. Rome survived, but the road that led Alaric to its gates had passed through years of failed agreements, broken commands, famine pressure, and court rivalries. The city was not destroyed; its name, buildings, and people remained. But in August 410, the city that had once taken the world into its empire found itself caught inside the empire’s own unresolved wars. 💡 ****Sources used:** Michael Kulikowski, "Rome’s Gothic Wars: From the Third Century to Alaric" Matthew Kneale, "Rome: A History in Seven Sackings" Shane Bjornlie, “The Sack of Rome in 410: The Anatomy of a Late Antique Debate” ### Seneca the Elder: Before Seneca the Philosopher URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/seneca-the-elder-before-seneca-the-philosopher/ Last updated: 2026-07-06T21:54:16.000Z Most readers who know the name Seneca usually think of Seneca the Younger. But before the philosopher, there was his father: Seneca the Elder, also known as Seneca the Rhetor. Seneca the Elder did not leave behind philosophical essays or tragedies. His surviving works are collections of rhetorical material: declamatory themes, arguments, divisions, remembered sayings, anecdotes, and judgments about speakers. They preserve a world in which educated Romans trained themselves to speak by arguing fictional cases and advising famous figures from myth and history. His works are important because they show Roman declamation from the inside. They do not give us complete transcripts of every performance. They give us selected material: what Seneca remembered, what he thought useful, what he admired, what he criticized, and what he wanted his sons to know about earlier speakers. ### The Seneca Most Readers Do Not Mean Seneca the Elder was born in Corduba, modern Córdoba in Spain, probably around 50 BC. He lived through the late Republic, the civil wars, the rise of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), the reign of [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/), and into the reign of [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-caligula-mad-or-just-sick/). He died during [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-caligula-really-declare-war-on-neptune/)’s reign, not later than the exile of his son [Seneca the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/) in AD 41. His family belonged to Roman Spain, but it later became one of the notable literary families of the early [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/). Martial speaks of Corduba as the city of the two Senecas and Lucan. The phrase points to the literary fame later attached to the Annaean family: Seneca the Elder, Seneca the Younger, and Lucan, the poet of the Bellum Civile. Seneca the Elder should not be treated only as the father of Seneca the Younger or the grandfather of Lucan. His surviving works have their own subject and value. They preserve the culture of Roman declamation: the teachers, students, performers, arguments, examples, [jokes](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-made-the-ancient-romans-laugh/), [reputations](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-obsession-with-reputation/), and critical judgments that belonged to rhetorical education and performance. Near the end of his life, Seneca gathered material from declaimers he had heard or knew through the remembered tradition. His works are usually associated with the *Controversiae* and the *Suasoriae*. A *controversia* was a practice court case. A *suasoria* was a practice speech of advice to a famous figure facing a difficult decision. These were the advanced exercises of Roman rhetorical training. ### A Life Between Republic and Empire Seneca’s lifetime crossed the change from Republic to [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/). He was not one of [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)’s contemporaries in public life, but he lived close enough to the Republican world for its figures and conflicts to remain present in education and memory. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/stoic-in-the-sauna-why-a-baiae-bathhouse-linked-to-cicero-is-deliciously-ironic/), [Cato](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/), [Caesar,](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/), [Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/), [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/augustus-secret-syracuse-the-mystery-of-the-emperors-private-room/), tyrants, generals, fathers, sons, exiles, and defeated public men appear in the rhetorical imagination preserved by his works. ![A sculpture of Lucius Annaeus Seneca, by Puerta de Almodóvar in Córdoba, Spain](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/statue-of-Seneca-the-Elder-1.png) A sculpture of Lucius Annaeus Seneca, by Puerta de Almodóvar in Córdoba, Spain. Public domain. Roman rhetorical education used the past as material for speech. Students did not only learn techniques in the abstract. They practised arguments through famous choices, fictional trials, family conflicts, and public crises. A student could be asked what a famous man should do, how an accused person should defend himself, how a father or son should argue, or how a speaker could make a difficult position persuasive. The Republic had disappeared as a political system by the time the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-the-eastern-roman-empire-did-not-collapse/) was established, but Republican figures remained available as examples in declamation. Cicero could be imagined facing Antony. Cato could be used as an example of refusal. [Alexander](https://romanempiretimes.com/alexander-the-great-in-roman-thought-hero-rival-and-legend/), Agamemnon, the Spartans at Thermopylae, and the Athenians after the Persian Wars could become subjects for advisory speeches. The imperial setting did not make public speaking disappear. The sources on Roman declamation warn against the simple view that imperial [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) replaced real oratory with empty classroom display. Law courts still existed, careers could still be made through speaking, and upper-class education still trained boys in argument. Declamation belonged to that world, even when its cases were fictional and its settings artificial. ### Declamation as School Training and Performance Declamation was both school training and performance. Seneca’s works show declamation as both school training and performance. Students used it to learn how to argue, while experienced speakers could turn the same exercises into public displays of skill. The two main exercises were the *suasoria* and the *controversia*. Students advanced from the *suasoria*, a mock speech of private advice to a great man, to the *controversia*, a mock legal speech in which the student spoke as an advocate. The *controversia* became especially associated with professional rhetoricians and with the display of legal-style argument. Declamation was not training in law in the strict sense. Witnesses and testimony were not summoned. Real contracts and documents were not examined as they would be in an actual court case. The facts of the theme were usually given to the speaker. The student had to use those facts to build an argument. The exercise trained the student to speak as an advocate. It taught him to use motive, character, intention, capacity, probability, and [status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/). If the fictional case left uncertainty, the speaker could argue from the details supplied by the theme, not from new evidence. In one example used in the discussion of declamation, a blind son is found in the bedroom of his murdered father. The speaker’s task is to argue from character, capacity, and intention: whether the son could have done the deed, whether he would have wanted to do it, and what the situation allows the audience to infer. ### The Seven Questions of the Suasoriae The surviving *Suasoriae* of Seneca preserve seven themes. They show how declamation used famous figures and famous crises as material for argument. Students advised [Alexander the Great](https://romanempiretimes.com/empire-size-comparison-how-did-the-roman-empire-compare-to-alexanders-or-the-mongols/) whether to sail into the Ocean. They advised the Spartan Three Hundred whether to abandon Thermopylae. They advised Agamemnon whether to sacrifice Iphigenia. They advised Alexander whether to enter Babylon despite a prophecy of death. They advised the Athenians whether to remove their Persian victory trophies to avoid another invasion. The final two themes involved Cicero: whether he should beg Antony for his life, and whether he should burn his writings to win Antony’s mercy. ![Seneca the Elder, Controversiae, with corrections and marginal notes by en:Albertino Mussato. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Seneca-the-Elder-Controversiae-Vaticanus-latinus-1769--1--1.jpg) Seneca the Elder, Controversiae, with corrections and marginal notes by en:Albertino Mussato. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus. Public domain. These themes were not historical essays. They were speeches of advice. The student had to enter a famous situation and argue what should be done. The exercise demanded invention, arrangement, characterization, and judgment. It also allowed speakers to work with questions of honour, fear, duty, glory, survival, reputation, and public memory. The Cicero themes show how close declamation could come to Roman historical memory. Cicero’s death was a real event, but the school exercise transformed it into a question: should he ask Antony for mercy, or should he refuse humiliation? Another theme asked whether he should burn his writings if Antony promised to spare him. Seneca himself treats the second theme as an obvious fiction, but he still preserves it as part of declamatory practice. ### Pirates, Tyrants, Fathers, and Sons The *controversiae* often used extreme fictional situations. Pirates, tyrants, harsh fathers, sons, [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/), freedmen, kidnapped or threatened family members, inheritance disputes, suspicion, violence, and family conflict appear as recurring material. These themes can seem strange because they were designed to create argument. One example discussed in the material on declamation involves a son who marries the daughter of his father’s enemy to obtain the dowry needed to ransom his father from pirates. After the father is rescued, he demands that the son divorce her. The case is a fictional exercise, but it creates a conflict between obedience to a father, gratitude, [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/), family hostility, and duty. Other cases worked through suspicion and character. If the theme did not allow the speaker to introduce outside evidence, the speaker had to argue from what the theme itself supplied. Character, capacity, intention, and likelihood became the materials of argument. The cases were not meant to reproduce ordinary [Roman life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/). They were artificial situations for rhetorical training. Their use lay in the conflicts they created: father against son, duty against gratitude, reputation against survival, status against sympathy, and public judgment against private feeling. Seneca’s collections preserve these exercises alongside the ways different speakers handled them. They show how declaimers divided an argument, found a colour or line of defence, and turned a difficult theme into a persuasive speech. ### Public Display and the Limits of Declamation Declamation could become public performance. Students declaimed, but professionals and educated adults also took part. A single theme could be handled by several speakers, each trying to produce the strongest argument, the sharpest division, or the most memorable expression. The sources also preserve criticism of declamation. Some speakers and critics thought the schools encouraged artificial habits. The difference between declamation and real court practice could be exposed when a successful school performer entered an actual legal setting. The discussion of Latro, one of Seneca’s admired fellow Spaniards and a leading declaimer, includes the story that his nerve failed when he had to plead a real case. The point is not that declamation had no connection with public speaking, but that school performance and actual advocacy were not the same thing. Other anecdotes make the same distinction. Albucius is used as an example of a declaimer whose school technique became foolish in court. Votienus Montanus is reported as criticizing declamation sharply, arguing that practical experience was the real preparation for the courts. Seneca’s surviving prefaces preserve these debates about the value and limits of declamatory training. Declamation belonged to Roman speech training, but it was not the same as pleading a real case in court. Seneca’s material shows both sides: the exercises trained argument and performance, while some speakers also recognized that school brilliance could fail outside the classroom. ### An Old Man Writing From Memory Seneca’s works are framed by memory. In the account preserved by the declamation chapter, his preface presents an old man pressed by his sons to give them a [book](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-burned-books/). He remembers the declaimers and preserves a record of oral performances. His memory is central to the way the collection presents itself. Seneca’s *Controversiae* and *Suasoriae* are not mechanical reproductions of past speeches. They are collections of remembered declamatory material: extracts, sayings, arguments, anecdotes, and judgments. By preserving both the speeches and details about the speakers behind them, Seneca turned family memory into a record of Roman public speaking culture. ![Seneca, part of double-herm in Antikensammlung Berlin](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/seneca-the-elder--2--1.jpg) Seneca, part of double-herm in Antikensammlung Berlin. Credits: Warm, CC BY-SA 3.0 Seneca did not give his sons complete speeches from beginning to end. He preserved extracts, divisions, sayings, arguments, anecdotes, and judgments. His work is therefore selective. It shows what was remembered, what was considered worth preserving, and how earlier speakers were judged. The same point explains why his work is not just a storehouse of rhetorical exercises. It is also a record of evaluation. Seneca names speakers, compares them, praises them, criticizes them, and presents their styles. The collection gives readers access to declamation as remembered performance and as criticism. ### Cicero in the Classroom Cicero appears strongly in the *Suasoriae*. The sixth *Suasoria* asks whether Cicero should beg Antony for pardon. The exercise allowed declaimers to explore the relationship between conduct in life and reputation after death. Most of the responses preserved by Seneca argue that Cicero should not debase himself before Antony. In these speeches, Cicero’s reputation after death is treated as more important than survival bought through humiliation. The question was fictional in form, but it was built around a real Roman memory. Cicero’s death could be turned into a rhetorical exercise because it raised questions suitable for declamation: whether a public [man ](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-thought-made-a-man-weak/)should choose survival at the cost of humiliation, whether reputation after death could outweigh life, and how an orator should be remembered. Seneca’s treatment of Cicero is not limited to school declaimers. He also brings in literary and historical material around Cicero’s final days. In *Suasoria* 6, the material from historians and writers can outweigh the specimens from declaimers in prestige and quality. The following *Suasoria*, on whether Cicero should burn his writings to gain Antony’s mercy, is treated by Seneca as a crude fiction, but it remained a theme used by the schoolmen. Cicero therefore appears in Seneca’s work in more than one way: as a declamatory subject, as a historical figure, and as a test case for reputation, writing, survival, and honour. ### Seneca as Critic of Speakers Seneca did not only preserve what declaimers said. He also preserved judgments about speakers and styles. His work includes criticism of declaimers, anecdotes about their habits, and comparisons between different kinds of speaking. Seneca uses his prefaces to discuss major declaimers and orators. He presents figures such as Latro, Fuscus, Albucius, Gallio, Asinius Pollio, Haterius, and others. The prefaces do not only introduce material; they also preserve assessments of talent, taste, excess, and failure. Seneca’s criticism often turns on the relationship between declamation and real oratory. He preserves admiration for brilliant declaimers, but also records cases where school habits did not work well in court. He also notes differences between speakers, including force, style, judgment, invention, and performance. The result is that his surviving works preserve not only declamatory themes but also Roman criticism of declamation. They show what was admired, what was distrusted, and how the culture of rhetorical performance judged itself. ### The Lost History of Seneca the Elder Seneca the Elder also wrote a historical work. It is usually known by the title *Historiae ab initio bellorum civilium*, meaning Histories from the Beginning of the [Civil Wars](https://romanempiretimes.com/for-rome-no-war-was-worse-than-civil-war/). The work itself is mostly lost. Later testimony connected with Seneca the Younger’s account of his father says that the *Historiae* ran from the beginning of the civil wars almost to the end of Seneca the Elder’s life. The starting point has been debated. One interpretation places the beginning with the civil war between [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/) and Pompey. Another interpretation argues for an earlier beginning around the [Gracchi](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-gracchi-brothers-visionaries-or-socialist-revolutionaries/). The evidence does not settle the question for every scholar. The testimony also includes the phrase that truth first retreated from the beginning of the civil wars. Modern discussion has treated this as important for understanding the work’s view of history. One interpretation connects it with the problem of truth in writing about civil wars and monarchy. Another emphasizes moral decline and the collapse of older Republican standards. The existence of the Historiae shows that Seneca the Elder was not only the collector of rhetorical exercises preserved in the *Controversiae* and *Suasoriae*. He also wrote about Roman history from the civil-war period to near his own lifetime. ### The Herculaneum Papyrus A major development in the study of Seneca the Elder is the identification of P.Herc. 1067, short for *Papyrus Herculanensis 1067*, meaning Herculaneum Papyrus 1067, a charred papyrus from [Herculaneum](https://romanempiretimes.com/ancient-roman-beach-herculaneum-reopened/), as a direct witness to the lost *Historiae*. The Herculaneum papyri were buried and carbonized by the eruption of [Vesuvius](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/) in AD 79, and they are difficult to read, fragmentary, and often technically demanding. ![Progymnasmata artis rhetoricæ ... una cum annotationibus in Senecæ declamationes, controversias, et deliberativas. - Upper cover](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Senecae-declamationes--controversies--et-deliberativas_jpg-1.jpg) Progymnasmata artis rhetoricæ ... una cum annotationibus in Senecæ declamationes, controversias, et deliberativas. - Upper cover. Public domain. The authorship is known through the *subscriptio* preserved by the roll, which gives the name Lucius Annaeus. The text’s historical narrative and the evidence of the *subscriptio* support its identification with Seneca the Elder’s *Historiae ab initio bellorum civilium.* The roll is fragmentary, and it does not give back the full work. It gives a direct manuscript witness to a historical work otherwise known from limited testimony and later discussion. The surviving fragments appear to concern historical characters of the imperial family and narrative material around Tiberius or the final period of Augustus. Because the text is fragmentary, it cannot be treated as a recovered complete history. Its importance is that it confirms the direct transmission of Seneca the Elder’s historiographical work and places him more firmly in the study of early imperial Roman historiography. The papyrus also corrects the narrowness of the label “Seneca the Rhetor.” That label reflects the surviving rhetorical collections, but the rediscovered papyrus confirms that his historical writing belongs in the picture too. ### The Father of a More Famous Son Seneca the Younger became far more famous than his father. His surviving works belong to philosophy, drama, moral reflection, and the politics of [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-romes-most-infamous-ruler-part-1/)’s reign. Because of that fame, “Seneca” usually means the son unless the Elder is clearly named. The father and son should not be collapsed into one figure. Seneca the Elder’s surviving works belong to rhetoric, education, memory, performance, criticism, and historiography. Seneca the Younger’s works belong to a different literary and philosophical world. The shared name has often made the father harder to see. The family link still helps explain the wider literary setting. Seneca the Elder, Seneca the Younger, and Lucan were remembered together in connection with Corduba. The elder Seneca preserved declamatory culture; the younger Seneca became a philosophical and literary author; Lucan wrote an epic on civil war. The family’s later fame belongs to several genres, not only philosophy. Seneca the Elder’s place in that family is not only genealogical. His works preserve the educational and rhetorical culture in which elite Romans learned how to speak, argue, remember, and judge speech. ### The Roman World He Preserved Seneca the Elder’s surviving works are collections rather than continuous narratives. They preserve fragments of performance, not complete scenes. They require the reader to enter a Roman world where education, public speech, memory, social status, and literary criticism were closely connected. His work preserves declaimers whose voices would otherwise be largely lost. It also preserves criticism: how speakers were judged, how declamation was praised, where it was distrusted, and how school performance differed from real advocacy. Through the Cicero themes, it preserves the way a Republican figure could remain present in early imperial rhetorical education. The lost *Historiae*, now connected with *Papyrus Herculanensis 1067*, adds another part of the same writer’s profile. Seneca the Elder was the author of rhetorical collections and also of a historical work that ran from the beginning of the civil wars almost to his own lifetime. His surviving and rediscovered traces preserve the exercises, speakers, judgments, remembered voices, and historical interests of a Roman writer who lived between Republic and Empire. 💡 ****Sources used:** "The Elder Seneca" by Lewis A. Sussman “Roman Declamation: The Elder Seneca and Quintilian” by W. Martin Bloomer “Memories of Future Past: Seneca the Elder and Cultural Memory” by Martin T. Dinter “**Seneca the Elder and his Rediscovered Historiae ab initio bellorum civilium: New Perspectives on Early-Imperial Roman Historiography*” edited by Maria Chiara Scappaticcio ### When Rome Burned Books URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-burned-books/ Last updated: 2026-07-20T21:16:45.000Z Rome was a world of writing. Laws, wills, contracts, letters, speeches, histories, poems, priestly rules, prophecies, financial accounts, and public records all moved through Roman life in written form. The city stored documents, copied books, preserved archives, and built elite education around reading, memory, and quotation. Writing was not an enemy of Roman power. It was one of its instruments. But not every written object had the same force. A history could preserve admiration for [men](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-thought-made-a-man-weak/) a regime wanted treated as traitors. A satire could injure a senator’s reputation. A prophetic book could claim access to a future not controlled by official religion. A ritual text could give private practitioners authority outside public supervision. A letter could implicate a conspirator. A debt record could bind a household. A will could decide an inheritance. In such cases, writing was not merely writing. It could become memory, evidence, accusation, ritual authority, or political danger. That is why, in certain rare but striking cases, Roman authorities destroyed texts by fire. The flames did not always work. Literary books could be copied, hidden, remembered, quoted, or made more intriguing because they had been condemned. Documents were different. A burned account, letter, or legal record could remove proof in a way that burning a history or [poem](https://romanempiretimes.com/lucretius-and-the-roman-poem-that-changed-how-the-world-was-seen/) often could not. The Roman concern, then, was not simply with “books” as a single category. It was with what particular written things could do. ## Rome Burned Writing, Not Just Books The phrase “book burning” can mislead. It suggests a single act with a single meaning: a state destroys books because it hates ideas. Roman practice was more complicated. Romans burned different kinds of writing. Some were literary works: histories, speeches, biographies, satires. Others were documents: letters, financial records, debt accounts, wills, and legal papers. The difference mattered. A literary work might already have escaped the author’s hand. It could exist in more than one copy. Friends could preserve it. Readers could remember passages. Later writers could quote or summarize it. A decree might make possession dangerous, but it could not guarantee oblivion. Documents worked differently. A letter, debt tablet, account, or official record could have power because of its physical existence. If that document was destroyed, the consequences could be practical. Evidence could vanish. A [debt](https://romanempiretimes.com/debt-and-disgrace-in-ancient-rome/) could be cancelled. A dangerous correspondence could disappear before it was used in court or politics. So Roman text burning had two faces. Burning a book could be a public attempt to punish memory. Burning a document could be a practical attempt to remove evidence or obligation. That distinction is essential. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/) did not treat all writing alike. ## The First Danger Was Religious Knowledge The earliest Roman anxieties about written material were not mainly literary. They were religious. In Roman public life, religion was not simply private belief. It was part of civic order. Rituals, sacrifices, vows, priesthoods, and traditional forms of consultation helped maintain the relationship between the community and the [gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/). A wrong ritual was not merely a mistake. A foreign or unauthorized practice could be seen as a threat to the safety of the state. During the Second Punic War, with [Hannibal](https://romanempiretimes.com/hannibal-ad-portas-how-37-african-elephants-crossed-the-alps/) in Italy and [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) under enormous strain, [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) describes a city troubled by foreign rites, soothsayers, and private religious practices. The authorities ordered the surrender of books of prophecies, prayers, and written sacrificial instructions. ![Hannibal Before the Senate in Carthage](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Hannibal-Before-the-Senate-in-Carthage--1--1.jpg) Hannibal Before the Senate in Carthage. Public domain. This episode must be handled carefully. It is not a secure case of book burning. The surviving account shows collection and control, not definite destruction by fire. But it shows the anxiety clearly. Written religious knowledge, when it circulated outside official supervision, could become a public problem. A prophecy could feed panic. A ritual formula could authorize a private specialist. A book of prayers or sacrifices could compete with civic religion. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) did not object to ritual because it was ritual. It objected when ritual seemed to escape the structures that made it acceptable to the Roman state. A few decades later, that concern produced one of the most famous burnings in Republican memory. ## The Strange Books of King Numa In 181 BC, workmen reportedly discovered two stone chests near the Janiculum. One was said to contain the body of [Numa](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-king-who-preached-peace/) Pompilius, Rome’s legendary second king. The other contained books. Numa was remembered as a founder of Roman sacred order. Tradition credited him with priesthoods, rites, and institutions that shaped the [city](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/)’s relationship with the gods. A cache of books under his name should have been a treasure from Rome’s holiest past. Instead, it became dangerous. Ancient accounts differ in detail, but the main story is clear. The books were examined and judged unsafe. Some were said to concern pontifical law. Others were in [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-greek-glory-to-roman-spectacle-the-olympic-games-evolution/) and connected in some versions with Pythagorean teaching, although ancient writers knew the chronology was impossible: Numa could not truly have been a pupil of Pythagoras. The exact contents cannot be recovered. The books were remembered not because later readers knew precisely what doctrines they contained, but because Roman authorities treated them as writings that might disturb established religion while claiming the authority of one of Rome’s sacred founders. [The Senate ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/)ordered them burned. ![A possible representation of the discovery of the books attributed to Numa Pompilius near the Janiculum.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/The-discovery-of-the-books-of-Nyma-1.jpg) A possible representation of the discovery of the books attributed to Numa Pompilius near the Janiculum. Credits: Roman Empire Tmes, ChatGPT They were burned publicly in the *comitium*, in the political and civic heart of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-went-dark-life-after-sunset-in-the-ancient-city/). Some accounts say sacrificial attendants prepared the[ fire](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/). This was not private disposal. It was a public act, almost ritual in form, declaring that these writings had crossed a religious boundary. If books could speak in Numa’s name, they could challenge the memory of Numa. They could appear to reveal a hidden version of Roman religion. They could place sacred authority in suspicious texts rather than in the public institutions that claimed to inherit his tradition. The fire protected not only ritual practice, but official sacred memory. ## Augustus and the Control of Prophecy The same problem returned under [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), but in a new political world. After decades of [civil war](https://romanempiretimes.com/for-rome-no-war-was-worse-than-civil-war/), Augustus presented himself as the restorer of Roman order. He rebuilt [temples](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/), revived priesthoods, renewed old rituals, and placed religious conservatism at the center of his public image. After he became *pontifex maximus,* he also acted against unauthorized prophetic books. Ancient testimony says [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/augustus-secret-syracuse-the-mystery-of-the-emperors-private-room/) collected and burned more than two thousand prophetic writings in Greek and Latin. Yet he did not destroy prophecy as such. He preserved selected Sibylline material and placed it under official control. That distinction is the key. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/) did not reject prophecy when Rome controlled it. It rejected prophetic authority that circulated outside approved channels. Official prophetic books could be guarded, selected, and consulted by public authority. Unofficial books were different. They could circulate through private hands. They could feed expectation, panic, or ambition. They could claim to reveal what the gods had decided without passing through the state’s religious mechanisms. In the age of Augustus, the future was political. Who would rule? Would civil war return? Would the new order last? How long would the princeps live? A prophecy was not harmless curiosity if it touched succession, dynasty, or public fear. Augustus’ burning of prophetic books was therefore not a rejection of sacred writing. It was an act of selection. Some prophetic material was preserved because it belonged to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s official religious order. Other texts were destroyed because they did not. To control prophecy was to control the public imagination of the future. ## When Writing Became Political Under the early [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), burning moved from religious and prophetic texts into another field: histories, speeches, satire, reputation, and treason. One of the earliest important cases was Titus Labienus, an Augustan-era orator and writer, not Caesar’s former lieutenant of the same name. He was known for fierce language and attacks on powerful men. His writings were condemned by senatorial decree and ordered burned. Seneca the Elder later treated this as a new and remarkable punishment: not only a person, but his writings, had been sentenced. The case should not be reduced to a simple story of emperor versus author. It grew out of a senatorial world where reputation mattered intensely. A hostile text could damage a man’s standing, family memory, and political position. It could circulate after the immediate quarrel had ended. It could turn insult into something permanent. In that environment, burning books could become a weapon in elite conflict. A senator attacked in writing had an interest in making the written attack disappear. The emperor’s world mattered, but so did rivalry among senators themselves. That makes the punishment more revealing, not less. Rome’s [ruling class](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) understood writing as a form of power. A book could wound. A speech could survive the speaker. A history could shape how later generations judged the living and the dead. Labienus’ books were burned. But his name was not erased. The condemnation became part of his reputation. A famous reply attributed to Cassius Severus captured the weakness of the punishment: if the authorities wished to destroy Labienus’ books, they would also have to burn those who had learned them by heart. That was the problem with literary fire. Once writing had entered readers, the flames could not fully reach it. ![A possible representation of Titus Labienus, an Augustan-era orator and writer. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Titus-Libienus-1.jpg) A possible representation of Titus Labienus, an Augustan-era orator and writer. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Cassius Severus himself belongs near this story, but cautiously. His defamatory writings brought severe [punishment](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/) and suppression. Yet the evidence for an actual burning of his works is less secure than in the cases of Labienus or Cremutius Cordus. He shows how dangerous writing could become, but he should not be treated as one of the clearest book-burning cases. ## Cremutius Cordus and the Crime of Memory The most powerful case is Cremutius Cordus. In AD 25, under [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/), Cremutius Cordus was accused because of his historical writing. He had praised Brutus and called Cassius “the last of the Romans.” These names were not harmless. Brutus and Cassius were [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/)’s assassins. To praise them under the Principate could sound like praise for resistance to monarchy. Ancient accounts present the charge as something new and disturbing. A historian had written about dead men. Yet the past was not safe territory. Roman history was full of civil war, tyrannicide, republican virtue, and aristocratic memory. To write about the Republic was never only to write about the past. It could suggest judgments on the present. The case also belonged to a wider political climate. Cremutius Cordus had enemies. [Sejanus](https://romanempiretimes.com/gemonian-stairs-rome-spot-mourning-execution-scalae-gemoniae/), the powerful prefect under Tiberius, appears in the background of the tradition. Other material in Cremutius’ work may also have seemed politically sensitive. It is too simple to say he died only because of one phrase about [Cassius](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/). But that phrase mattered because it exposed the danger of historical memory. The Principate could tolerate the Republic as a completed past. It could honor old names, quote old examples, and preserve the appearance of continuity. But admiration for[ Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/)’s killers was different. It implied that the men who ended a dictator’s life might be remembered as the last true Romans. Cremutius Cordus chose death by starvation. His books were ordered burned. The aediles destroyed copies in Rome, and magistrates elsewhere were instructed to do the same where copies could be found. But the destruction was incomplete. His daughter Marcia and others preserved copies. Later, the work could circulate again. The attempt to erase Cremutius Cordus became part of the reason he survived in Roman memory. The irony is sharp. The fire did not end his story. It created the form in which later generations remembered it. Rome could burn copies of the work. It could not prevent the work from surviving in memory, quotation, or hidden circulation. ## Dangerous Books Could Attract Readers The failure of literary book burning appears again under [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-romes-most-infamous-ruler-part-1/). Fabricius Veiento wrote satirical or defamatory works attacking senators and priests. [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-rome-most-infamous-ruler-part-2/) exiled him and ordered his writings burned. [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) gives the detail that makes the case unforgettable: while the books were dangerous to possess, people sought them out and read them eagerly. Once permission returned, they fell into oblivion. That is one of the clearest Roman observations about the paradox of prohibition. Danger created readers. Permission created neglect. A condemned book could gain value precisely because it was condemned. The decree told readers that the text mattered. It suggested that something inside had frightened powerful people. Even when the contents were not great literature, the danger surrounding them made them interesting. Book burning could punish an author. It could frighten owners. It could stage obedience in public. But it could also advertise the thing it tried to suppress. The flames could become publicity. ## Domitian and the Burning of Opposition Memory Under [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/), book burning became part of a darker memory of imperial rule. Arulenus Rusticus wrote in praise of Thrasea Paetus. Herennius Senecio wrote in praise of Helvidius Priscus. These were not neutral subjects. Thrasea and Helvidius belonged to the tradition of senatorial opposition, moral resistance, and refusal to flatter imperial power. The authors were executed. Their books were burned in public spaces. ![A possible representation of scroll burning Under Domitian. The burning of works praising senatorial opposition figures became part of the later memory of tyranny.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/papyrus-burning-1.jpg) A possible representation of scroll burning Under Domitian. The burning of works praising senatorial opposition figures became part of the later memory of tyranny. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Tacitus later turned this into one of the great images of tyranny. He says the authorities imagined that in those flames they could destroy the voice of the Roman people, the freedom of the Senate, and human conscience. He then adds the crucial thought: memory itself would have been lost, if forgetting had been as easy as silence. The passage is powerful, but it should be read carefully. Tacitus was writing after [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/dining-with-domitian-and-the-enigma-of-domitian-black-dinner/)’s death, when attacking the dead emperor had become politically safe. The prosecutions also belonged to a senatorial world of informers, rivals, and accusations. [Domitian ](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-titus-and-domitian-brotherhood-on-rome-imperial-stage/)was not the only actor in that system. Still, the symbolic meaning is clear. To praise men like Thrasea and Helvidius was to preserve a model of conduct that the regime and its supporters found dangerous. A biography could become a monument. A dead opponent could keep speaking through a book. Burning such works was therefore an attack on memory. It tried to stop the dead from becoming examples. It failed. Tacitus remembered the burnings. Later readers remember them because he did. The silence imposed by power became evidence against power. ## Documents Were Different Literary burning often failed because books could circulate. Documents were different. Roman public and private life depended on written records: contracts, wills, accounts, letters, debt tablets, lists, and official papers. These writings did not always have many copies. Their power often rested in their status as documents. To burn them could change reality. A debt record destroyed in public could help announce cancellation. A letter burned unread could suggest clemency, because the names inside would not be used for revenge. A set of incriminating documents destroyed before trial could protect some people and endanger others. A ruler might burn records to present mercy, or claim to have burned them while secretly keeping what could later be useful. That is why document burning left a different kind of mark. It was not only a symbolic attack on memory. It could be an intervention in evidence, obligation, or accusation. This also explains why Roman text burning cannot be understood if “book” is the only category. The Romans burned written objects because written objects did different things. A history remembered. A satire wounded. A prophecy predicted. A ritual book authorized. A letter implicated. A debt tablet bound. The fire answered the power of each object differently. ## What Rome Really Tried to Control Rome did not fear all books. It preserved sacred texts, copied Greek literature, taught [poetry](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/), collected histories, kept legal records, and built public life around written authority. The Roman elite admired memory, quotation, archive, precedent, and written law. Books were not foreign to Roman power. They were part of it. But certain writings crossed dangerous boundaries. Religious books could challenge official ritual. Prophetic books could claim private access to the future. Histories could honor the wrong dead men. Satire could injure powerful reputations. Biographies could turn executed opponents into moral examples. Documents could prove what someone wanted forgotten. The written word was dangerous because it could travel. It could survive its author. It could outlast a trial, a reign, an execution, or a decree. It could turn a private judgment into public memory. That permanence was the problem. When Roman authorities burned texts, they were not always trying to erase “ideas” in a modern abstract sense. They were trying to control a specific kind of power: ritual authority, prophecy, reputation, evidence, or memory. The most famous burnings are remembered because they did not fully succeed. The books of Numa became famous because they were judged too dangerous to keep. Augustus’ purge of prophecies shows how carefully the state guarded the future. Labienus’ burned books survived through reputation. Cremutius Cordus lived on through hidden copies and his daughter’s preservation. Veiento’s writings were read because they were forbidden. The victims of Domitian’s literary repression became part of the historical memory that power had tried to suppress. Rome could burn dangerous texts. It could not always destroy the danger they carried. 💡 ****Sources used:** Joseph A. Howley, “Book-Burning and the Uses of Writing in Ancient Rome” Dirk Rohmann, “Book Burning as Conflict Management in the Roman Empire” Daniel C. Sarefield, **“Burning Knowledge”: Studies of Bookburning in Ancient Rome* Frederick H. Cramer, “Bookburning and Censorship in Ancient Rome.” ### The Strange Necromancy Case of Libo Drusus in Ancient Rome URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-strange-necromancy-case-of-libo-drusus-in-ancient-rome/ Last updated: 2026-07-01T20:26:01.000Z In September AD 16, while Rome was normally occupied with the Roman Games, the Senate was summoned to consider a case described as a matter of grave public danger. The accused was Libo Drusus, a young aristocrat from the Scribonian family, a man with an old name, powerful connections, and, according to the ancient evidence, hopes or fantasies that brought him too close to the politics of succession. Before the trial reached its end, Libo was dead by his own hand. The case is one of the strangest episodes of [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/)’ early reign. It involved astrologers, magicians, dream interpreters, a necromancer, informers, a marked list of names, frightened relatives, [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/) around a private house, and a [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) that continued to punish a man after his suicide. [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) introduces the affair as more than an isolated scandal. He says that he will describe its beginning, progress, and end in some detail because it marked the discovery of a system that would, for many years, prey upon the commonwealth. In his telling, the trial of Libo Drusus is one of the first clear appearances of a darker political world: accusation, fear, and the profitable machinery of treason. Yet the case is not simple. Ancient writers could present Libo as gullible, foolish, and inflated by aristocratic hopes. [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/) called him a young man > “as stupid as he was well born,” with ambitions too high for his time and for himself. But the official response was severe: posthumous condemnation, [penalties against his memory](https://romanempiretimes.com/damnatio-memoriae-condemnation-and-eradication-in-the-political-sphere-of-rome/), public offerings, rewards for accusers, the expulsion of astrologers and magicians from Italy, and executions. ![Preparatory plaster sculpture of Nero and Seneca. Awarded a first-prize medal at the National Fine Arts exhibition in Madrid in 1904. Barrón never produced a final version of it, in bronze or marble. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Nero-and-Seneca-1-1.jpg) Preparatory plaster sculpture of Nero and Seneca. Awarded a first-prize medal at the National Fine Arts exhibition in Madrid in 1904\. Barrón never produced a final version of it, in bronze or marble. Credits: Outisnn, CC BY-SA 3.0 Modern scholarship has therefore treated the trial with caution. Some readings stress entrapment and the dark world of informers. Others argue that the government’s behaviour makes better sense if Libo was treated as a serious political danger, not merely as a ridiculous young nobleman dabbling in forbidden predictions. The evidence does not allow a clean verdict on Libo’s guilt or innocence. What it does show is how, under Tiberius, noble ancestry, occult consultation, private ambition, and political suspicion could merge into treason. ### A Noble Name Heavy with the Past Libo was not a marginal figure. Tacitus identifies him as a member of the Scribonian family, and other ancient sources preserve his name in different forms. For the reader, the essential point is not the exact order of his names, but the world those names evoked. He belonged to the Scribonii Libones, an old and distinguished family. Through family connections he stood close to Pompeian, Scribonian, Augustan, and Livian circles. Such connections mattered. In [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/), ancestry was not private decoration. It was political memory. Tacitus says Firmius Catus, the friend who helped draw Libo into danger, reminded him of precisely these things: [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/) as an ancestor, Scribonia as a connection to [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/augustus-secret-syracuse-the-mystery-of-the-emperors-private-room/), kinship with the Caesars, and a house filled with ancestral portraits. The point was not subtle. In an aristocratic Roman house, ancestral images were public arguments. They said who a family had been, what honours it had held, and what place it could still imagine for itself. A lesser man consulting astrologers about his future might have seemed ridiculous. A nobleman with Libo’s ancestry doing the same could look alarming. Under the Principate, the old nobility had not lost its meaning. Its danger had changed. Names that once suggested republican honour could now suggest alternative legitimacy, remembered factions, and possible centres of discontent. This is why Libo’s background matters. It does not prove he was guilty. It explains why his behaviour could not easily be ignored. ### The Friend Who Became an Informer The case began, in Tacitus’ account, not with an open revolt, but with a friendship turned poisonous. Firmius Catus was a senator and one of Libo’s closest friends. Tacitus presents him as pushing the young man toward the very things that would later be used against him: astrologers, magical rites, dream interpreters, [luxury](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/), and debt. He also reminded Libo of his ancestry and imperial connections. This is one of the most revealing parts of the story. Catus does not simply discover danger. He helps make Libo’s danger legible. He encourages him, shares in his pleasures and debts, and gathers evidence. The image is chilling because it presents accusation as cultivation. Libo is not only watched; he is drawn onward. ![Portrait head of Tiberius](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/portrait-head-of-Tiberius--1--1.jpg) Portrait head of Tiberius. Public domain. Catus then tried to bring what he had gathered to Tiberius through Vescularius Flaccus, a Roman knight close to the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/). Tiberius declined a direct meeting with Catus, but he did not dismiss the information. Instead, he watched. He gave Libo a praetorship and invited him to [dinner](https://romanempiretimes.com/convivium-how-the-romans-turned-dinner-into-a-display-of-power/), while showing no visible anger. That behaviour can be read in more than one way. It does not require Tiberius to be imagined as openly bloodthirsty from the beginning. He appears controlled, suspicious, and legalistic. He watches rather than immediately strikes. Yet that restraint did not make Libo safe. It meant the emperor preferred to know more. The friend had drawn the net. Others would tighten it ### Astrology Was Not a Joke The case moved from private suspicion to public crisis when a man named Junius claimed that Libo had asked him to raise the dead by incantations. Junius took the story to Fulcinius Trio, a prosecutor eager for notoriety. Trio acted at once. Tacitus says he seized the accused, approached the consuls, and demanded a senatorial inquiry. The Senate was then summoned to deliberate on what was presented as a “great and terrible” matter. To modern readers, the charges can sound absurd. Libo was said to have asked whether he would be wealthy enough to cover the [Appian Road](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-appian-way-europe-most-travelled-road-is-not-a-modern-highway/) with money as far as Brundisium. Other accusations belonged to the same world of empty hopes, magic, prophecy, and aristocratic fantasy. But that reaction risks missing the Roman setting. In early imperial [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/), questions about the future were not always harmless. To ask about rulers, heirs, deaths, power, or one’s own rise could become politically dangerous. Astrology and magic were not merely private curiosities when they touched the imperial house. The key evidence was not the ridiculous Appian Way question. It was a document. Tacitus says that, on one paper, the accuser claimed mysterious or sinister marks had been added in Libo’s hand beside the names of members of the imperial family and several senators. That is the centre of the case. A list of names could be terrifying if those names belonged to Caesars and senators. Were the marks predictions? Curses? Notes from an astrologer? Hopes for death? A coded plan? The sources do not tell us with certainty. Their uncertainty is part of their power. Libo denied the handwriting. The prosecution pressed the point. His [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) were then sold to the treasury agent so they could be interrogated, because an older decree restricted the questioning of [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-zoninus-collar-the-iron-collar-that-spoke-for-the-silenced/) in a case affecting their master’s life. Tiberius found a way around the restriction. This detail shows how far the case had moved. Libo’s household itself was pulled into the machinery of investigation. The question was no longer whether a young nobleman had indulged foolish hopes. It was whether his private consultations had touched the safety of the imperial family and the Senate. ### The Senate During the Games The Senate met during a period normally associated with the Roman Games. That interruption itself gave the case an exceptional air. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-went-dark-life-after-sunset-in-the-ancient-city/) should have been in festival. Instead, senators were summoned to hear a matter presented as dangerous to the state. Libo changed into mourning and went from house to house with women of rank, begging relatives and connections to speak on his behalf. Tacitus says they refused him on different pretexts, but for the same reason: fear. That fear played its role. To defend Libo was not simply to help a young aristocrat in trouble. It could mean standing too close to a man accused of revolutionary designs. On the day of the Senate meeting, Libo was brought to the doors of the Curia in a litter. He was exhausted by fear and distress, unless, as some accounts claimed, he was pretending illness. Leaning on his brother, he stretched out his hands toward Tiberius. ### The emperor’s face did not change. Tacitus says Tiberius read the indictment and the names of the accusers with such restraint that he appeared neither to soften nor sharpen the charges. That moderation may have looked proper. It must have felt terrifying. The emperor gave no visible rescue. The accusers included Fulcinius Trio, Firmius Catus, Fonteius Agrippa, and Gaius Vibius Serenus. The case also exposed the rewards available to accusation. After Libo’s death, his estate was divided among the accusers, and extraordinary praetorships were granted to those of senatorial rank. The trial therefore stands at a crossroads: law, fear, ambition, and profit. ### Tiberius’ Fear [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) places Libo among the dangers that made Tiberius hesitate at the beginning of his reign. In the same passage, he mentions Clemens, the slave of Agrippa Postumus; Libo’s alleged plotting; and military mutinies in Illyricum and Germany. Suetonius says Tiberius often described his position with the image of > “holding a wolf by the ears.” The phrase is vivid: dangerous to hold, dangerous to release. He also preserves details that make Tiberius’ fear almost physical. When Libo sacrificed with him among the pontiffs, Tiberius had a leaden knife substituted for the usual one. When Libo requested a private conversation, Tiberius would only allow it with his son Drusus present. During the walk, he held Libo’s right arm under the pretext of leaning on it. ![Vintage astrology map](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Vintage-astrology-dark-blue--1--1.jpg) Vintage Astrology Map. Public domain These details are not identical in tone to Tacitus’ account, but they support the same larger picture: Libo was not treated as harmless. They also complicate Tiberius. He was cautious, perhaps fearful, perhaps calculating. He waited until his power was more secure before formally arraigning Libo in the Senate. That delay can be read as prudence. It can also be read as evidence that the emperor saw Libo as dangerous long before the public trial. Either way, Libo was being watched. ### Death Before Judgment After the first day of proceedings, Libo asked his relative Publius Quirinius to make a final appeal to Tiberius. The reply was that he should address his petitions to the Senate. The answer was constitutionally proper. It was also devastating. The Senate was the very arena where his danger was being defined. When Libo returned home, soldiers surrounded the house. Tacitus describes them in and around the portico, close enough to be seen and heard. Libo had arranged what was to be his last feast. In despair, he called for someone to kill him, tried to force a sword into the hands of his slaves, and finally struck himself. Seneca gives the scene a different moral focus. He places Scribonia, Libo’s aunt, at the moment of decision. Scribonia, he says, was a woman of the stern old type. She asked Libo what pleasure he found in “doing another man’s work” — meaning, why do the executioner’s work for him? Libo did not take her advice. He killed himself. The line is striking because it preserves the Roman moral question around suicide. Should a condemned man wait for the executioner, or choose his own death? For Seneca, the example belongs to a philosophical argument about freedom and death. For the history of the trial, it preserves something else too: the loneliness of Libo’s final hours. His relatives had abandoned him. Soldiers stood nearby. The Senate had not finished. The emperor had sent him back to the Senate. Whether guilty or not, Libo believed the end had already been decided. ### Punishment After Suicide Death did not stop the proceedings. Tacitus says the prosecution continued in the Senate with unchanged gravity. Tiberius swore that, even if Libo had been guilty, he would have asked for his life had the young man not hurried into suicide. That claim can be read in more than one way. It may show that Tiberius did not wish to appear cruel. It may also show how little the statement mattered once Libo was already dead. The Senate moved against his memory. Cotta Messalinus proposed that Libo’s image should not accompany the [funeral](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) processions of his descendants. Gnaeus Lentulus proposed that no member of the Scribonian house should take the surname Drusus. ![A possible representation of a house sign for the Scribonii Libones, the family to which Libo Drusus belonged.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/scriboni-libones-sign-1.jpg) A possible representation of a house sign for the Scribonii Libones, the family to which Libo Drusus belonged Credits Roman Empire Times, Chat GPT These were deep punishments in an aristocratic society. Roman family identity depended on names, images, and public memory. To remove an image from future funeral processions was to attack the family’s place in history. To forbid the name Drusus to the Scribonii was to sever a connection that had made Libo politically meaningful. His property was divided among the accusers. Days of public thanksgiving were fixed. Votive offerings were made to Jupiter, Mars, and Concord. The thirteenth of September, the anniversary of Libo’s suicide, was declared a festival. Other decrees expelled astrologers and magicians from Italy. Two men, Lucius Pituanius and Publius Marcius, were executed. These details are hard to ignore. If Libo was only a ridiculous young aristocrat destroyed by greedy informers, why public thanksgiving? Why Concord? Why punish the name? Why mark the calendar? Why expel practitioners of the occult from Italy? The answer cannot be stated too strongly. These actions do not prove that Libo led a coherent conspiracy. But they do show that the state chose to remember the case as a public danger overcome. ### Dio’s Harsher View [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) presents the episode with a colder judgment on Tiberius. He says that Tiberius did not bring Libo to trial while he was well, but caused him to be brought into the Senate when he was already sick unto death. When Libo killed himself before the trial could proceed, Tiberius still judged him after death, gave his money to his accusers, and ordered sacrifices to commemorate the death. Dio also draws attention to the contradiction between Tiberius’ own interest in divination and his punishment of others. Tiberius, he says, was constantly with Thrasyllus and made daily use of divination; yet he punished astrologers, magicians, and practitioners of similar arts. That contrast has a deep meaning. The issue was not simply belief or disbelief in astrology. It was control. The emperor could consult divination. Others who used such arts in politically dangerous ways could be accused, exiled, or killed. In that world, knowledge of the future was not neutral. It depended on who asked, what was asked, and whose life or power the answer touched. ### The Shadow of Agrippa Postumus The wider political setting deepens the case. Tiberius’ succession had not been simple. Augustus’ grandsons Gaius and Lucius Caesar were dead. Agrippa Postumus, another grandson, had been adopted and later exiled. He was killed around the time of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/)’ death. The removal of these heirs did not erase their memory or the hopes attached to them. The affair of Clemens shows how dangerous that memory could still be. Clemens, a slave of Agrippa Postumus, claimed or allowed others to believe that Agrippa had survived. Tacitus says rumours spread through Italy and Rome, and that many in the imperial household, among knights, and among senators were said to have supported him with money or advice. Dio also places Clemens close to the Libo episode. He says Clemens pretended to be Agrippa, won support in Gaul and Italy, and marched toward Rome with the intention of recovering the dominion of his grandfather. One modern reconstruction places Libo’s trial within this same atmosphere. On that reading, the timing of his destruction in AD 16 was not accidental. Libo’s ancestry and connections made him a possible point around which supporters of Augustus’ displaced line could gather. ![Portrait of Agrippa Postumus based on the archetype created in 4 AD.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/07/Portrait-of-Agrippa-Postumus-1.jpg) Portrait of Agrippa Postumus based on the archetype created in 4 AD. Public domain. This remains interpretation. There is no surviving document that proves Libo was part of the Clemens affair. The evidence is circumstantial: timing, family connections, the severity of the response, soldiers around the house, the official language of danger, and the convergence of succession anxiety with occult inquiry. But the reconstruction helps explain why the case was treated with such force. If Libo was seen, even loosely, as connected to people who wanted an alternative to Tiberius, then his foolishness could become politically useful to others and frightening to the regime. A young nobleman’s fantasy might be harmless in one setting. In a nervous regime surrounded by memories of rival heirs, it could become dangerous. ### Harmless Fool, Entrapped Victim, or Political Threat? The trial of Libo Drusus remains difficult because several readings can be held at once. He may have been vain and immature. Ancient writers thought so. Seneca’s judgment is harsh, and the Appian Way question supports the image of a foolish aristocrat imagining impossible wealth and impossible futures. He may also have been entrapped. Tacitus makes Firmius Catus central. The language of encouragement and entanglement is deliberate. Catus urged him toward astrologers and magicians, reminded him of his ancestry, shared his luxuries and debts, and gathered evidence. In Tacitus’ account, the friend who becomes an informer is one of the real horrors of the story. But Libo may also have been politically serious, or at least treated as politically serious. His ancestry mattered. The marked list mattered. The emergency Senate meeting mattered. The soldiers around his house mattered. The posthumous penalties mattered. The offerings to Concord and the festival date mattered. The expulsion and execution of occult practitioners mattered. These possibilities are not mutually exclusive. A man could be foolish and still dangerous. He could be manipulated and still politically useful to others. He could be vain and still be punished as a threat. His private hopes could be absurd, but the world around him could make them lethal. That is why the case is so revealing. It is not simply a story of guilt or innocence. It is the story of how early imperial Rome could transform suspicion into state danger. ### What the Trial Revealed The trial of Libo Drusus reveals the early Principate at its most uncomfortable. Republican forms remained. The consuls were approached. The Senate met. Charges were read. The emperor presented himself as controlled and procedural. Libo was told to ask the Senate. The machinery of public judgment still looked Roman, senatorial, and constitutional. Yet the political reality had changed. The safety of the emperor and his family was becoming difficult to separate from the safety of the state. Occult consultation, aristocratic ambition, and marked names could be read through the lens of imperial security. A nobleman’s family history could make his private behaviour public. A friend could become an informer. A suicide could be followed by punishment. A trial could end in offerings to the gods and a festival of thanksgiving. The case does not prove that Libo had a coherent plan to overthrow Tiberius. Nor does it prove that he was only a harmless fool. It shows something more troubling: under the early Principate, the meaning of an action depended on political fear. To ask the wrong question, consult the wrong person, write the wrong names, or carry the wrong ancestry could be enough to attract fatal attention. Libo died before sentence, but the Senate still condemned the danger attached to his name. In that sense, the trial was not only about what he had done. It was about what he might represent. In Tiberius’ Rome, suspicion could be stronger than proof. And once suspicion entered the Senate, it could become treason. 💡 ****Sources Used:** Andrew Pettinger, "The Republic in Danger: Drusus Libo and the Succession of Tiberius." D. C. A. Shotter, “The Trial of M. Scribonius Libo Drusus.” Ernestine F. Leon, “Notes on the Background and Character of Libo Drusus.” Tacitus, Annals 2.27–32. Seneca, Moral Letters to Lucilius 70.10. Suetonius, Tiberius 25. Cassius Dio, Roman History 57.15–16. ### When Rome Went Dark: Life After Sunset in the Ancient City URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/when-rome-went-dark-life-after-sunset-in-the-ancient-city/ Last updated: 2026-06-29T19:37:18.000Z When night fell over ancient Rome, the city did not simply go to sleep. The light changed, the streets darkened, and the public business of the day withdrew, but another Rome began to appear. Carts entered the streets. [Bakers worked](https://romanempiretimes.com/panis-quadratus-the-ancient-bread-that-fed-an-empire/). Lamps burned in workshops, [taverns](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-tavern-inn-wine-bar-the-hospitality-business-of-an-ancient-roman-city/), brothels, barracks, villas, and apartment rooms. The *vigiles* patrolled against [fire](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) and theft. Drinkers wandered home. Inns received guests. [Elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) men wrote by lamplight. Poor tenants tried to sleep through a city that often refused to rest. Modern cities hide darkness under electricity. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) could not. Its night was made of smaller lights: oil lamps, torches, hearths, moonlight, and the glow from open doors. Beyond those circles of flame, the city became harder to read. Sounds carried differently. Movement felt riskier. A wealthy Roman could command light, servants, escorts, and private space. A [poor Roman](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/) might have only a crowded room, a dangerous staircase, and whatever sleep the street allowed. The poet [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/) gave Roman night one of its sharpest voices. Speaking to Sparsus, he complained that a poor man in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) had no place for thought or rest. Teachers ruined the morning. Bakers ruined the night. Crowds passed by laughing. Metal vessels clattered during a lunar eclipse. The city came so close to the bed that Martial could say, in one bitter phrase, that all Rome was at his bedside. He was not only grumbling. He was describing a city that remained alive after sunset. ### All Rome at the Bedside Martial’s sleepless [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) is a good place to begin because it refuses to romanticize the ancient night. There is no calm moonlit city here, no empty Forum, no peaceful darkness settling over marble. His [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) is intrusive, comic, irritating, and class-conscious. The poor man cannot rest. The morning belongs to teachers, whose voices carry into the street. The night belongs to bakers, whose work begins while others hope to sleep. Crowds pass by laughing. Noise enters the bedroom. Fatigue finally drives Martial away from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) to his [villa](https://romanempiretimes.com/domus-romana-the-roman-villa-of-rabat-malta/), where sleep becomes possible. The poem matters because it gives Roman night its social texture. Night was not the same for the man with a [villa](https://romanempiretimes.com/villa-jovis-the-secret-lair-for-the-dark-pleasures-of-an-old-emperor/) and the man trapped in the city. Sleep could be bought, or at least protected. Silence was not equally available. Rome’s night also belonged to the full Roman day. The [Greeks](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) had a word, *nychthemeron*, for the twenty-four-hour span of day and night together. The idea is useful because Roman life was not confined to daylight. The city’s routines, pressures, dangers, and pleasures continued across the whole cycle. Night did not simply extend the day. It changed its conditions. Darkness altered movement. Artificial light was limited. Work took on different forms. Policing became more urgent. Ordinary spaces became more uncertain. A street, a tavern, a bedroom, or a staircase could mean something different after sunset. ![Oil lamp. Bronze. 1st to 3rd century. On display at Vidy Roman Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/bronze-luxury-oil-lamp--1--2-1.jpg) Oil lamp. Bronze. 1st to 3rd century. On display at Vidy Roman Museum. Credits: Rama, CC BY-SA 2.0 FR The ancient night also left material traces. Lamps, barricaded shops, barracks, bakeries, inns, brothels, sleeping rooms, and villas all help recover a part of Roman life that daylight histories often leave in shadow. Rome’s monuments show the city of public power. Its night reveals something more intimate: labour, fear, fatigue, pleasure, noise, and unequal rest. When Martial said that all [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/some-of-rome-worst-rulers-nobody-talks-about/) was at his bedside, he was describing more than insomnia. He was describing the Roman city as a twenty-four-hour organism. ### A City Lit by Small Fires Darkness did not fall equally on everyone. The wealthy could manage night. They could buy lamps, slaves, attendants, transport, and space. They could dine late, return with company, read by lamplight, or withdraw to a quieter villa. They could build rooms away from noise and use architecture itself as a defence against disturbance. The poor experienced the same darkness with fewer protections. They were more likely to live in crowded apartments, near workshops, streets, taverns, or other tenants. They had less control over noise, fire, access, and privacy. For them, night could be not a retreat but another form of exposure. Artificial light mattered, but it did not conquer darkness. Oil lamps and torches created small islands of visibility. They made reading, cooking, guarding, drinking, sex, and work possible after sunset, but they also reminded people how much remained unlit. A lamp could illuminate a room, but not a city. It could guide a person through a hallway, but not remove danger from a street. Fire itself was double-edged. It was the condition of night activity, but also one of the city’s great threats. Lamps, hearths, kitchens, workshops, and braziers all brought usefulness and risk. In a dense city of [apartment blocks](https://romanempiretimes.com/insulae-apartment-buildings-ancient-rome-romans/), wooden fittings, stored goods, and narrow streets, a small flame could become disaster. Night also changed the senses. Vision weakened; hearing sharpened. A cart wheel, a shout, a drunken laugh, a door bolt, a footstep on stone, or a cry from the street could carry more power after dark. Ancient night was not silent. In cities, it could be startlingly loud. That is why Roman night should not be imagined as a simple absence. It was not only the dark half of time. It was a different environment, with its own dangers, labours, rhythms, pleasures, and freedoms. ### The Work That Woke the Sleeper Some of Rome’s loudest night sounds came from work. [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/)’s municipal law restricted wheeled traffic in Rome during much of the day, from sunrise until the tenth hour, with exceptions for public works and sacred construction. The result was practical but noisy. Goods that could not move freely by day entered or crossed the city after dark. The same streets that daylight filled with pedestrians, clients, shoppers, and public business became corridors for wagons. Rome had to be supplied. Food, fuel, building materials, shop goods, and market commodities still had to move. The visible city of the day depended on labour that often belonged to the night. Juvenal made this one of the great miseries of urban life. Sleep in the city, he says, belonged only to the wealthy. The heavy passage of vehicles through narrow turns, the curses of drivers trapped in traffic, and the noise rising from the street made rest nearly impossible for ordinary people. ![A possible representation of a Roman baker at work.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/roman-baker.jpg) A possible representation of a Roman baker at work. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Martial blamed the bakers. In his poem, schoolteachers attack sleep in the morning, but bakers take over at night. The complaint is comic, but the work was serious. Bread was central to Rome’s stability. Bakers produced the daily food on which the city depended. Their profession could be demanding, profitable, and nocturnal. The tomb of Marcus Vergilius Eurysaches, the baker, makes this labour visible in stone. Built near the Porta Maggiore, it turned the tools and forms of baking into a monument. A man whose background may have been connected with servile origin could advertise the scale and importance of his trade through death itself. The tomb does not show night directly, but it belongs to the same world Martial heard from bed: the world of ovens, kneading, production, and food made before others woke. Rome was alive at night because it had to be. The sleeping city was fed, supplied, guarded, cleaned, and served by people whose hours did not match the comforts of the elite. Someone’s labour was someone else’s noise. ![Tomb of Eurysaces the Baker](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Tomb-of-Eurysaces-the-Baker--1--1.jpg) Tomb of Eurysaces the Baker. Credits: Livioandronico2013, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### Streets That Changed After Sunset After dark, the Roman street became more uncertain. By day, the street was open, commercial, crowded, and public. After sunset, it did not empty, but it changed character. Shops had to be closed. Doorways became defensive lines. Movement required caution. The same urban density that made Rome energetic by day made it risky at night. Archaeology preserves this change in small details. A groove for a shop barricade shows how an opening could be secured after business ended. A counter or doorway that welcomed customers under daylight could be shut against thieves, drunks, or disorder after sunset. The Roman city did not simply trust the night. It barred itself against it. Petronius gives a vivid literary glimpse of the rougher side of night movement. In the *Satyricon*, a caterer accuses guests of planning to avoid payment by slipping “into the street in the dark.” The scene quickly turns comic and violent: cooks and agents of the landlord beat Eumolpus outside, while one man threatens him with a hissing spit and another brandishes a fork like a gladiator. A spit and a fork become weapons. It is comic, chaotic, and low-life, but it reflects the kind of world that could exist around inns, apartments, kitchens, and dark streets. Roman writers frequently associated night with assault and theft. Satire and fiction exaggerate, but they exaggerate recognizable fears. Darkness could hide attackers. Drunken groups could move through the streets. Bands of young men might beat or rob those who could not defend themselves. Most people were wiser to avoid going out at night unless they had companions, servants, or a strong reason. The danger was not only human. The city itself could injure. Apartment buildings were high; streets were narrow; objects might fall; walls might be unsafe; fires could break out. To walk through Rome at night meant moving through a space where one could not always see what was above, below, or ahead. The poor were especially exposed. A shopkeeper could barricade the entrance. A tenant on an upper floor had to trust stairs, walls, neighbours, and luck. At night, Rome did not become lawless. But it became harder to control. ![A possible representation of a barricaded shop in ancient Rome.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/barricaded-door-of-a-shop-in-ancient-rome-1.jpg) A possible representation of a barricaded shop in ancient Rome. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT ### Watchmen, Water, and the Fear of Fire The *vigiles* were Rome’s answer to that danger. Created under Augustus, they were both fire brigade and night police. Organized into seven cohorts, each responsible for two of Rome’s fourteen regions, they watched for flames, thieves, and disorder. Their men were largely ex-slaves, commanded by an equestrian prefect. They belonged to the official structure of the city, but their work came most fully alive after sunset. The duties of the Prefect of the *Vigiles* show how seriously Rome treated the night. The Digest says that he had to keep watch through the night. He was to patrol with men equipped for urban danger, carrying tools such as hooks and axes. He also had to warn residents to be careful with fire and to keep water available in their apartments. The office did not end at dawn. After being up through the night, the prefect could hold morning court and judge offenders caught during the night watches. There was a hard practicality in this. Night crime and night danger demanded fast treatment. The men seized in darkness might face authority as daylight returned. The *vigiles* were also present at Ostia, Rome’s port and warehouse city. Their barracks there are among the most striking material witnesses to Roman night work. The Barrack of the *Vigiles* at Ostia was a converted apartment block, probably two or three stories high, large enough for a detached force rotated from Rome. Its courtyard, tribunal, entrances, and imperial statue bases show a disciplined institution embedded in the life of a working port. Ostia was important because Rome’s supplies mattered. Grain, food, and goods moved through the port. Warehouses and rental properties filled the urban landscape. A city of storage and transport needed night watchmen as much as streets and houses did. Yet even the *vigiles* could be defeated by the city they served. When the Great Fire of 64 CE broke out near the [Circus Maximus](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-circus-maximus-and-why-there-is-nothing-left-of-it/), the cohort responsible for that region was barracked across the Tiber in Trastevere. As people fled, they blocked the bridge, delaying the men who were supposed to fight the fire. It is a perfect Roman night scene: fear, crowding, movement, fire, duty, and obstruction all meeting in the dark. Rome had a night police because Rome needed one. But the very scale and density of the capital made control fragile. ### Inns, Lamps, and the Pleasures of Darkness Night also belonged to appetite. The Roman city offered places for food, drink, lodging, sex, and sociability outside the elite house. A *thermopolium* at Ostia, lodging outside the Herculaneum Gate at Pompeii, and the main brothel of Pompeii give material shape to this world. These were not modern “nightlife” venues, but they were spaces where the needs and pleasures of the urban night could gather. ![Thermopolium or Bar with large storage wells at IX 1,8 Pompeii Prowalk](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/thermopolium--1-.jpg) Thermopolium or Bar with large storage wells at IX 1,8 Pompeii Prowalk. Credits: Mary Harrsch, CC BY-SA 4.0 Taverns and inns served travellers, labourers, sailors, customers, and people without private dining rooms. They also belonged to the world of payment disputes, drunkenness, temporary beds, and social mixing. A Roman night outside the elite home could mean food, shelter, risk, laughter, argument, and sudden violence. Sex should be handled carefully. Roman sexual imagery was not confined to the night or hidden only in brothels. Explicit scenes could appear in wealthy houses as well as sexual commercial spaces. Still, lamps, bedrooms, brothels, and night movement all made sex part of Rome’s nocturnal world. A Roman oil lamp decorated with an erotic scene raises the obvious question: did the lighting of the lamp help turn attention toward the act it depicted? The evidence cannot answer for every user, but the association is suggestive. ![Roman Oil Lamps with Erotic Motives; 1st-3rd century AD](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/oil-lamps-with-erotic-scenes.jpg) Roman Oil Lamps with Erotic Motives; 1st-3rd century AD. Public domain. Night was also a setting for stories. Petronius places ghost tales inside the dinner of Trimalchio, where freedmen speak of werewolves, witches, stolen bodies, and terrifying transformations. One tale describes a werewolf among sheep. Another tells of witches who steal the body of a dead boy and leave straw in its place. Some characters believe; others remain sceptical. That mixture is important. Roman night did not belong only to fear. It belonged to performance, doubt, laughter, status, and storytelling. The city after sunset was therefore not simply dangerous, nor simply festive. It was a place where practical needs and less respectable pleasures overlapped. Food, shelter, sex, drink, payment, argument, fear, laughter, and storytelling could all meet under lamplight. ### Nero in the Night Then there was [Nero.](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-romes-most-infamous-ruler-part-1/) Ancient accounts say that [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-rome-most-infamous-ruler-part-2/) disguised himself and went out after dark through taverns and neighbourhoods, not as a ruler inspecting the city, but as a violent nightwalker. [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) describes him entering low places, beating people returning from dinner, wounding those who resisted, throwing victims into sewers, breaking into shops, and later arranging to sell stolen goods. > No sooner was twilight over than he would catch up a cap or a wig and go to the taverns or range about the streets playing pranks, which however were very far from harmless; for he used to beat men as they came home from dinner, stabbing any who resisted him and throwing them into the sewers. > > He would even break into shops and rob them, setting up a market⁠ in the Palace, where he divided the booty which he took, sold it at auction, and then squandered the proceeds. > > In the strife which resulted he often ran the risk of losing his eyes⁠ or even his life, for he was beaten almost to death by a man of the senatorial order,⁠ whose wife he had maltreated. > > Warned by this, he never afterwards ventured to appear in public at that hour without having tribunes follow him at a distance and unobserved. > > Even in the daytime he would be carried privately to the theatre in a sedan, and from the upper part of the proscenium would watch the brawls of the pantomimic actors⁠ and egg them on; and when they came to blows and fought with stones and broken benches, he himself threw many missiles at the people and even broke a praetor's head. Suetonius, *The Lives of the Caesars. The Life of Nero* [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) adds that once people realized the emperor was prowling at night, others imitated him under his name, and the city’s night began to feel as though it had been captured. These accounts are hostile and should be read as part of the ancient moral portrait of a bad emperor. But their power depends on a real Roman fear: night could invert the city. A ruler who should guarantee order could become a source of disorder. Elite disguise could become violence. Darkness could blur identity just enough for danger to spread. Rome at night was not free from hierarchy. Nero’s story proves the opposite. Even in disguise, power followed him. But darkness allowed hierarchy to move in unexpected forms. A poor man could fear thieves. A senator might unknowingly strike the emperor. A city could wake to rumours of violence committed under Caesar’s shadow. ### The Rich Man’s Silence Not every Roman night belonged to the street. Some belonged to discipline, reading, writing, and retreat. [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) is the great example of elite sleepless industry. His nephew describes a life in which time was harvested almost aggressively. Pliny worked before dawn. The emperor [Vespasian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/) could summon him in darkness, before the formal morning greeting, because Pliny served as a kind of living archive for imperial business. After official duties, reading, meals, exercise, and brief rest, he returned to writing. Unless dining out, he took a late supper and worked by lamplight until around one in the morning. This was not the insomnia of the poor tenant. It was cultivated sleeplessness, supported by [status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/), servants, and discipline. ![Bronze oil lamp, Romisch-Germanisches Museum, Cologne](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/bronze-oil-lamp--1--1.jpg) Bronze oil lamp, Romisch-Germanisches Museum, Cologne. Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 [Pliny the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/)’s villas show how elite architecture could turn night into privacy. At one country villa, he could wake when he pleased and keep the shutters closed, finding that stillness and darkness removed him from distractions. At his Laurentine Villa, he described a private retreat separated by passages and terraces from the rest of the household. During [Saturnalia](https://romanempiretimes.com/saturnalia-roman-festival-inspired-spirit-christmas/), when the house celebrated and noise continued into the dark, he could withdraw and keep writing. The contrast with Martial could hardly be sharper. Martial’s Rome invades the bedroom. Pliny’s darkness protects the writer from disturbance. One man is awakened by the city. Another uses architecture and status to choose solitude. ### First Sleep and the Hours Before Dawn The Roman system of hours shaped the experience of night. Romans divided daylight into twelve hours and darkness into twelve hours throughout the year. The hours therefore changed length with the seasons. At the winter solstice, the daylight was short and the night long; at the summer solstice, the pattern reversed. A winter night in Rome could stretch for more than fifteen modern hours. This mattered for work and festivity. In the dark months, artificial light became more important. People of business, administration, and learning had to use lamps if they wanted to work at the edges of the day. Household celebrations also extended into darkness. Sleep itself may not have followed the modern expectation of one unbroken block. Roman sources use phrases for “first sleep,” including *primus somnus* and related expressions. References appear across centuries, from early Latin literature to late antique writers. What is less clear is whether Romans had an equally fixed term for a second sleep or for the interval between the two. Still, the evidence suggests that Romans recognized the beginning portion of the night’s sleep as a meaningful stage. This makes Roman night more human. It was not simply waking or sleeping. It could include first sleep, waking, work, sex, conversation, fear, dreams, prayer, study, storytelling, and return to bed. ### The Night of Lovers, Ghosts, and Death Roman night was not only urban noise and public danger. It also carried poetic and imaginative force. [Catullus](https://romanempiretimes.com/catullus-the-roman-poet-of-all-life-has-to-give/), writing in a very different register from Martial, could turn night into one of the most memorable images in Latin love poetry. In *poem 5*, he urges Lesbia to live and love while the brief light of life remains: *soles occidere et redire possunt* – suns can set and rise again – but once our own brief light has fallen, *nox est perpetua una dormienda*, “there is one everlasting night to be slept.” The poem is not about city streets, bakers, or the *vigiles*. It belongs to the intimate world of love, kisses, old men’s gossip, and mortality. Yet it reveals how naturally Roman poetry could use night as a boundary: between day and darkness, life and death, renewal and final sleep. ![Oil lamp On display at Vidy Roman Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Roman-oil-lamp---1-.jpg) Oil lamp On display at Vidy Roman Museum. Credits: Rama, CC BY-SA 2.0 FR Catullus also gives another nocturnal image in poem 7, where he imagines kisses as countless as the stars that, in the silence of night, look down on the hidden loves of mortals. Here night is not the noisy city of Martial. It is the darkness that conceals lovers and makes counting impossible. These poetic and fictional nights do not replace the material night of Rome. They deepen it. The same darkness could hold urban insomnia, erotic secrecy, ghost stories, labour, danger, and rest. A poor man heard bakers. A lover imagined stars. A magistrate watched fires. A scholar wrote by lamplight. A poet thought of death as the night from which no one wakes. ### The Other Rome The public Rome of daylight is easy to imagine: the Forum, the courts, the[ baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), the shops, the clients, the crowds, the ceremonies, the monuments. The Rome of night is harder to see, but it may bring us closer to ordinary life. It was the Rome of blocked carts and cursing drivers. The Rome of ovens and [bread](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/). The Rome of lamps and fire risk. The Rome of shop barricades and apartment stairs. The Rome of thieves, patrols, and morning judgment. The Rome of taverns, inns, brothels, and late dinners. The Rome of ghost stories told after wine. The Rome of Nero slipping into disgraceful disguise. The Rome of Pliny writing by lamplight while someone else served, read, carried, cooked, or kept watch. Night did not erase Roman order. It revealed its underside. The same city that displayed law, empire, and architecture by day became after sunset a place of smaller flames and sharper inequalities. Those with wealth could command privacy, silence, servants, light, and escape. Those without it slept beside labour, traffic, fear, and other people’s noise. When Catullus imagined death as one long night to be slept forever, he drew on the darkness of night as something final and fearful. But ordinary Roman night was not final. It ended. Dawn came. Bakers finished. Carts withdrew. Patrolmen brought offenders to court. Clients prepared their greetings. The public city returned. Yet the night had done its work. It had fed Rome, disturbed Rome, frightened Rome, guarded Rome, entertained Rome, and given Roman poets one of their richest images. When Rome went dark, Rome did not disappear. It became another version of itself – dimmer, louder, more vulnerable, and in some ways more revealing than the city seen by day. 💡 ****Sources Used:** Glenn Reed Storey, “All Rome Is at My Bedside: Nightlife in the Roman Empire,” in Nancy Gonlin and April Nowell, editors, "Archaeology of the Night: Life After Dark in the Ancient World." Nancy Gonlin and April Nowell, “Introduction to the Archaeology of the Night,” in "Archaeology of the Night: Life After Dark in the Ancient World". A. Roger Ekirch, "At Day’s Close: Night in Times Past". Lionel Casson, "Everyday Life in Ancient Rome". ### How Did Romans Cool Their Homes: Surviving a Heatwave with Ancient Strategies URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-romans-cool-their-homes-surviving-a-heatwave-with-ancient-strategies/ Last updated: 2026-06-26T20:30:09.000Z Scorching sun. Cracked tiles. The heavy air stalls above the Forum. Long before air conditioning or electric fans, the Romans found clever ways to cool themselves in the searing Mediterranean heat. From shaded atriums to breezy courtyards and urban street design that caught the wind just right, the empire developed a surprisingly sophisticated approach to passive cooling. With Europe once again battling oppressive heatwaves, it’s worth revisiting how ancient minds engineered comfort in a world powered only by stone, water, and sunlight. 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in July 2025\. It was updated in June 2026.* ### How Ancient Romans Stayed Cool without Air Conditioning By the end of the 20th century, growing environmental concerns brought attention to how architecture can respond to climate. One promising approach has been the study of vernacular architecture — traditional buildings that evolved to suit their environment without modern technology. This includes not only the materials and construction techniques, but also how people in the past understood comfort and adapted their homes accordingly. In the case of Roman houses, particularly those preserved in [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/) and [Herculaneum](https://romanempiretimes.com/ancient-roman-beach-herculaneum-reopened/), researchers have begun to explore how design choices supported passive cooling. Elements such as shaded atriums, peristyle gardens, thick stone walls, and narrow openings suggest that these buildings were not just practical, but thermally responsive. ![House of the tragic Poet- Pompeii. Looking north along entrance corridor across atrium towards peristyle with lararium](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/Looking-north-along-entrance-corridor-across-atrium-towards-peristyle-with-lararium-house-of-the-tragic-poet-2.jpg) House of the tragic Poet in Pompeii. Looking north along entrance corridor across atrium towards peristyle with lararium. Photo courtesy of Parco Archeologico di Pompei, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times These ancient structures still offer lessons for today’s climate-adaptive design. Some studies have combined archaeological analysis with environmental monitoring. At sites in Pompeii, for example, temperature and humidity data have been collected during the summer using onsite loggers and spot measurements. Early results suggest that Roman houses provided a surprising degree of comfort during hot weather, even without artificial cooling. A 2009 and 2011 pilot study used simulation modeling to recreate interior microclimates, reinforcing the idea that design choices — from room orientation to air circulation — were crucial to occupant comfort. Roman homes weren’t randomly built. They developed over centuries of local adaptation. The inhabitants had time to fine-tune how buildings responded to heat, sunlight, and seasonal winds. While no systematic ancient treatise on cooling exists beyond Vitruvius, evidence from these preserved towns shows a strong link between architectural layout and thermal performance. The *impluvium* in the *atrium*, for instance, likely played a dual role — collecting rainwater and contributing to evaporative cooling. Shaded porticoes and courtyards introduced breezes into the home, while thick walls buffered daytime heat and retained cooler air. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/Wall-painting-of-the-House-of-the-Faun-at-Pompeii.jpg) ## What makes Pompeii and Herculaneum especially valuable is how much of the original architecture survives above ground — including walls, roofs, and internal spaces. **Wall painting of the House of the Faun at Pompeii. Credits: Carlo Raso, Public domain* This allows for detailed analysis of how room size, layout, and orientation might have helped regulate indoor temperature. Though research is still emerging, it's becoming increasingly clear that Roman builders understood how to live with the sun — not fight against it. ### Courtyards, Water, and Air: Designing for Comfort in Roman Homes Vitruvius emphasized the role of climate in shaping how Roman houses were designed ([*On Architecture*](https://amzn.to/3IIUmBj?ref=romanempiretimes.com), Book VI, Chapter 1). When looking at the homes preserved by the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD, it becomes clear that many were built with summer comfort in mind. Open-air courtyards, shaded spaces, and water features suggest a deliberate effort to keep homes cool during hot weather. For colder months, temporary coverings like curtains—and possibly doors—were likely used to block drafts and retain warmth. Clothing styles, too, seem to reflect adaptation to the climate: if minimal layers and few heating sources were the norm, then staying warm may have relied more on acclimatization than artificial heating. Unlike today, thermal comfort may not have been a constant social concern, but something addressed seasonally — and pragmatically. ![A possible representation of a marble Impluvium in the Atrium of a Roman villa, surrounded by beautiful floor mosaics](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/A-possible-representation-of-a-marble-Impluvium-in-the-Atrium-of-a-Roman-villa--surrounded-by-beautiful-floor-mosaics-1.jpg) A possible representation of a marble Impluvium in the Atrium of a Roman villa, surrounded by beautiful floor mosaics. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### Cooling with Water, Warming with Fire: Seasonal Comfort in Roman Homes Water features in [Roman homes](https://romanempiretimes.com/insulae-apartment-buildings-ancient-rome-romans/)—both in central atriums and garden areas—may have played a role in evaporative cooling during the hot summer months. However, their effectiveness might have been reduced by the coastal humidity of towns like Pompeii and Herculaneum. While no fireplaces have been uncovered, portable braziers were found, suggesting they were used to provide localized heat during the colder seasons. Evidence of stone door thresholds with hinge fittings indicates the presence of interior doors, which may have helped retain warmth by limiting airflow between rooms. The famous [hypocaust system](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/) of [Roman baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/), also heated villas of the [Roman elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). These design elements, along with the likely use of heavier clothing in winter, point to a practical, layered approach to maintaining comfort throughout the year. (*Exploring thermal comfort in the context of historical conservation. A study of the vernacular architecture of Pompeii, by Indrika Rajapaksha, Francesco Fiorito, Estelle Lazer & Francesca Sartogo*) ### The Ancient Atrium: Rome’s Passive Cooling Core In the [Roman domus](https://romanempiretimes.com/domus-romana-the-roman-villa-of-rabat-malta/), the atrium stood not only as a symbolic and social center of the household, but also as a practical engine of climate control. With its open roof (*compluvium*) and shallow rainwater basin (*impluvium*), the atrium created a vertical shaft that allowed warm air to rise and escape while promoting natural airflow through the surrounding rooms. ![Impluvium in the center of the atrium of the House of Menander, Pompeii.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/Impluvium--in-the-center-of-the-atrium-of-the--House-of-Menander--Pompeii..jpg) Impluvium in the center of the atrium of the House of Menander, Pompeii. Credits: Falk2, CC BY-SA 4.0 When paired with shaded porticoes and adjacent open spaces like the peristyle, it helped generate a comfortable thermal balance long before the invention of mechanical ventilation. Modern simulations of atrium performance in hot, arid zones—including recent studies in the UAE—confirm that open-roofed central halls, especially those with water features and high ceilings, can effectively regulate indoor temperatures. These studies show that when roof openings are correctly oriented and proportioned, they support passive ventilation by drawing in cooler air and releasing accumulated heat. The Roman atrium, with its central pool, stone walls, and partial enclosure, mirrors this design logic precisely—suggesting a deeply intuitive understanding of climate-responsive architecture. Peristyles offered further relief from summer heat. These garden courtyards, ringed with colonnades, acted as shaded thermal buffers. Fountains and greenery helped cool the air through evaporation and evapotranspiration. As the day warmed, cooler air from these courtyards flowed naturally into adjacent rooms, while thick masonry walls slowed the transfer of external heat. In Pompeii and Herculaneum, the preservation of these open spaces offers not just aesthetic insight, but a direct look into how Roman builders harnessed environmental principles to create homes attuned to their surroundings. ![The larger tetrastyle atrium of the Villa San Marco, Stabiae; four pillars support the roof. The central niche is the lararium; the two blocks of limestone (behind the pillar with the near-intact stucco) supported the arca, a strongbox or safe](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/The-larger-tetrastyle-atrium-of-the-Villa-San-Marco--Stabiae--four-pillars-support-the-roof.-The-central-niche-is-the-lararium--the-two-blocks-of-limestone--behind-the-pillar-with-the-near-intact-stu.jpg) The larger tetrastyle atrium of the Villa San Marco, Stabiae; four pillars support the roof. The central niche is the lararium; the two blocks of limestone (behind the pillar with the near-intact stucco) supported the arca, a strongbox or safe. Photo Credits: Mentnafunangann, CC BY-SA 3.0 The atrium-peristyle system, when viewed through the lens of modern thermal modeling, reveals the Romans' quiet mastery of passive cooling. Their use of open-air design, water features supplied directly from the [Roman aqueducts](https://romanempiretimes.com/marvel-ancient-roman-aqueducts/), and material mass prefigures sustainable strategies we now model in software. These weren't luxuries—they were necessities shaped by the Mediterranean climate. And they still work. (*Increasing efficiency of atriums in hot, arid zones, by Vijayantha Vethanayagam, Bassam Abu-Hijleh. Faculty of Engineering and IT, The British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates*) ### Vitruvius and the Art of Climate-Conscious Building Vitruvius, writing in the late 1st century BC, was one of the first to describe what we might now call adaptive design. In his ten-volume treatise [*De Architectura*](https://amzn.to/3IIUmBj?ref=romanempiretimes.com), he laid out the principles behind Roman construction—covering everything from homes and cities to [bridges](https://romanempiretimes.com/trajan-bridge-ancient-world-first-to-surpass-1km-kilometer-2000-years-ago/) and aqueducts. He insisted that all architectural work should respect three essential qualities: 1. *firmitas* (stability) 2. *utilitas* (function) 3. *venustas* (beauty) But just as importantly, buildings had to be designed in harmony with their environment, making use of local resources and natural conditions. In Book I, Vitruvius explains how the founding of a city should consider wind direction, especially when positioning walls and public spaces. He provides practical advice on how to calculate wind paths and understand their seasonal character—emphasizing that warm winter winds can be welcomed, while cool summer breezes should be captured, and harmful drafts avoided by orienting streets and open spaces with care. ![Atrium tuscanicum, no pillars. View towards the tablinum. Note the cartibulum (stone table) with unusually simple legs, the impluvium (dry), and the circular (covered) hole giving access to the cistern, just to the right of the impluvium. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/Atrium-tuscanicum--no-pillars.jpg) Atrium tuscanicum, no pillars. View towards the tablinum. Note the cartibulum (stone table) with unusually simple legs, the impluvium (dry), and the circular (covered) hole giving access to the cistern, just to the right of the impluvium. House of Marcus Lucretius Fronto, Pompeii. Public domain These ideas continue in Book VI, where he turns to private homes. There, too, climate takes center stage. Vitruvius insists that buildings must be adapted to their specific location, noting that one cannot build the same way in Egypt as in Spain. The former, he explains, has a hot and dry climate, while the latter is more temperate. In colder regions, homes should face warmer exposures and use vaulted ceilings to help distribute heat, with the northern side kept closed to retain warmth. In contrast, in the hottest regions, buildings should face north to benefit from cooler air currents and be closed off on the southern side to block the fiercest heat of the sun. Vitruvius describes this distribution as a rule of good practice, and archaeological floor plans of Roman houses confirm that these orientation strategies were indeed widely followed. (*Past as Future in Adaptive Buildings. Climatic Adaptation in Ancient Constructions, by Niglio Mariangela. Conservator of Architectural and Environmental Assets of DARCH Department of Architecture of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, University of Palermo, Italy*) ### Vitruvius on Dealing with Heat: How Ancient Rome Designed for Summer > “In regions which are hot and face the course of the sun, the principal rooms and winter apartments should face the north. For thus in summer they will be cool.” Vitruvius, [*De Architectura*](https://amzn.to/3IIUmBj?ref=romanempiretimes.com) VI.1.3 (trans. Morris Hicky Morgan) Vitruvius understood what modern architects are now rediscovering: how to build with the sun, not against it. In his [*Ten Books on Architecture*](https://amzn.to/3IIUmBj?ref=romanempiretimes.com), he laid out clear instructions for how to position Roman houses to make the most of shade, air, and orientation—long before “passive cooling” had a name. > “The aspect of the different rooms must be adapted to the quarters of the heavens... Summer [triclinia](https://romanempiretimes.com/convivium-how-the-romans-turned-dinner-into-a-display-of-power/) should face the north because they are not heated by the sun, and are therefore cool.” Vitruvius, VI.1.3–1.4 Vitruvius divides room orientation by seasonal comfort — north-facing for summer because of reduced solar exposure. > “In regions where the heat of the sun is fierce... buildings should face away from the south. But in cold regions, they should face toward the south to gain warmth.” Vitruvius, VI.1.5 This reflects a climate zone–based design, much like today’s bioclimatic architecture. He’s thinking regionally, not just locally. ![Waterspouts and antefixes of the compluvium, House of Publius Servilius Casca Longus.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/Waterspouts-and-antefixes-of-the-compluvium--House-of-Publius-Servilius-Casca-Longus--1-.jpg) Waterspouts and antefixes of the compluvium, House of Publius Servilius Casca Longus. Credits: Sailko, CC BY-SA 4.0 While Vitruvius doesn’t use modern thermodynamic terms, the *atrium* with its central opening (*compluvium*) and basin (*impluvium*) is described as the core of Roman domestic layout. > “The breadth of the atrium is to be one-third of its length... the impluvium is placed beneath the opening in the roof to catch the rainwater.” Vitruvius, VI.3 Though the text emphasizes proportions and water capture, the design indirectly supports evaporative cooling—by concentrating water and airflow in the central open space. North-facing porticoes were deliberately used as shaded cooling retreats—a passive climate adaptation in public and private buildings. > “Porticoes should face north so that they may always be in shade and serve as a place for study and discussion in summer.” Vitruvius, V.9.1–2 Wind orientation wasn’t just for comfort — it was part of the urban thermal strategy, managing airflow through narrow streets or courtyards. > “Attention must be given to the winds... avoid setting streets in line with strong winds, lest they become blasting corridors.” Vitruvius, I.4.1–4. ### The Cooling Role of the Impluvium: More than just Decorative In the House of the Tragic Poet in Pompeii, the*impluvium*—a shallow pool at the center of the atrium—was not merely an architectural flourish or a rainwater collector. Positioned beneath an open roof (*compluvium*), it likely played a passive role in summer cooling. The combination of water and open space allowed heat to rise and escape while introducing a degree of evaporative cooling to the surrounding rooms. Alongside shaded atria and peristyles, these central features created a microclimate that kept the heart of the Roman house tolerable even during hot afternoons. ![Pompeii. October 2019. Room 2, looking south across beautiful mosaic and marble impluvium in the atrium.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/Looking-south-across-beautiful-mosaic-and-marble-impluvium-in-the-atrium-house-of-the-tragic-poet-2.jpg) Pompeii. October 2019\. Room 2, looking south across beautiful mosaic and marble impluvium in the atrium. Photo courtesy of Parco Archeologico di Pompei, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times At a time when much of the world struggles to stay cool with machines that strain our grids and our planet, the Romans offer a quieter kind of wisdom. They built with wind and water, with shade and stone, not as luxuries but as everyday necessities in a sun-drenched world. Their solutions were born of constraint, yet shaped by imagination — homes that breathed, courtyards that whispered, walls that remembered the rhythm of the day. As heatwaves grow fiercer, perhaps it’s time we look not just forward, but also back — to architecture that listens to the climate, instead of trying to silence it. ### Debt and Disgrace in Ancient Rome URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/debt-and-disgrace-in-ancient-rome/ Last updated: 2026-06-24T21:52:07.000Z In ancient Rome, debt could begin as a private agreement and end as a public humiliation. A missed payment might expose a man’s property, damage his reputation, draw him into court, or place him under the power of someone richer and stronger. Among the elite, debt could be hidden behind the softer language of friendship and favour. Among the poor, it could threaten survival more directly. In both worlds, owing money was rarely just about money. Debt could touch the body, the household, civic standing, political ambition, and a person’s place within a network of friends, creditors, patrons, and dependants. A Roman who owed money did not simply carry a financial burden. He stood inside a relationship that could expose his weakness before others. That is why Roman debt so often appears in the language of trust, shame, death, and social ruin. A creditor might be condemned for profiting from another person’s need. A debtor might be condemned for failing to honour an obligation. The same [society](https://romanempiretimes.com/inside-roman-society-how-ordinary-life-shaped-an-extraordinary-empire-part-1/) that distrusted the harsh moneylender also treated repayment as a matter of moral reliability. For the poor, debt could threaten land, labour, liberty, and survival. For the elite, it could appear in more polished forms: gifts, loans, dowry assistance, inheritances, recommendations, political backing, and favours offered in the language of friendship. These exchanges did not always look like debt. Yet they could bind the recipient long after the original act had passed. To owe in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-in-the-empire-last-act-the-western-court-from-455-to-476/) was often to become visible. And when obligation became too visible, it could turn into disgrace. ### The Roman Fear of Owing Too Much Roman writers could describe debt in severe terms. [Cato the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/) was remembered as comparing usury with killing a man. The point of the comparison was not a technical legal argument, but a moral one: the lender who lived from interest could be imagined as living from another person’s damage. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) used a different image for the ruined debtor. When a man’s goods were forcibly sold, [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/stoic-in-the-sauna-why-a-baiae-bathhouse-linked-to-cicero-is-deliciously-ironic/) could describe the scene as something like a funeral. The debtor did not merely lose possessions. He watched the public dismantling of the life those possessions had supported. Such language did not mean that Romans rejected debt itself. Credit was part of economic life, politics, property, and elite exchange. What disturbed Roman moral thought was the moment when obligation turned destructive. Lending at interest could look predatory; default could look dishonourable. The creditor might be blamed for feeding on another person’s hardship, while the debtor could still be judged for failing to repay. The old Roman value of *fides* – good faith, trustworthiness, and reliability – lay behind much of this tension. To repay was not simply to settle an account. It was to preserve one’s standing as a person whose word could be trusted. Failure to repay could therefore become more than insolvency. It could become a mark against character. ![The Twelve Tables Rome's First Legal Code is Drawn up by a Commission](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/12-tables--2--1.jpg) The Twelve Tables Rome's First Legal Code is Drawn up by a Commission. Public domain Roman tradition associated the [Twelve Tables](https://romanempiretimes.com/foundations-of-justice-romes-twelve-tables/) with limits on interest, and later memory preserved a sequence of laws that attempted to restrict or even ban lending at interest. The *lex Genucia* of 342 BCE was remembered as a law forbidding interest altogether. By the early first century BCE, however, such prohibitions were no longer regularly observed. Lending at interest continued, later provisions set maximum rates, and credit remained a normal part of Roman life. The result was not a simple moral rule. Rome needed credit, feared debt, condemned excess, and punished failure. ### When Debt Could Claim the Body The oldest Roman memory of debt was tied to the body. The institution known as *nexum* remains difficult to define precisely, but it appears to have been a formal debt obligation created through ritual words, witnesses, metal, and scales. It belonged to a legal world in which important transactions were performed through visible ceremony. Under this older system, default could bring the debtor himself under the creditor’s power. The creditor could use *manus iniectio*, the laying on of the hand, to seize him. After a waiting period, the debtor might be killed, sold abroad, or kept as a private labourer. In practical terms, the debtor’s own person could serve as security. This was the harshest form of debt’s power. Failure to pay did not merely threaten a field, animal, tool, or house. It could threaten bodily freedom. The debtor became answerable not only with goods, but with himself. A major change was associated with the *lex Poetelia*, usually dated between 326 and 313 BCE. This law reduced the old power of seizure by removing the creditor’s right to kill or sell the debtor. It did not make debt harmless, but it marked a move away from the most extreme bodily consequences. As Rome developed, debt security moved increasingly toward property, pledges, and legal remedies. Yet the older association between debt and personal destruction remained important. Even when the debtor’s body was no longer exposed in the same archaic way, debt could still threaten his public existence. A man might survive physically and still be ruined socially. ### From Human Pledges to Property Pledges Roman creditors wanted more than a promise. They wanted something that could secure repayment. Over time, Roman law developed several ways to place property behind a debt. One important form was *fiducia cum creditore*. In this arrangement, the debtor transferred civil ownership of an asset to the creditor, who agreed to transfer it back when the debt was paid. It worked as a sale-and-return arrangement used for security. ![Caerleon, Roman Legionary Museum: Coin hoard purchased through the 1996 Treasure Act ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Roman-hoard--1-.jpg) Caerleon, Roman Legionary Museum: Coin hoard purchased through the 1996 Treasure Act. Credits: Michael Garlick, CC BY-SA 2.0 This gave the creditor a strong position. Since ownership had passed to him, he held extensive rights over the pledged object. The debtor depended on the creditor’s agreement to return it after payment. The arrangement could be useful, especially where land served as security, but it also carried danger. A creditor who held ownership could misuse that power. As [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) became more commercial, the handling of pledged property became more refined. [Coinage](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) and markets made it easier to value security in monetary terms. A pledged object could be sold, with the creditor retaining only the amount owed rather than simply keeping the whole thing. In this development, the measured value of the debt increasingly shaped what happened to the property behind it. The praetor’s remedies also mattered. The *actio fiduciae* allowed a debtor to challenge improper handling of pledged property and to seek its return once the debt had been paid. A creditor found liable in this action could suffer *infamia*, a loss of civic and social standing. The remedy therefore connected legal conduct with public reputation. By the first century CE, *pignus* had become the main form of real security. Unlike *fiducia*, it did not require the transfer of full civil ownership. The pledge was tied to the debt, and when the debt ended, the pledge ended too. Sometimes the creditor held the pledged object. In other cases, the debtor kept possession, an arrangement later associated with *hypotheca*. The development from *nexum* to *fiducia*, *pignus*, and *hypotheca* shows Roman law adapting older forms to changing economic life. Debt remained binding, but the means of securing it became more flexible, more property-based, and less dependent on the most severe earlier devices. ### The Public Death of Bankruptcy The decline of older bodily penalties did not remove the disgrace of insolvency. A debtor who could not pay might still suffer a form of public destruction. One procedure was *missio in bona*. Through this remedy, the praetor could place the possessions of a recalcitrant debtor in the hands of creditors. The creditors could then recover what was owed by selling the debtor’s goods at auction through *venditio bonorum*. The process did not merely transfer property. It exposed failure. For a Roman of [status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/), property was not only wealth. It represented household continuity, public dignity, civic standing, and often the conditions for political participation. To see goods sold under compulsion was to see a life broken open before others. The insolvent debtor could also suffer *infamia*. This was a public mark of disgrace that affected civic standing and treatment under law. Bankruptcy could therefore become more than economic collapse. It could become social and political death. That is why Cicero’s [funeral](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) image was so powerful. The debtor whose possessions were sold did not simply experience loss. He witnessed a public rite of ruin, with creditors and buyers replacing the mourners of an ordinary funeral. Later Roman law introduced a less destructive alternative, *cessio bonorum*. Under this procedure, an insolvent debtor declared bankruptcy before a magistrate and handed over his possessions to the creditor. Unlike *missio in bona*, this did not necessarily bring *infamia*. The debtor could retain enough to live and avoid total civic disgrace. The introduction of *cessio bonorum* is probably connected with the *lex Iulia de bonis cedendis*, most likely introduced by [Caesar.](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) It did not cancel the debt or deny the creditor’s claim. It allowed a debtor to surrender property without being destroyed as a public person. ![Ancient roman Banking](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/roman-banking-1.jpg) Ancient Roman Banking. Credits: Pouazity3, CC BY-SA 4.0 Roman law therefore began to distinguish more clearly between inability to pay and complete dishonour. The debtor still lost property, but he did not necessarily lose his social life with it. ### The Politics of Unpaid Accounts By the late Republic, debt was closely tied to political ambition. A Roman public career was open only to men who met property qualifications, but wealth alone was rarely enough. Office-seeking required enormous spending: campaigns, [games](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-greek-glory-to-roman-spectacle-the-olympic-games-evolution/), meals, public visibility, cash distributions, and the social obligations expected of a competitive aristocrat. Political office could also bring return. A successful career might lead to commands, provincial opportunity, military wealth, inheritances, and privileged investment. Roman rule abroad gave some politicians the means to recover what they had spent at home. Debt and ambition were therefore closely linked. [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/)’s early career illustrates this pattern. He became known for very large debts while competing for office. After his command in [Gaul](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/), the wealth of conquest made him and many of his associates much richer. The same political system that encouraged heavy borrowing could also provide opportunities for recovery. This made debt politically dangerous. A man who failed to win office might lose the future resources needed for repayment. Credit depended on confidence in political success. When political crises shook that confidence, private debt could become a public problem. Catiline’s movement showed how explosive the issue could appear. His agitation included the demand for *novae tabulae,* “new account books,” meaning cancellation of debts. This was different from earlier measures that adjusted repayment while preserving the idea that something remained owed. Debt cancellation threatened the principle of repayment itself. [Sallust](https://romanempiretimes.com/sallust-details-on-the-historian-of-roman-elite-and-the-republic-decline/) gives the demand a political voice through Gaius Manlius, who claimed that Catiline’s supporters were not seeking domination or riches, but > “freedom, which no good man gives up except with life itself.” In that framing, the appeal moved away from trust and repayment and toward *libertas*, freedom. Debt politics could therefore shift between Roman values, depending on whether the emphasis fell on obligation or release. During the civil war between Caesar and [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/), debt again became urgent. Credit collapsed, coin became more valuable, and in 48 and 47 BCE two Roman politicians tried to imitate Catiline by demanding cancellation of debts and rent arrears. Caesar stopped both attempts, but he still had to address the crisis. ![Sallust statue on the right ramp of the Parliament: Roman side, 2007](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Sallust--2--1.jpg) Sallust statue on the right ramp of the Parliament: Roman side, 2007\. Credits: Walter Maderbacher, CC BY-SA 3.0 His measures allowed repayment in kind and used property valuations set at pre-war levels. *Cessio bonorum* fits this wider setting. It gave debtors with property a way to meet obligations by handing over assets while avoiding complete civic disgrace. Rather than cancelling debts generally, these measures eased the danger created by heavily indebted members of the socio-political elite. Debt in late Republican Rome was therefore not merely private finance. It belonged to the machinery of political competition. ### The Price of Roman Friendship Debt in Rome did not always look like debt. Among the [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/), obligation often appeared as friendship, generosity, family duty, recommendation, inheritance, public benefaction, or a loan offered without the blunt language of business. Gifts and [loans](https://romanempiretimes.com/credit-loans-and-risk-how-ancient-rome-handled-money-without-a-central-bank/) could perform similar social work. A loan could help a friend, but it could also bind him. A gift could be presented as generosity, but it still created expectation. A dowry contribution could be described as care for a household, while also displaying the giver’s standing. A recommendation might look like kindness, yet place the recipient within a chain of obligation. Upper-class Romans often preferred the language of friendship to the more openly unequal language of patronage. That language mattered, because elite relationships were supposed to preserve a sense of dignity and mutual respect. Yet the softer language did not remove dependence. It made dependence more acceptable. Roman moral writing praised generosity that was not openly self-interested. Cicero and [Seneca ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/)could insist that true benefaction should not be given for profit or publicity. Yet Roman practice also required acknowledgement. A recipient of generosity was expected to praise the giver, and that praise increased the giver’s honour. Seneca put the expectation plainly: > “There is nobody who does not delight in having his favour broadcast.” Gratitude was not only private feeling. It was part of the social return. This created a delicate imbalance. To acknowledge a benefit was also to admit a degree of inferiority. Silence could look like ingratitude. Immediate repayment could suggest discomfort with the obligation. Romans might avoid accepting help from people they disliked or distrusted, because accepting a favour placed them under a claim. [Pliny](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/)’s letters show this careful language in action. Writing to Quintilianus about a gift for his daughter’s[ marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/), Pliny presented himself as helping with the burden: > “I know that you are rich in inner qualities, but that your material resources are moderate.” The phrasing softened the inequality, but did not erase it. One man had the resources to give; the other had reason to accept. Among the elite, [wealth](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/) became visible through the ability to benefit others. A man showed status by giving, lending, recommending, supporting, or rescuing. What he received in return might not be immediate money. It might be praise, loyalty, public gratitude, political support, a legacy, or a strengthened place in a network of obligation. The debt could outlast the payment. ### When Favour Became Obligation Because gifts and loans carried social meaning, the recovery of debt could also carry social danger. When relations remained good, requests and repayments moved through friendship, mediation, and private negotiation. When relations worsened, the same obligations could become embarrassing or hostile. ![Roman gold ingot, dating to circa 375 AD. This example was discovered in a hoard from Czófalva, Hungary in 1887. Bank of England Museum Collection.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/roman-old-bars--1--1.jpg) Roman gold ingot, dating to circa 375 AD. This example was discovered in a hoard from Czófalva, Hungary in 1887\. Bank of England Museum Collection. Credits: Joyofmuseums, CC BY-SA 4.0 Cicero’s correspondence gives a clear example. In 44 BCE, he considered legal action against his former son-in-law Dolabella over an unpaid dowry. He wrote that if Dolabella had not treated him outrageously, he might have hesitated over whether to act mildly or > “fight him with the full force of the law.” As matters stood, he saw the case as a way to show Dolabella and everyone else that Dolabella had alienated him. The issue was not only money. Legal action would publicly display the collapse of a relationship. A debt dispute could become a statement about friendship, trust, political loyalty, and honour. This is one of the clearest signs that elite debt was not simply economic. A private obligation could become public evidence of estrangement. To go to court could show that ordinary social mediation had failed. The same logic helps explain the moral charge attached to lending at interest. The creditor who pursued repayment exposed the debtor’s failure before others. In a society where reputation carried real weight, that exposure could look like destruction. Roman gifts, favours, and loans therefore belonged to overlapping worlds. Generosity could create honour. Friendship could create debt. A loan could become a favour. A favour could become a claim. The language might remain courteous, but the obligation could be hard. ### Debt Across the Social Ladder The surviving sources preserve elite language more fully than the experiences of poorer debtors. Cicero, [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/), Pliny, legal writers, and later jurists make the anxieties of status, obligation, and reputation especially visible. But the structures of debt reached far beyond the elite. Debt did not mean the same thing for every Roman. A senator, municipal notable, small farmer, freedman, and poorer debtor did not face the same risks or possess the same protections. Status shaped the ability to negotiate, delay, seek help, or turn debt into a more favourable social arrangement. For elites, debt was often linked with office, display, marriage, friendship, inheritance, and political competition. Their debts could be enormous, but they were embedded in networks of family, patronage, alliance, and future opportunity. For less powerful debtors, the protections of influence were weaker. Older Roman law could imagine severe bodily consequences. Later procedures could expose property and reputation. A debtor without strong support had fewer ways to turn obligation into friendship or favour. Roman debt was therefore not only a technical matter of contracts, pledges, or interest rates. It reflected hierarchy. It showed who could lend, who had to ask, who could command gratitude, who could survive insolvency, and who could be publicly exposed by failure. ### Why Owing Money Could Become Disgrace Borrowing itself was not necessarily shameful. Romans borrowed, lent, guaranteed, gifted, and sought help in many settings. Credit belonged to ordinary life. Disgrace came when obligation became failure. A debtor who could not pay might lose property. He might be forced through public procedures. He might suffer *infamia*. He might be shown to have lost the trust that allowed him to function in legal, social, and political relationships. Among elites, disgrace could also come from dependence. Roman friendship allowed gifts and favours, but the language of equality remained important. A benefit had to be acknowledged without making the recipient look servile. A loan had to be repaid, but repayment did not always end the relationship. Generosity had to be visible enough to produce honour, but not so crude that it appeared as self-advertisement. Debt occupied this uneasy space. It helped Romans act, compete, marry, govern, give, and survive. But it also bound them to others. It created claims, expectations, memories, and public judgments. This is why debt could become disgrace. Not because every borrower was dishonoured, but because unpaid obligation revealed dependence in a society that measured people through public standing. ### Rome’s Uneasy World of Credit The Roman history of debt moved from the body of the debtor to pledged property, from formal ownership transfers to more flexible security, from public ruin under *missio in bona* to the less destructive possibility of *cessio bonorum*. These legal changes followed a society in which credit, exchange, politics, and elite obligation became increasingly complex. Yet the moral language remained intense. Interest could be condemned, but debts still had to be honoured. Bankruptcy could be treated as social death, yet later law allowed some insolvent debtors to remain alive in civic and social terms. Gifts could be praised as generosity, yet they created claims that bound recipients to donors. Loans could look like friendship, yet failure to repay could announce the end of friendship. Debt and disgrace were closely connected because Roman debt was never only about money. 💡 **Sources Used:** “Debt, Death, and Destruction in Ancient Rome,” by Lisa Eberle in "Debt in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near East: Credit, Money, and Social Obligation" edited by John Weisweiler “Development of the Roman Law of Debt Security.” by Donald E. Phillipson “The Meaning of Gift and Debt in the Roman Elite.” by Suzanne Dixon "A History of Interest and Debt: Ancient Civilizations" edited by Murat Ustaoğlu and Ahmet İncekara ### Catullus: The Roman Poet of All Life has to Give URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/catullus-the-roman-poet-of-all-life-has-to-give/ Last updated: 2026-06-17T22:57:56.000Z Few ancient poets seem to speak as directly as Catullus. He names friends and enemies, quarrels with lovers, mocks politicians, celebrates homecomings, describes sleepless desire, and mourns his brother beside a distant grave. His poems can sound like immediate records of a life lived without restraint. Yet that apparent directness is one of the achievements of the poetry. The surviving collection does not provide a secure biography, and the speaker who calls himself Catullus cannot always be treated as the unfiltered historical poet. Names, social situations, literary conventions, metres, and inherited poetic forms all help to construct the voice. ### What sounds spontaneous is often carefully made. A declaration of love becomes a reflection on mortality and hostile observation. An invitation to [dinner](https://romanempiretimes.com/convivium-how-the-romans-turned-dinner-into-a-display-of-power/) becomes an exchange of material and poetic gifts. An obscene threat becomes a defence of the freedom of verse. A mythological wedding opens into abandonment, [war](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-well-full-of-war-skeletons-in-croatia-may-be-victims-of-romes-forgotten-battle/), and family destruction. A funeral rite becomes one of the most restrained expressions of grief in Latin [poetry](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/). Catullus wrote about desire, friendship, insult, politics, travel, [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/), religion, myth, family, and [death](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/). These subjects do not remain separate. Words such as *fides*, good faith or loyalty, pass between friendship and erotic attachment. Journeys lead to provincial disappointment, joyful homecoming, mythological exile, and a brother’s grave. The language of family enters the poems about Lesbia, while [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) myth provides forms through which love and bereavement can be expressed together. The collection preserves not one fixed Catullan voice, but many – learned and conversational, tender and aggressive, comic and grieving, sexually explicit and formally controlled. ### A Life That Cannot Be Fully Recovered The basic chronology of Catullus’ life remains uncertain. Jerome records that he was born at Verona in 87 BCE and died at [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) in his thirtieth year, but the stated date of death cannot be reconciled with poems referring to events in the middle of the 50s BCE. ![ A Modern statue of the roman poet Gaius Valerius Catullus in Sirmione](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Catullus-1.jpg) A Modern statue of the roman poet Gaius Valerius Catullus in Sirmione. Public domain. Many scholars have consequently placed his birth around 84 BCE and his death around 54 BCE. Others have allowed for the possibility that Jerome’s error concerned Catullus’ age and that the poet lived longer. The surviving poems contain no unambiguous reference to an event after the mid-first century BCE, but silence in a poetic collection cannot establish a date of death. Catullus may have died young, as ancient testimony suggests, yet the precise limits of his life cannot be recovered. Verona and the Transpadane region beyond the River Po remain central to his poetic identity. Catullus also associated home with Sirmio, the peninsula extending into Lake Garda. Returning there after service abroad, he addresses it directly in Poem 31: > Sirmio, jewel of peninsulas and islands, > whatever Neptune bears in either lake > or the wide sea – how willingly, how happily > I see you again. > I can scarcely believe that I have left > Thynia and the Bithynian fields > and look upon you safely. The relief of homecoming continues: > This is what alone repays so many hardships. > Greetings, lovely Sirmio – rejoice in your master, > and you, waters of the Lydian lake, rejoice. > Laugh out every laugh that the house contains. The poem presents the return to Sirmio through the traveller’s relief at leaving Bithynia, seeing his home again, setting aside the burden of travel, and reaching his own bed. Yet [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) was also central to Catullus’ life. In Poem 68, he explains that he lacks books while staying in Verona because [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) is where he normally lives and where his collection of books remains. His poetry consequently moves between northern Italy, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-in-the-empire-last-act-the-western-court-from-455-to-476/), Roman provinces, the Greek East, and mythological landscapes. It reflects the position of a man from a distinguished municipal family participating in the literary and social life of the capital while continuing to define himself through his northern origins. His family appears to have held substantial local status. [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) reports that Catullus’ father received [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/) as a guest when Caesar governed Cisalpine Gaul. Catullus himself later attacked Caesar and Caesar’s officer Mamurra in verse. Caesar regarded the poems as damaging, but accepted the poet’s apology, invited him to dinner that same day, and continued to accept the father’s hospitality. The incident places Catullus inside [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) social relations, not outside them. The poems could insult powerful men, but personal reconciliation remained possible through hospitality and direct contact. His journey to Bithynia is more securely reflected in the collection. Catullus served on the staff of the governor Gaius Memmius around 57–56 BCE. Poems 10 and 28 present the appointment as financially disappointing. The expected provincial profits did not materialize, and Memmius is treated with hostility. The journey also brought Catullus into the Greek East and allowed him to visit the grave of his brother in the Troad. The brother’s death is the clearest personal event running through several poems. Lesbia dominates the modern image of Catullus, but the dead brother occupies an equally serious place in his language of memory, distance, loyalty, and loss. ### The Polished Little Book The transmitted collection begins with Catullus offering a small book to Cornelius Nepos: > To whom shall I give this charming new little book, > freshly polished with dry pumice? > To you, Cornelius, for you were accustomed > to think my trifles worth something. The language is modest, but it also announces a literary position. The book is *novus*, new, and *lepidus*, elegant, charming, or witty. Its physical surface has been polished. Catullus calls the poems *nugae*, trifles, while presenting them as the product of deliberate finish. ![Catullus. Carmina](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Shows-the-first-46-lines-of-Catullus-68-in-Statius-s-1566-edition-of-Catullus-1.jpg) Catullus. Carmina. Public domain Catullus belonged to the literary environment later associated with the *poetae novi*, the “new poets,” or Neoterics. Most of their work has disappeared, making the exact shape of the group difficult to reconstruct. The surviving evidence nevertheless points to poets who cultivated refinement, verbal precision, [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-ovid-change-the-greek-medusa-myth-forever/) learning, metrical experiment, and forms other than large-scale Roman historical epic. Catullus was not exclusively a writer of short poems. His surviving work includes wedding hymns, long mythological narratives, translations, elegies, epigrams, and the galliambic Poem 63\. His poetic innovation lay not simply in brevity, but in the variety of forms and voices he made available to Latin poetry. Sappho stands directly behind Poem 51\. Catullus adapts her celebrated description of the physical effects of desire. The speaker watches a man sitting opposite the beloved: > He seems to me equal to a god, > he seems, if it is right to say so, > to surpass the gods, because sitting opposite you > he repeatedly watches and hears you > sweetly laughing. The sight overwhelms the speaker: > The moment I see you, Lesbia, > no voice remains in my mouth. > My tongue grows numb, a fine flame > runs beneath my limbs, > my ears ring with their own sound, > and night covers both my eyes. The final stanza turns toward *otium*, leisure or freedom from public occupation: > Leisure, Catullus, is troublesome to you. > In leisure you grow restless and excessive. > Leisure has already destroyed > kings and prosperous cities. Catullus does not merely reproduce Sappho. He places the experience within a Roman language of conduct, excess, and self-control. The poem combines translation, adaptation, Sapphic metre, erotic disturbance, and moral self-address. Callimachus is another major presence. Poem 66 translates the story of Berenice’s lock of hair from the *Aetia*. The queen dedicates the lock for her husband’s safe return from war, and it is transformed into a constellation. Catullus introduces this learned translation through personal grief in Poem 65: > Although sorrow constantly consumes me, Hortalus, > and grief calls me away from the learned maidens, > for my mind, shaken by such evils, > cannot bring forth the sweet offspring of the Muses... He explains that his brother’s death has removed him from poetry, yet he still sends the promised translation so that his friend will not think his words entrusted to the winds. The grieving brother is also the translator of Callimachus. The emotional and learned Catullus cannot be divided into separate poets. Greek poetry, literary obligation, friendship, and bereavement occupy the same work. ### One Collection or Several Books? The transmitted corpus contains 116 numbered poems. Modern editions usually divide them into short polymetric poems, longer poems, and elegiac epigrams. This arrangement reflects important formal differences, but recent scholarship has questioned whether Catullus himself organized the surviving sequence as one complete book. Some poems probably circulated individually or in smaller collections before the surviving corpus was assembled. Poems 65 and 66 form a particularly close pair, since the verse letter to Hortalus introduces the translation of Callimachus that follows. The two wedding songs, Poems 61 and 62, are now placed together, as are the two long mythological narratives, Poems 63 and 64\. Formal correspondences may explain these juxtapositions, but they do not establish that Catullus himself arranged the poems in their surviving order. The present sequence may instead reflect the decisions of a later compiler. The Lesbia poems do not form a documentary chronology. Poems of happiness, separation, renewed desire, contempt, and remembered intimacy are scattered across the collection. The sequence does not narrate an affair from beginning to end. ![Lawrence Alma-Tadema: Catullus at Lesbia's ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Catullus-and-Lesbia--1--1.jpg) Lawrence Alma-Tadema: Catullus at Lesbia's. Public domain. The opening group nevertheless creates powerful contrasts. Poems 5 and 7 celebrate kisses and limitless desire. Poem 8 stages an effort to accept rejection. Poem 11 sends a hostile farewell. The elegiac poems 70, 72, 75, 76, and 85 return to promises, broken trust, moral injury, continuing desire, and the wish for release. These poems can be read together as an exploration of emotional change. They cannot securely be used as dated entries from Catullus’ private life. ### “Let Us Live and Love” Poem 5 begins in defiance: > Let us live, my Lesbia, and let us love, > and let us value all the mutterings > of severe old men at a single penny. The lovers’ answer to social criticism is shaped by mortality: > Suns can set and return. > For us, when our brief light has once set, > one everlasting night must be slept. The poem moves from the limited span of life to the unlimited counting of kisses: > Give me a thousand kisses, then a hundred, > then another thousand, then a second hundred, > then continuously another thousand, then a hundred. Once the kisses reach many thousands, the lovers will confuse the number so that neither they nor a malicious observer can know the total. The threat is not only disapproval but envy and the hostile gaze. Private desire is imagined before an audience. Poem 7 answers Lesbia’s question about how many kisses would satisfy him: > As many as the great number of Libyan sands > that lie at silphium-bearing Cyrene, > between the oracle of burning Jupiter > and the sacred tomb of ancient Battus; > or as many as the stars that, when night is silent, > watch the secret loves of human beings. The answer combines intimate desire with learned geography and [astronomy](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-astronomy-how-did-romans-see-the-planets/). The number must be beyond counting, so that curious people cannot calculate it and an evil tongue cannot cast a spell over it. The name “Lesbia” contributes to the literary setting. It evokes Lesbos and Sappho. Apuleius later identified Catullus’ Lesbia as a woman named Clodia, and Poem 79 appears to connect Lesbia with Publius Clodius Pulcher through the word *pulcher*, “beautiful.” The traditional identification with Clodia Metelli remains plausible, but it is not beyond dispute. Several aristocratic women bore the name Clodia, and more recent proposals have suggested other members of the family. ![Lawrence Alma-Tadema: Anacreon Reading His Poems at Lesbias House ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Catullus-reading-his-poems-at-Lesbia-s-house--1--1.jpg) Lawrence Alma-Tadema: Anacreon Reading His Poems at Lesbias House. public domain Even secure identification would not turn the poems into a neutral portrait. The unfaithful mistress was already a figure of ancient erotic poetry, while allegations of promiscuity were common in Roman forensic and political abuse. Lesbia is shaped through literary convention, historical possibility, social reputation, and the changing voice of the speaker. ### The Work of Letting Go Poem 8 begins as an order Catullus gives himself: > Wretched Catullus, stop being foolish, > and what you see has perished, consider perished. > Once bright suns shone for you, > when you followed wherever the girl led. The poem recalls a time of mutual desire: > There many playful things happened, > which you wanted, and the girl did not refuse. > Truly bright suns shone for you. The repetition marks the distance between past and present. The speaker now commands himself not to pursue someone who no longer wants him: > Now she no longer wants you. You too, powerless man, > do not want her. Do not follow one who flees. > Do not live miserably, but endure with a firm mind. > Be hard. The commands do not end the attachment. The poem turns back toward Lesbia: > Farewell, girl. Catullus is now firm. > He will not seek you or ask unwillingly. > But you will grieve when no one asks you. > Wicked woman, what life remains for you? Questions follow. Who will now approach her? Who will think her beautiful? Whom will she love? Whose lips will she bite? The poem closes with another command to remain firm, but the questions have revealed the instability beneath that resolution. Poem 11 presents another farewell. Furius and Aurelius are imagined accompanying Catullus to India, Arabia, Parthia, Egypt, Gaul, and [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-leave-britain/). After this catalogue of distant territories, their actual task is brief: > Carry a few words, not good ones, > to my girl. Let her live and prosper > with her adulterers... The attack imagines her repeatedly embracing many men without truly loving any. Then the poem turns away from sexual abuse: > Let her not look back, as before, upon my love, > which through her fault has fallen > like a flower at the edge of a meadow > after it has been touched by the passing plough. The effect depends on contrast. Imperial geography, hostile accusation, and aggressive [masculinity](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-thought-made-a-man-weak/) give way to a fragile flower cut down at the field’s edge. The speaker claims final separation while preserving the delicacy of the love that has been destroyed. ### Promises Written on Wind and Water Poem 70 reduces the beloved’s promise to four lines: > My woman says that she prefers to marry no one > except me, not even if Jupiter himself should ask her. > She says this – but what a woman says to an eager lover > should be written on wind and running water. The force of the promise is set against the instability of the medium on which it should be recorded. ![Antonio Zucchi: Catullus comforting Lesbia over the Death of her Pet Sparrow and writing an Ode](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Catullus-Comforting-Lesbia-over-the-Death-of-Her-Pet-Sparrow-and-Writing-an-Ode--1--1.jpg) Antonio Zucchi: Catullus comforting Lesbia over the Death of her Pet Sparrow and writing an Ode. Public domain. Poem 72 returns to the same declaration: > Once you said that you knew Catullus alone, Lesbia, > and would not prefer Jupiter himself to me. > Then I loved you not merely as the common crowd > loves a mistress, but as a father loves his sons > and his sons-in-law. The comparison brings the language of household affection, continuity, and respect into erotic attachment. The poem then turns: > Now I know you. Therefore, although I burn more fiercely, > you are far cheaper and lighter to me. When the imagined Lesbia asks how this can be, the answer distinguishes desire from goodwill: > Because such an injury compels a lover > to love more, but to wish her well less. Poem 75 continues the division: > My mind has been brought to this point by your fault, Lesbia, > and has destroyed itself by its own devotion, > so that it can neither wish you well, > even if you become the best of women, > nor cease to love you, whatever you do. Neither possible form of release remains. Better conduct would not restore respect, while further injury would not extinguish desire. Poem 76 expands the conflict into prayer. It begins with *pietas* and remembered good conduct: > If there is any pleasure for a person in remembering > former good deeds, when he thinks himself dutiful, > neither violating sacred faith > nor abusing the power of the gods in any agreement > in order to deceive another... The speaker tells himself that the relationship is lost and must be abandoned. Yet self-command is insufficient, and he turns to the [gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/): > O gods, if mercy belongs to you, > or if ever you brought final help to anyone, > look upon me in my misery and, if I have lived purely, > tear this destruction and disease from me. The final request no longer concerns Lesbia’s return: > I no longer ask that she love me in return, > or that she should wish to be chaste. > I wish only to be well > and to put aside this foul disease. The language of illness gives form to a passion the speaker experiences as both morally undeserved and physically destructive. Poem 85 compresses the same condition into two lines: > I hate and I love. Why I do this, perhaps you ask. > I do not know, but I feel it happening, and I am tortured. There is no story, name, or attempted resolution. The verbs carry the poem: hate, love, know, feel, suffer. ### Friends, Gifts, and Literary Intimacy The collection is crowded with friends, rivals, poets, patrons, and social dependants. Poem 9 welcomes Veranius home: > Veranius, preferred by me > to all my friends by many thousands, > have you returned home to your household gods, > your united brothers, and your old mother? Catullus imagines listening to his friend describe the places and peoples he encountered and kissing his face and eyes. The poem ends by asking whether anyone is happier than Catullus. Friendship receives the same heightened language found in erotic poetry. Poem 13 invites Fabullus to dine: > You will dine well with me, Fabullus, > in a few days, if the gods favour you, > provided you bring with you a good and abundant dinner, > and not without a charming girl, wine, wit, and laughter. Catullus supplies none of the material elements because his purse is full of cobwebs. His contribution is affection and a [perfume](https://romanempiretimes.com/niche-perfumes-in-ancient-rome-how-did-emperors-smell-like/) given to his girl by the Venuses and Cupids: > When you smell it, you will ask the gods, Fabullus, > to make you entirely nose. ![Stefan Bakałowicz: Roman poet Catullus reading to his friends. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Stefan-Baka--owicz-Roman-poet-Catullus-reading-to-his-friends_jpg-1.jpg) Stefan Bakałowicz: Roman poet Catullus reading to his friends. Public domain. The poem reverses hospitality without cancelling it. Fabullus provides [food](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/) and [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/); Catullus offers intimacy, poetry, [humour](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-made-the-ancient-romans-laugh/), and an immaterial gift that overwhelms the senses. Poem 50 describes an evening of poetic improvisation with Licinius Calvus: > Yesterday, Licinius, at leisure, > we played much on my writing tablets, > as suited two refined men. > Each of us, playing, wrote little verses, > now in one metre, now in another, > exchanging lines through jokes and wine. Afterward Catullus cannot eat or sleep: > But I lay half-dead upon the couch, > tossing in uncontrolled frenzy, > longing to see daylight > so that I might speak with you and be with you. The language resembles erotic longing, but the cause is literary exchange. Friendship between poets produces bodily excitement and insomnia. Other relationships are marked by betrayal. Poem 30 accuses Alfenus: > Alfenus, forgetful and false to your faithful companions, > do you now have no pity, hard man, for your beloved friend? > Do you not hesitate to betray me and deceive me, faithless one? Catullus claims that Alfenus persuaded him to surrender his whole spirit as though everything were safe. Now the promises have disappeared: > You leave all your words and all your deeds > to be carried away by the winds and empty clouds. The gods may appear indifferent, but *Fides*, Good Faith, will remember. The vocabulary resembles that used against Lesbia and Theseus. Friendship and erotic attachment are both judged through promise, memory, obligation, and betrayal. ### Obscenity and Roman Masculinity Catullus’ invective cannot be separated from the rest of his poetic achievement. Obscenity, social aggression, wit, and verbal control belong to the same collection as the love poems and elegies. Poem 16 responds to Furius and Aurelius, who have apparently interpreted the softness of Catullus’ kissing poems as evidence that the poet himself lacks masculine respectability. Catullus answers with an explicit sexual threat and then explains: > For the dutiful poet ought to be respectable himself, > but his little verses need not be. > They possess wit and charm > if they are soft and somewhat shameless. This is not a modern declaration that [art ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-art-of-poison-in-the-roman-empire/)and artist are wholly separate. The argument operates within Roman sexual hierarchies. Catullus answers an attack on his masculinity by threatening to impose sexual submission on his critics. Sexual role structured many Roman insults. Allegations of passivity, effeminacy, adultery, prostitution, [uncontrolled appetite](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-unknown-lucullus-far-more-than-just-lucullan-meals/), or incest could be used to damage an opponent’s standing. Such accusations did not need to be factual in order to function as public attack. The poem nevertheless makes clear that a literary voice is constructed. Tenderness, kisses, and erotic softness in verse cannot automatically be treated as proof of the author’s social or sexual identity. The invectives also warn against rescuing an imagined gentle or liberal “real Catullus” from the aggressive speaker. His poetry belongs to a competitive Roman culture in which honour, dominance, [reputation](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-obsession-with-reputation/), and masculine self-presentation mattered. The same collection that gives voice to emotional vulnerability also participates in the humiliation of bodies, origins, sexuality, and status. ### Caesar, Mamurra, and the Profits of Empire Catullus names political figures, but his surviving poetry does not present a continuous political programme. ![Statue of Julius Caesar in Velzeke](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/statue-of-Julius-Caesar--1--1.jpg) Statue of Julius Caesar in Velzeke. Credits: FrDr, CC BY-SA 4.0 Mamurra, a Roman equestrian from Formiae and officer under [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/), is the central target of Poems 29 and 57\. His [wealth](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/), [luxury](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/), and appetite become symbols of excess made possible through military service and provincial conquest. In Poem 29, Catullus asks whether Mamurra will possess the wealth of conquered territories: > Will that ruined man Mamurra possess > what long-haired Gaul and farthest Britain once possessed? > Perverse Romulus, will you see this and tolerate it? [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) and [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/) are made responsible for allowing such enrichment. Gaul and [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-life-really-like-in-roman-britain/) are not celebrated as imperial acquisitions. They appear as resources transferred into private consumption. Poem 57 pairs Caesar and Mamurra through sexual insult and portrays them as equal in stain and appetite. Political criticism, moral attack, and sexual humiliation cannot be cleanly separated. Poem 93 is much shorter: > I have no strong desire to please you, Caesar, > nor to know whether you are a white man or a black. The claim of indifference is itself addressed to the most powerful Roman of the period. Yet the reconciliation recorded by [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) prevents the poem from proving permanent political opposition. Catullus apologized, Caesar invited him to dinner, and social relations continued. These poems can attack enrichment through [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/) and mock powerful men. Their language remains personal, social, and sexual rather than constitutional or programmatic. ### Attis and the Violence of Transformation Poem 63 tells of Attis, who crosses the sea to Phrygia, enters the service of Cybele, and castrates himself in religious frenzy. Catullus writes in galliambics, a rapid and unusual metre associated with the cult of the goddess. The rhythm suits drums, running feet, ecstasy, and loss of control. Attis urges the companions into the mountains: > Come, go together to the high forests of Cybele, > go together, wandering flock of the mistress of Dindymus, > you who, seeking foreign places like exiles, > followed my leadership... The frenzy changes after sleep. Attis wakes and understands what has happened: > When with clear mind Attis considered what had been done, > and saw without what and where he was, > with a surging heart he returned to the shore. Looking across the sea, Attis laments the homeland: > Country that created me, country that gave me birth, > whom I abandoned miserably, as runaway slaves > abandon their masters... Home, family, civic identity, the gymnasium, and former companions are now inaccessible. The movement away from home that began under the force of religious frenzy is reconsidered after Attis wakes and understands what has happened. The poem ends with Catullus addressing Cybele: > Great goddess, goddess Cybele, mistress of Dindymus, > may all your frenzy be far from my house. > Drive others into madness; drive others into frenzy. The ending does not reverse Attis’ transformation. The poem moves across distinctions involving sex and gender, homeland and foreign landscape, human intention and divine power, frenzy and regret. The galliambic metre remains closely connected with Cybele’s cult and gives the narrative its unusual speed and intensity. ### Ariadne, Theseus, and the Broken Promise Poem 64 begins with the voyage of the Argonauts and the marriage of Peleus and Thetis. Their union appears to join mortal and divine worlds. Yet the marriage bed bears a woven image of Ariadne abandoned by Theseus, and this embedded story occupies more than half the poem. ![Catullus 96, 1472 editio princeps (with illumination), Inc.III.18 33r (Vatican Library), with first two lines of Catullus 97](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Catullus-96--1--1.jpg) Catullus 96, 1472 editio princeps (with illumination), Inc.III.18 33r (Vatican Library), with first two lines of Catullus 97\. Public domain. Ariadne wakes on the shore and sees the ship departing: > From the wave-sounding shore of Dia, Ariadne, > carrying untamed passions in her heart, > watches Theseus leaving with his swift fleet, > scarcely believing that she sees what she sees. Her clothing has fallen from her body, but she does not notice. Her whole attention is fixed on the departing man. The poem then returns to Crete, where she helped Theseus defeat the Minotaur and abandoned her family for him. When Ariadne speaks, the first accusation is *perfide*, faithless: > Is this how you carried me away from my father’s altars, > faithless one, and left me on a deserted shore, Theseus? > Is this how, departing, you neglect the power of the gods > and carry home your cursed perjury, forgetful man? Theseus is *immemor*, unmindful or forgetful. His promises served immediate desire rather than lasting commitment. Ariadne generalizes from her experience: > Now let no woman trust a man when he swears; > let none hope that a man’s words are faithful. > While his eager mind desires to obtain something, > he fears to swear nothing and spares no promise. > But once the desire of his greedy mind is satisfied, > he fears no words and cares nothing for perjury. The linguistic connections with the shorter poems have encouraged autobiographical readings. Putnam interpreted Ariadne as a figure through whom Catullus expressed his own experience of betrayal and connected Theseus with Lesbia. In that reading, the extended mythological narrative develops tensions stated more briefly in poems such as 72: desire against diminished respect, past expectation against present knowledge, and ideal attachment against experienced injury. More recent scholarship treats direct identification with greater caution. Ariadne’s lament unquestionably shares language and themes with Catullus’ other poems of betrayal, but this does not establish that Ariadne is simply Catullus in disguise or that Theseus represents Lesbia. The relationship can be described more securely as poetic and thematic: Poem 64 enlarges concerns found elsewhere in the collection through mythological narrative. The wedding frame is also unstable. After the Ariadne episode, the Fates sing about Achilles, the future son of Peleus and Thetis. Their wedding song celebrates him, but its images are those of Trojan slaughter, bereaved mothers, and blood. The poem concludes by contrasting an age in which gods visited human households with a present polluted by greed, family crime, and contempt for justice. Yet the mythical past has already contained abandonment and has produced the warrior whose fame depends upon death. The ending does not create an entirely simple opposition between an innocent past and a corrupt present. Poem 64 is not an ornamental exercise detached from Catullus’ supposedly more authentic work. Its learned structure, Greek allusion, embedded narrative, and epic scale allow loyalty, desire, family, abandonment, memory, and violence to unfold across several myths. ### Poem 68: Love Beside a Grave Poem 68 brings together bereavement, friendship, literary obligation, erotic attachment, and the myth of Laodamia and Protesilaus. Its transmitted form is exceptionally difficult. Scholars disagree over whether the text contains one poem, two poems, or two originally distinct pieces intended to be read together. The identity of the addressee or addressees is also disputed, as are several details of the situation described. The [woman](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) associated with the house in the later portion is often identified as Lesbia, but the text does not establish that identification beyond doubt. In the opening portion, Catullus responds to a request involving consolation and poetry by explaining that grief has made such work difficult. His brother lies far from home: > For since the wave of Lethe washed > the pale foot of my brother, > and Trojan earth weighs upon him > beneath the Rhoetean shore, > I shall never hear you speak > or recount your deeds again. The brother’s death has removed a family member and a voice. Troy, already filled with literary memory, becomes a personal place of burial. ![Ceiling mosaic honoring the poet Catullus, Thomas Jefferson Building, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/mosaic-honoring-Catullus--1--1.jpg) Ceiling mosaic honoring the poet Catullus, Thomas Jefferson Building, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Credits: Djembayz, CC BY-SA 3.0 The later section recalls a house provided by a friend where Catullus and his beloved could meet. The beloved woman arrives at the threshold and is compared with Laodamia entering the home of Protesilaus. The comparison is shadowed by loss. Protesilaus was the first [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) to die at Troy, and Laodamia’s marriage almost immediately became bereavement. The place where Catullus’ brother lies buried is also the place that destroyed the mythical husband. Poem 68 moves from the Trojan War to the brother’s death and back into myth: > Troy, the common grave of Asia and Europe, > Troy, bitter ash of men and every virtue, > which also brought miserable death to my brother. > Alas, brother taken from wretched me, > alas, sweet light taken from your wretched brother. > With you our whole house lies buried, > with you all our joys have perished. [Love](https://romanempiretimes.com/antinous-and-hadrian-love-devotion-or-divine-ambition/) and death occupy the same poetic structure. The beloved woman’s arrival is remembered through Laodamia, whose marriage is inseparable from the loss of Protesilaus. Catullus’ brother is buried near the setting of that myth. The speaker does not present the beloved woman as exclusively faithful. He describes an effort to tolerate other relationships rather than dwell upon them. Gratitude for the happiness she brought coexists with awareness of instability. Poem 68 makes it impossible to divide Catullus neatly into a personal lyric poet and an impersonal scholar. Private grief is expressed through Troy, Laodamia, Protesilaus, literary obligation, and inherited myth. The learning provides a form in which erotic attachment and fraternal loss can be placed together. ### “Hail and Farewell” Poem 101 brings Catullus to his brother’s grave: > Carried through many peoples and across many seas, > I come, brother, to these miserable funeral rites, > so that I might give you the final gift owed to death > and speak in vain to silent ashes. The journey has reached its destination, but communication remains impossible: > Since fortune has taken you, yourself, away from me – > alas, poor brother, unjustly taken from me – > now nevertheless accept these gifts > handed down by the ancient custom of our ancestors, > drenched with the tears of a brother. The final line is restrained: > And forever, brother, hail and farewell. The words belong to the language of [funeral ritual](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/), yet the conventional form does not diminish the personal grief. Catullus performs what ancestral custom requires even though the ashes cannot respond. The poem does not describe the brother’s life or explain his death. Its force comes from distance, ritual obligation, silence, and irreversible absence. The brother poems prevent the collection from becoming simply the story of Lesbia. In Poems 65, 68, and 101, grief enters translation, myth, friendship, travel, and family duty. The deepest language of enduring attachment in Catullus is not confined to erotic desire. ### The Range of Catullus’ Voice Catullus uses Latin across a remarkable range of registers. His vocabulary can resemble conversation, [graffiti](https://romanempiretimes.com/whispers-on-the-walls-graffiti-as-a-voice-of-ancient-rome/), elite social language, hymn, wedding song, epigram, Greek lyric, learned Hellenistic poetry, or epic. Metre is central to these changes. Hendecasyllables carry invitations, erotic poems, attacks, literary exchanges, and social anecdotes. Elegiac couplets accommodate promise, betrayal, moral reflection, epigrammatic compression, and mourning. Sapphic stanzas recreate Greek lyric intensity. Galliambics drive Attis into frenzy and regret. Hexameters allow Poem 64 to enter and transform the territory of epic and Hellenistic narrative. The language also crosses thematic boundaries. *Fides* belongs to friendship, erotic attachment, oath, and public conduct. *Pietas* appears in the self-defence of Poem 76 and the funeral obligation of Poem 101\. Forgetfulness marks Alfenus, unreliable erotic promises, and Theseus’ abandonment of Ariadne. Travel can mean provincial service, homecoming, exile, or mourning. Later Roman poets responded to this range rather than to one Catullan identity. [Virgil ](https://romanempiretimes.com/analysis-of-the-world-of-virgil-roman-poet-eclogues-georgics-and-the-aeneid/)adapted Catullan language in pastoral, didactic, and epic poetry. Horace’s relation to him was selective and competitive. Propertius and [Ovid ](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/)developed forms of erotic voice already present in Catullus. [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/) treated him as a major predecessor in epigram, obscenity, personal address, and social observation. Statius reused his wedding poetry and language of bereavement. The survival of the poems was precarious. The modern text descends from a manuscript that resurfaced at Verona around the beginning of the fourteenth century. Its descendants preserve corruptions and unresolved readings, and the history of modern editions has been an attempt to recover what Catullus originally wrote. What survived was neither a national epic nor a continuous historical narrative. It was a varied body of poems about books, friends, enemies, kisses, journeys, insults, weddings, myths, promises, betrayal, and death. The collection does not offer a complete biography or a single emotional story. It preserves a poet repeatedly transforming social and literary experience through metre, genre, inherited language, and a first-person voice capable of seeming immediate even when it is most carefully constructed. Catullus can sound like a lover speaking in private, a friend writing after a night of poetic play, an enemy delivering public abuse, a learned poet remaking Greek literature, or a brother addressing ashes that cannot answer. None of these voices cancels the others. Together they form the surviving poetry of a writer who made intimacy, aggression, learning, and grief equally available to Latin verse. 💡 ****Sources Used: "**The Cambridge Companion to Catullus" edited by Ian Du Quesnay and Tony Woodmany. "A Companion to Catullus" edited by Marilyn B. Skinner "The Poems of Catullus: A Bilingual Edition" translated and commented by Peter Green. "Catullus and the Traditions of Ancient Poetry" by Arthur Leslie Wheeler “The Art of Catullus 64.” by Michael C. J. Putnam "A Commentary on Catullus" by Robinson Ellis ### The Philosopher-King Who Never Came: How Rome Succeeded Where Plato Failed URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-philosopher-king-who-never-came-how-rome-succeeded-where-plato-failed/ Last updated: 2026-06-16T19:46:09.000Z Rome, meanwhile, built one of the most durable political systems in history. Its founders were not philosophers—or so the tradition holds. A caveat is necessary here: the *"seven kings"* of Rome are not straightforwardly historical figures. ## No Philosophers Needed: A Contextual Background [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/), writing in the age of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) some seven centuries after the events he describes, was composing a founding narrative as much as a chronicle. [Romulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-and-remus-the-legendary-founders-of-rome/) killing his brother, Numa consulting a nymph, Tarquinius Superbus as the ur-tyrant: these are literary and ideological constructions, shaped by later Roman self-understanding. Modern historians, from T. P. Wiseman to Tim Cornell, treat the regal period with considerable skepticism. This essay uses the tradition as Livy intended it—as a mirror of Roman political values, not a transcript of Roman political events. What that tradition consistently reveals is significant regardless of its literal truth: [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)'s foundational stories locate political achievement not in the wisdom of individual rulers, but in the structures they leave behind. Yet those structures did not eliminate the problem Plato identified—they managed it. The Roman system depended on *mos maiorum*—an unwritten normative tradition encompassing ancestral custom, precedent, and obligation, which no statute could fully capture or enforce. When that tradition eroded, the institutions it had animated proved insufficient. The late Republic did not collapse for lack of structure, but for lack of restraint among those who operated within it. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)'s eventual faltering demonstrates that institutions can delay—but not eliminate—the need for something like civic virtue. ## The Philosopher Who Failed: An Introduction In 367 BCE, Plato sailed to [Syracuse](https://romanempiretimes.com/augustus-secret-syracuse-the-mystery-of-the-emperors-private-room/). He had been invited by Dionysius II, a young tyrant who seemed eager to learn. Plato saw an opportunity: here was a ruler he could mold into the philosopher-king he had described in his *Republic*—a ruler who would govern by wisdom rather than appetite, justice rather than whim. ![The "Ear of Dionysius" (Orecchio di Dionisio) in Syracuse / Sicily](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Sicily-Siracusa-Ear-of-Dionysius--1--1.jpg) The "Ear of Dionysius" (Orecchio di Dionisio) in Syracuse / Sicily. Credits: Casual,CC BY-SA 4.0 It did not go well. Dionysius's courtiers accused Plato of plotting against the tyrant. He was exiled. On the voyage home, his ship was captured by pirates. Plato was sold into slavery in Aegina, and ransomed by Anniceris of Cyrene—a name worth remembering for the irony it carries: the great theorist of the ideal state saved not by a philosopher-king, but by the generosity of a practical stranger. He returned to Syracuse twice more, hoping to salvage something from the wreckage. Each time, the same pattern: hope, intrigue, exile. Dionysius could not—or would not—become a philosopher. There was one figure in Syracuse who might have answered Plato’s hopes: Dion, the tyrant’s brother-in-law, a man of genuine philosophical seriousness who had studied at the Academy and shared Plato’s conviction that rule should be grounded in wisdom. [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/)’s account of Dion’s life reads as a sustained demonstration of why this conviction was fatal in practice. Dion eventually seized power in Syracuse—only to be assassinated by his own allies, his philosophical commitments no protection against the appetites of the men around him. The would-be philosopher-ruler did not fail for want of philosophy. He failed because philosophy was not enough. In his *Seventh Letter*, Plato wrote of these journeys with bitterness and something close to embarrassment. He had gone to Syracuse full of hope, believing he could create a just city by shaping a just ruler. He left having demonstrated the opposite: that the gap between philosophical understanding and political power was not a problem of circumstance but of kind. The man who could rule well by wisdom alone did not appear to exist. This failure has led many to dismiss the philosopher-king as a beautiful but useless fantasy. And yet Plato's underlying question—whether governance can ever be grounded in genuine knowledge rather than appetite, faction, and accident—has not gone away. What changes across history is not the question but the proposed answers. This essay turns from Plato's failed answer to a different one: not the rule of the wise, but the construction of something that makes individual wisdom less necessary. ## Plato's Utopia: Wisdom as the Precondition of Justice In Book V of the *Republic*, Plato makes his case through Socrates: > *"Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one… cities will never have rest from their evils—no, nor the human race, as I believe."* Plato's claim is often dismissed as utopian, but this risks understating its force. The philosopher-king is not merely a proposal but a diagnosis: that without genuine knowledge of the good, political power will tend to drift toward appetite, faction, and instability. The apparent impossibility of his solution may be the point—not that philosophers will rule, but that without them, something essential is always missing. Every political system, on this reading, is permanently incomplete. The best it can do is manage the consequences of that incompleteness. Read this way, the *Republic* is less a political blueprint than a challenge. It forces a difficult question: if those who know should rule, but those who rule rarely know, what follows for any real political system? Plato believed that until wisdom and power meet in the same person, cities will never know peace—not just [Athens](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrian-gate-in-downtown-athens-below-acropolis-a-gateway-to-history/) or [Sparta](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spartan-who-saved-carthage-and-broke-a-roman-invasion/), but all cities, and indeed the human race itself. Plato himself admitted this was deeply unrealistic, and he spent much of his life trying to prove otherwise. He failed. Alongside the philosopher-king, the *Republic* introduces another device that reveals how seriously Plato took the problem of political cohesion. In Book III, Socrates describes what he calls an *"audacious fiction"*—a founding myth to be told to the citizens of the ideal state. Rulers, soldiers, and people alike would be told that their upbringing and education were a dream; that in reality they had been formed inside the earth itself, which was their true mother, and that their fellow citizens were their brothers and sisters by nature. ![ Marble bust of the Greek philosopher Plato. Roman copy (1st century CE) of an original (350-340 BCE). Altes Museum, Berlin, Germany. The original was a bronze statue in Plato's school of philosophy in Athens.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Marble-bust-of-Plato--1--1.jpg) Marble bust of the Greek philosopher Plato. Roman copy (1st century CE) of an original (350-340 BCE). Altes Museum, Berlin, Germany. The original was a bronze statue in Plato's school of philosophy in Athens. Credits: Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP(Glasg),CC BY-SA 4.0 Plato calls this lie audacious because it is bold and shameless. Its purpose is not to deceive for its own sake but to bind. If citizens believe they share the same mother—the earth, the city itself—they will fight for each other, defend the state as family, and accept the hierarchy of roles that reason demands. The content of the myth matters less than its effect: a population that acts as though justice is natural rather than imposed. This is Plato at his most unsettling—the philosopher who insists on truth above all things, designing a foundational falsehood, because he understands that political communities cannot be held together by argument alone. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/), which might seem to stand entirely apart from Plato's mythmaking, turns out to be closer than it first appears. Roman identity was sustained by its own narratives—of divine ancestry, sacred founding, and ancestral virtue. The story of Romulus and Remus, the descent of the Julian line from Aeneas, the sacred rituals of Numa: these were Rome's noble lies, diffuse and embedded in custom rather than declared outright by a philosopher. If Plato's fiction was explicit and engineered, Rome's was organic and inherited. But both served the same function: they made citizens willing to die for something larger than themselves. The distinction between Platonic idealism and Roman pragmatism becomes less absolute here. Rome did not escape the need for myth. It simply never had to announce it. And perhaps that is the stronger version of Plato's insight—a community whose binding stories feel like memory rather than instruction needs no philosopher to maintain them. ## The Roman Alternative: Builders, Not Philosophers If Plato sought to solve the problem of justice through the character of the ruler, the early Romans approached it differently. Their kings did not claim philosophical wisdom, nor did they attempt to rule by it. Instead, they built. Each king contributed something that the next inherited and extended—so that what accumulated over the regal period was not a dynasty or an ideology, but a set of arrangements capable of outlasting any individual who operated within them. What emerged was not the rule of the wise, but the construction of a system that could function in their absence. *As Livy records*, Romulus > *"created one hundred senators… who were called Fathers, and their descendants Patricians"*(*Ab Urbe Condita* 1.8), establishing a council whose authority derived not from philosophical wisdom but from status, lineage, and institutional role. This act is revealing. Romulus does not seek out those uniquely capable of grasping justice in Plato's sense. Instead, he constructs a body that distributes authority across a class of men defined by ancestry and position. [The Senate ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/)is not a collection of the wise, but a mechanism for continuity. Its legitimacy rests not on knowledge of the good, but on recognition, hierarchy, and tradition—and it is designed to absorb, rather than depend on, the quality of any individual judgment. Power distributed is power that survives its holder. This is not a philosophical insight but a practical one, and its practical character is precisely what makes it durable. *As Livy records*, Numa believed that > *"an awe of the gods should be instilled"* in the people, a principle of the greatest efficacy among a > *"multitude ignorant and uncivilized"* (*Ab Urbe Condita* 1.19). Numa does not attempt to cultivate knowledge of the good. He governs by shaping belief—by habits of obedience grounded in religion rather than reason. The stability he creates depends not on wisdom but on the management of collective psychology. ![A Mirror of Roman Magnificence: Romulus and Remus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Romulus-and-Remus--1--1.jpg) A Mirror of Roman Magnificence: Romulus and Remus. Public domain. Citizens who believe behave as reliably as citizens who know, and belief is far easier to produce. The result is a system in which the need for wisdom is reduced—replaced by ritual, authority, and shared conviction. *As Livy records*, Servius Tullius > *"instituted the census, a most salutary measure for an empire destined to become so great, according to which the services of war and peace were to be performed, not by every person indiscriminately, as formerly, but in proportion to the amount of property"* (*Ab Urbe Condita* 1.42). The census's precise function is worth specifying: it was primarily a military-organizational tool, sorting citizens into property classes to determine their obligations for military service and equipment. Its significance as a political instrument was downstream of this—by fixing roles according to measurable wealth rather than personal judgment or aristocratic discretion, it created a systematic basis for civic participation that was legible, repeatable, and independent of any individual's assessment. Political and military obligations were no longer determined by the perceived virtue of individuals, but by a fixed classificatory scheme. Governance became less dependent on the wisdom of rulers or citizens, and more dependent on the design of the system itself. This is Servius's contribution to the Roman alternative: not philosophical insight, but administrative precision. The census did not ask whether a citizen was good. It asked what he owned, and from that derived what he owed. In Plato's framework, this would be a diminishment—justice reduced to arithmetic. In Rome's, it was a foundation: a basis for obligation that was consistent, legible, and immune to the partiality of individual judgment. Where Plato seeks to perfect the ruler, Servius reorganizes the state around the assumption that no ruler needs to be perfect. What unites Romulus, Numa, and Servius is less a shared philosophy than a shared instinct: build outward rather than upward. Each contributed something distinct—structure, belief, classification—and each contribution was designed to function without the next exceptional individual. Plato conceived of the ideal city as something founded whole, the product of a mind that had grasped the Form of the Good. The Roman tradition shows the opposite process: a political order built in layers, each generation inheriting and adding. The Senate, religious observance, the census—none required philosophical genius. All required the willingness to trust arrangement over enlightenment, mechanism over the individual mind. That willingness, repeated across generations, is what [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/)'s political durability actually rested on. It is also what Plato's framework, however intellectually compelling, could never fully accommodate. This is also where Rome's relationship to myth becomes most instructive. Plato's noble lie was a designed fiction—a story told deliberately, with full awareness of its falsity, in service of a higher political truth. Rome's founding myths operated differently. ![Sacrifice scene during a census: Right part of a plaque from the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus known as the “Census frieze”. Marble, Roman artwork of the late 2nd century BC. From the Campo Marzio, Rome.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Altar-Domitius-Ahenobarbus-Louvre--1--1.jpg) Sacrifice scene during a census: Right part of a plaque from the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus known as the “Census frieze”. Marble, Roman artwork of the late 2nd century BC. From the Campo Marzio, Rome. Public domain. No Roman magistrate sat down and invented the story of Aeneas or the divine birth of Romulus. These stories grew and were refined over generations, shaped by the needs of the community rather than the calculations of a philosopher. Yet their political function was identical: to make citizens feel that they belonged to something sacred, something worth preserving at personal cost. Plato theorized the necessity of such myths; Rome demonstrated their power without ever theorizing them at all. ## Cicero: From Philosophy to Practice As [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) argues, > *"the efficacy of all virtue consists in its use. Its greatest end is the government of states, and the perfection not in words but in deeds, of those very things which are taught in the schools"* > (*De Re Publica*, Book II) Virtue, for Cicero, is not fulfilled in contemplation but in application. The highest expression of moral and intellectual excellence is not the philosopher's understanding of justice, but the statesman's ability to enact it. Philosophy does not govern—it instructs. This is a quieter but more consequential departure from Plato than it first appears. Plato's philosopher-king must understand justice before he can create it. Cicero's statesman operates within a system already in motion, asking not what justice requires in the abstract but what the existing order can be made to sustain. *As Cicero argues*, the best political order is one > *"formed by a combination of monarchy, aristocracy, and popular rule"*(*De Re Publica*, Book II). The strength of the state lies not in perfection but in balance—in the interaction of distinct elements, each limiting the excesses of the others. Authority is distributed; stability comes from the equilibrium of competing forces rather than the wisdom of any single mind. It is worth noting that Cicero was building on a framework already articulated by [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/), the Greek historian who had observed the Roman Republic at its height and argued in his *Histories* that Rome’s exceptional durability was a direct consequence of its mixed constitution—consuls supplying monarchical energy, the Senate supplying aristocratic deliberation, and the assemblies supplying popular accountability. For Polybius, the balance was not an accident of history but the explanation of Roman success. Cicero inherited and Romanized this analysis; what is original in his account is the claim that this balance was not designed at all, but accumulated. *As Cicero observes*, the Roman state > *"was not formed by the genius of one man, but of many; nor in the lifetime of one man, but through several generations and ages"* (*De Re Publica*, Book II). Its political order emerges not from design but from development—from decisions, practices, and adjustments accumulated over time. What matters is not whether any individual fully understands justice, but whether the system, taken as a whole, can sustain it. ![A fresco by Cesare Maccari depicting Roman senator Cicero denouncing Catiline's conspiracy to overthrow the Republic in the Roman senate.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Cicero-Denounces-Catiline-in-the-Roman-Senate-by-Cesare-Maccari--1--1.jpg) A fresco by Cesare Maccari depicting Roman senator Cicero denouncing Catiline's conspiracy to overthrow the Republic in the Roman senate. Public domain. Cicero does not resolve the tension between wisdom and power; he relocates it. Where Plato begins with knowledge and seeks to build a state from it, Cicero begins with the state and asks how knowledge might serve it. The philosopher-king gives way to something more modest: a political order in which the success of philosophy is measured not by its truth alone, but by its capacity to sustain civic life across generations. This is a less heroic vision than Plato's. It is also the one that actually worked—not because it was wiser, but because it asked less of the individuals within it and more of the system that contained them. ## What This Means for Today Plato’s philosopher-king has modern heirs, and they are not always who we expect. The obvious cases—the revolutionary vanguard suspending elections, the authoritarian governing by decree—are easy to dismiss. More instructive is the subtler version: the constitutional court. Courts of this kind occupy a peculiar position in modern constitutional orders. They are explicitly insulated from popular will—appointed rather than elected, tenured rather than accountable—on the premise that the interpretation of foundational law requires a form of knowledge that democratic majorities cannot reliably supply. This is Platonism in institutional dress: the claim that certain questions of governance belong to those who understand, not to those who merely vote. The logic is not without force. Constitutional principles are meant to constrain majorities, and a court that simply ratified whatever a majority wanted would be no constraint at all. But the same logic that justifies judicial review can, if left unchecked, justify its expansion without limit. When a court moves from interpreting the constitution to effectively rewriting it—deciding not what the law means but what it should mean—it has ceased to function as a constraint on power and begun to function as a source of it. The structure that was designed to limit the philosopher-king has quietly produced one. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-story-rome-wanted-to-hear/)’s counter-argument is not that expertise is worthless. It is that expertise concentrated in an insulated body, trusted to know better than the system around it, is a system waiting to fail. The Roman Senate was not composed of wise men—it was composed of men whose ambitions were structured, whose decisions were precedented, and whose power was constrained by colleagues with rival interests. This is unglamorous. It is also more durable than any arrangement that concentrates authority in a single exceptional figure—or a body that functions as one. When Madison argued in Federalist No. 51 that the Constitution must govern men as they are—that ambition must counteract ambition—he was articulating something Rome had practiced without theorizing. The separation of powers is not an expression of optimism about human nature but of pessimism about it, translated into architecture. And yet Madison's republic, like Rome's, depends on more than architecture. Its institutions have survived considerable stress, but that stress has also revealed where formal rules give way to informal norms—where the system's functioning requires political actors to treat constraints as binding even when they are technically circumventable. This is the Roman problem restated. Institutions are not self-sustaining. They require a political culture that takes them seriously, and that culture cannot itself be legislated. Neither Rome nor any modern democracy has fully solved this. What kind of citizens does a republic require, and how does it form them? That remains the open question—the one Plato asked first, and which outlasts every institutional answer. Plato believed that justice required a philosopher-king—a ruler of perfect wisdom who would govern by knowledge rather than appetite. He spent his life searching for such a figure, convinced that without the union of wisdom and power, political life would remain disordered. He never found one. Rome, by contrast, built one of the most durable political systems in history. Its founders were not philosophers. They were warriors, priests, builders, and at times tyrants. Yet what they lacked in wisdom they compensated for in construction—institutions that did not depend on the excellence of any single ruler and that outlasted their creators. The Senate was not a body of wise men. The census was not a philosophical instrument. But together, accumulated across generations, they produced a political order capable of absorbing individual failure on a scale that Plato's ideal could not contemplate. Plato placed his hopes in a single enlightened mind. Rome dispersed that burden across a system. Where Plato sought to align power with truth, Numa aligned it with belief. Where Plato waited for the perfect ruler, Cicero trusted the imperfect citizen and the accumulated weight of tradition. And where Plato engineered a noble lie to bind his ideal city, Rome inherited its myths organically—finding that stories, whether declared or simply lived, were indispensable to any lasting political order. Rome itself eventually faltered. Its institutions could not withstand the erosion of the normative tradition that had animated them. The lesson is not that Rome succeeded where Plato failed in any final sense—but that Rome lasted longer by refusing to wait for perfection. It built for the imperfect. It endured because of that choice, and fell because no institution can substitute indefinitely for the civic character of those who inhabit it. Plato asked who should rule. Rome answered: no one alone. That answer worked—not perfectly, but far longer than any philosopher-king ever did. The more urgent question is what we build in his absence. ## Bibliography 🏛️ ****Primary Sources** Cicero. *De Re Publica*. Translated by Clinton Walker Keyes. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928\. Livy. **Ab Urbe Condita*. Translated by Benjamin Oliver Foster. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919\. Plato. **Republic*. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Project Gutenberg. Plato. **Seventh Letter*. Translated by R. G. Bury. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929\. Plutarch. **Life of Dion.* In **Plutarch's Lives,* Vol. 6\. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1918\. Polybius. **The Histories*, Vol. 3 (Book VI). Translated by W. R. Paton. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1923\. ****Secondary Sources** Arena, Valentina. **Libertas and the Practice of Politics in the Late Roman Republic*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012\. Beard, Mary. **SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome*. New York: Liveright Publishing, 2015\. Cornell, Tim. **The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 BC)*. London: Routledge, 1995\. Forsythe, Gary. **A Critical History of Early Rome: From Prehistory to the First Punic War*. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005\. Morrison, J. S. **"The Origins of Plato's Philosopher Statesman." The Classical Quarterly* 8, no. 3-4 (1958): 198–218\. Stacey, Peter. **Roman Monarchy and the Renaissance Prince.* Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007\. Wiseman, T. P. Remus: **A Roman Myth.* Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. ### What Made the Ancient Romans Laugh? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/what-made-the-ancient-romans-laugh/ Last updated: 2026-06-14T12:48:03.000Z A Roman could laugh at an emperor, a general, a philosopher, a god, a sexual mishap, a grotesque body, or even a public execution. But Roman laughter did not always mean amusement, and it did not always feel harmless. It could flatter, humiliate, protect, threaten, reverse social roles, or expose the person who laughed. What survives is not one simple Roman sense of humor, but a series of scenes in which laughter was shaped by power, status, ritual, performance, and the expectations of the audience. ### Roman Laughter: Easy to Recognize, Difficult to Explain. A senator trying to hide his laughter in front of a threatening [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/). A comic parasite laughing at a [soldier](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/)’s joke. Soldiers mocking their commander during a triumph. [Tavern](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-tavern-inn-wine-bar-the-hospitality-business-of-an-ancient-roman-city/) paintings turning philosophers into advisers on bodily functions. Phallic images placed at thresholds to ward off danger. Mythological punishments staged in the [arena](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/) as grotesque spectacle. Images of [gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/), bodies, sex, [status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/), and deformity presented in ways that could make ancient viewers laugh, even when the joke no longer feels clear. The difficulty is not that Romans lacked humor. The difficulty is that laughter belonged to its own social world. It depended on setting, status, language, gesture, body, audience, power, and expectation. A joke that worked in a Roman court, tavern, [bath](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), [dinner](https://romanempiretimes.com/convivium-how-the-romans-turned-dinner-into-a-display-of-power/) party, [theater](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-epic-roman-theater-of-philadelphia-amman/), street procession, or amphitheater might not survive translation into modern taste. Even when the scene can be reconstructed, the laughter may remain unstable. It could involve mockery, fear, pleasure, flattery, social bonding, ritual protection, habit, performance, or more than one of these at once. The surviving evidence is also uneven. Most written evidence for Roman laughter comes through elite male authors. The laughter of [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/), [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/), [the poor](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/), and rural communities is much harder to recover except through descriptions written by others. Visual culture widens the evidence, but it also brings its own problems. An image could be comic in one setting, protective in another, obscene in a third, or legible only to viewers trained in Roman habits of seeing. To ask what made Romans laugh is therefore not only to collect ancient jokes. It is to look at the settings where laughter appeared and the roles it could play there – in politics, ritual, theater, art, sex, spectacle, and everyday social life. ### Laughter Under the Emperor’s Eye One of the sharpest surviving images of Roman laughter comes from the [Colosseum](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-romans-flood-the-colosseum-for-naval-battles-in-the-arena/) in 192 CE. The emperor [Commodus](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-commodus-truly-the-megalomaniac-gladiator-emperor/) was presiding over spectacles in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/). He had been appearing in the arena as hunter, [gladiator](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/), and godlike performer. Senators sat in the front rows, close enough to see the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/)’s displays clearly and close enough to be exposed to danger. At one point, Commodus killed an ostrich, cut off its head, and approached the senators with the head in one hand and a bloody sword in the other. Without speaking, he grinned and shook his own head, making clear what he could do to them. ![Emperor Commodus kills a leopard with an arrow ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Commodus-killing-a-tiger--1--1.jpg) Emperor Commodus kills a leopard with an arrow. Public domain. [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/), who was present, later described how laughter seized the senators. It was not a safe laugh. He claimed that many would have been killed if he had not taken laurel leaves from his garland and chewed them, encouraging others nearby to do the same, so the movement of their mouths would hide the fact that they were laughing. The scene resists a simple reading. It could look like a moment of senatorial contempt, a laugh at the absurdity of an emperor posturing with an ostrich head. It could also have been laughter produced by terror, by the pressure of watching something ridiculous and deadly at the same time. The emperor’s own facial performance complicates the scene further. His grin was not friendly. It was part of the threat. Another story connects laughter with political danger in a different setting. Roman envoys arrived at Tarentum in southern Italy in formal dress. The Tarentines laughed at them, and one man fouled the clothing of the chief envoy. The Roman answer turned laughter into warning: laugh while you can, because soon those clothes will be washed clean with blood. What began as mockery became a sign of the punishment to come. Roman laughter could move in more than one direction. It could meet power with ridicule, but power could also command laughter. [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-caligula-mad-or-just-sick/) was said to have forced a man to dine with him and laugh after the man had watched the execution of his own son. In that setting, laughter was not release. It was obedience performed under threat. Around emperors, laughter could be a weapon, a disguise, a test, or a danger. It could expose weakness or conceal it. It could make power look ridiculous, but it could also show how much power could demand. ### The Problem of Getting the Joke Roman laughter often reaches us through texts, but texts rarely preserve everything needed to understand a joke. The words matter, but so do gesture, voice, timing, social setting, audience, and status. A joke told in a courtroom, theater, dinner party, or triumphal procession did not function as a line of text on a page. It belonged to a performance. The body and position of the speaker helped create the laugh. Roman comedy gives a useful example. In Terence’s “Eunuch”, a parasite named Gnatho laughs twice with the scripted sound “hahahae”. The laughter is explicit, but its meaning is not simple. He laughs in the presence of Thraso, a boastful soldier, whose joke about a young Rhodian depends on a play between the hare as delicacy and the erotic setting of a dinner party. The joke is difficult to translate because its force depends on associations that do not move easily into modern language. ![Scene from Eunuchus (The Eunuch), comedy by the Roman playwright Terence](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Scene-from-Eunuchus--The-Eunuch---comedy-by-the-Roman-playwright-Terence--2--1.jpg) Scene from Eunuchus (The Eunuch), comedy by the Roman playwright Terence. Public domain. Yet the humor may not lie only in the joke. Gnatho is a parasite, dependent on the soldier’s favour and [food](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/). His laughter may be flattery, a practiced response designed to please a patron. When Thraso asks why he is laughing, the question exposes the problem. Is the laugh spontaneous? Is it forced? Is it sincere? Is it mocking? Is it laughter at the joke, at the teller, or at the whole situation? The second “hahahae” deepens the ambiguity. Gnatho claims he is laughing at Thraso’s latest remark and also at the earlier Rhodian joke, but another character has just made a sharper quip at Thraso’s expense. The audience must work out what Gnatho is really laughing at and why. The scene shows how Roman laughter could become a subject of comedy in itself. The audience was not only invited to laugh at jokes. It was invited to watch laughter being used, faked, redirected, and interpreted. The laughter, and the uncertainty around it, became part of the joke. A laugh could be misread. It could flatter or insult. It could include or exclude. It could be real, performed, or both. In Roman comedy, laughter did not always reveal a simple emotion. It could become part of the social action of the scene. ### Laughter as Public Attack In Roman public life, laughter could be a tool of attack. The courtroom, [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/), and public assembly all provided settings where elite speakers used wit against opponents. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)’s reputation in antiquity was strongly tied to his ability to make audiences laugh. His jokes could be admired, repeated, criticized, and collected. They were part of his public persona. Roman rhetorical teaching treated laughter as useful but risky. A well-timed joke could discredit an opponent, relax the audience, strengthen the speaker’s position, and make a charge memorable. But the wrong joke could damage the speaker. It could seem cruel, excessive, undignified, or badly aimed. Much of this public laughter was aggressive. It could target physical appearance, bodily peculiarities, sexual reputation, social origin, names, voice, dress, gait, illness, or perceived moral failure. Cicero’s attack on Vatinius, for example, mocked his [physical appearance](https://romanempiretimes.com/if-you-were-overweight-in-ancient-rome-you-were-judged/) in ways that connected bodily difference with moral and political criticism. The audience’s laughter helped mark the target as ridiculous or disreputable. This kind of humor worked within a culture that could treat the body as a sign of character. A body made laughable in public speech was not simply a neutral physical form. It could be turned into evidence within a moral or political attack. But public laughter was not risk-free for the person making the joke. A speaker could misjudge the audience. A sharp line could cross a boundary. The person who made others laugh could become vulnerable to laughter in return. Roman discussions of joking repeatedly return to the relation between the joker, the target, and the audience. A joke needed someone to make it, someone or something to be laughed at, and someone to laugh. In Roman public culture, the balance among those three could determine whether laughter strengthened authority or undermined it. ### When Soldiers Mocked Their General Some forms of Roman laughter were built into public ritual. The triumph, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/)’s great procession for a victorious general, turned the city into a stage. Spoils, captives, soldiers, images, and the general himself moved through [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/some-of-rome-worst-rulers-nobody-talks-about/). The triumphator appeared in a charged, elevated role, associated with Jupiter for the day. Yet at the same time, soldiers could sing obscene and mocking songs about him. These songs could lower the triumphator at the moment of his greatest public elevation. In [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/)’s triumph, soldiers mocked his baldness, his sexual reputation, and his alleged relationship with King Nicomedes. The crowd could join in the joking, turning the triumph into a temporary arena of public exchange. The powerful man was mocked in front of the people, and his response to the mockery formed part of the performance. The [Saturnalia](https://romanempiretimes.com/saturnalia-roman-festival-inspired-spirit-christmas/) worked through a related but broader reversal. During the festival, normal rules were loosened. Slaves could speak more freely. Masters might serve slaves or tolerate insolence. Informal clothing replaced the [toga](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-toga-to-today-how-ancient-rome-still-echoes-through-modern-culture/). A mock king could preside over merriment. The social order was not permanently overturned, but it could be temporarily inverted through laughter, license, and performance. The [Floralia](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-lemuria-to-halloween-romes-ancient-festival-of-spirits/) also played with reversal. Its spectacles included comic and erotic elements that set it apart from more solemn [games](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-greek-glory-to-roman-spectacle-the-olympic-games-evolution/). Animals performed tricks rather than being killed in serious hunts. Beans and chickpeas could be thrown instead of costly gifts. Prostitutes appeared on stage and danced, turning marginal figures into the center of a religiously framed spectacle. ![Prosper Piatti and workshop Floralia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Floralia--1--1.jpg) Prosper Piatti and workshop Floralia. Public domain. In these settings, laughter did not necessarily erase hierarchy. It could temporarily loosen it, display it, and allow it to return. The joke depended on the rules remaining visible even while they were being crossed. ### Laughing With the Eye Roman humor was not only spoken or written. It was also visual. Wall paintings, [mosaics,](https://romanempiretimes.com/asarotos-oikos-mosaic-unswept-floor-roman-elite/) ceramics, lamps, sculpture, [graffiti](https://romanempiretimes.com/whispers-on-the-walls-graffiti-as-a-voice-of-ancient-rome/), theatrical imagery, tavern scenes, and domestic decoration could all produce comic effects. Some images relied on recognition: the viewer had to know a myth, theatrical mask, social type, obscene convention, or everyday practice. Others worked through surprise, exaggeration, bodily distortion, parody, or double-take illusion. Roman visual humor is often difficult for modern viewers because the “joke” depended on ancient habits of seeing. The image did not stand alone. Its meaning changed according to where it was placed, who paid for it, who saw it, and what social world the viewer brought to the scene. A humorous image in a tavern did not address the same audience as a mythological parody in an [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) house. A phallic figure at a threshold did not work in the same way as a sexual painting in a bath or a lamp with a comic erotic scene. The built environment mattered. The status of the viewer mattered. The moment of viewing mattered. This visual evidence widens the picture beyond elite texts. Literary sources were written mainly by and for elite men. Visual material can reveal other settings of laughter: taverns, baths, [streets](https://romanempiretimes.com/beneath-the-streets-of-rome-senator-falcos-riveting-quest-for-the-lost-emblem/), houses, workshops, and objects of ordinary use. It can show what patrons wanted displayed and what viewers might have been expected to recognize. Roman visual humor could range from sophisticated parody to crude obscenity. It could mock gods, heroes, philosophers, social pretension, bodily functions, sexual behaviour, foreignness, or deformity. It could be playful, protective, socially aggressive, or erotically charged. ### Laughter Against Evil Some Roman laughter was protective. Images now described as apotropaic were meant to ward off evil forces, especially the Evil Eye. These images often used bodies and gestures that Roman viewers could regard as laughable, obscene, misshapen, excessive, or improper. Laughter was not only entertainment. In some visual settings, it could be part of the response to danger. Phallic imagery is central here. The exaggerated phallus could appear in mosaics, paintings, bells, amulets, and threshold images. Priapus, Hermaphroditus, dwarfs, hunchbacks, figures represented in ancient visual conventions as Aethiopes or pygmies, and other bodies marked as visually unbecoming could appear in places understood as dangerous or liminal, such as entrances and baths. The logic was not based on gentleness. Roman viewers could be encouraged to laugh at bodies, gestures, and sexual forms that modern viewers may approach very differently. In Roman visual practice, such figures could be considered effective because they produced laughter or visual shock that helped turn danger away. The House of the Evil Eye at Antioch and bath mosaics discussed in connection with apotropaic imagery show this protective logic. Comic bodies and obscene gestures were not accidental decorations. They belonged to a visual system in which laughter, surprise, obscenity, and bodily distortion could help confront threatening forces. ![Mosaic of the Evil Eye, from Antioch, 2nd century AD, Hatay Archaeology Museum, Antakya, Turkey](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Mosaic-of-the-Evil-Eye--from-Antioch--2nd-century-AD--Hatay-Archaeology-Museum--Antakya--Turkey--1--1.jpg) Mosaic of the Evil Eye, from Antioch, 2nd century AD, Hatay Archaeology Museum, Antakya, Turkey. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 This kind of humor explains why Roman laughter can feel difficult to translate. What functioned as protective or beneficial laughter in one culture can look very different in another. Ancient and modern viewers may not laugh for the same reasons, because the laughter belonged to a Roman network of fears, bodies, beliefs, and visual signs. ### Taverns, Philosophers, and Bathroom Jokes Roman visual humor could also operate in ordinary social spaces. Tavern paintings from [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/) and Ostia show how comic imagery could address non-elite or mixed audiences. Such scenes could depict drinking, gaming, quarrels, service, flirtation, and everyday misbehaviour. They sometimes combined speech captions with images, allowing the joke to depend on both words and bodies. One of the most striking examples comes from the Tavern of the Seven Sages at Ostia. The paintings present famous wise men in a setting connected with defecation, offering sayings about bodily function rather than lofty philosophy. The humor depends on reversal: revered sages are brought down into the world of stomachs, farts, constipation, and latrine advice. The effect is not simply anti-intellectual. It depends on recognizing the dignity normally attached to the Seven Sages and seeing that dignity transferred into a low bodily setting. The joke turns wisdom toward digestion. Philosophy is not denied; it is made comic through bodily descent. Such images show how elite culture, philosophical authority, and literary prestige could be reworked for viewers in taverns and public or semi-public places. The body, especially the lower body, became a means of comic reversal. High subjects could be brought low. Wise men could speak about bowels. Gods could become sexual fools. Heroes could be parodied. Generals could be mocked. Emperors could become ridiculous. In many Roman comic settings, humor could move between status and body, dignity and exposure. ### Gods, Heroes, and Parody Roman viewers could also laugh at gods and heroes. Mythological painting was not always solemn. Some images turned famous divine or heroic stories into parody. The viewer’s knowledge of the expected myth helped create the comic effect when the image distorted, lowered, or sexualized it. Gods could be shown in adulterous, foolish, exposed, or ridiculous situations. Heroes and foundation myths could be transformed by visual jokes. Priapus and Hermaphroditus could be both funny and protective. Sexual myth could become comic when divine bodies, desire, surprise, or revelation crossed expected boundaries. ![The nymph Salmacis and Hermaphroditus, François-Joseph Navez, 1829, Royal Museum of Fine Arts Ghent, 1829](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/The-nymph-Salmacis-and-Hermaphroditus--Fran--ois-Joseph-Navez--1829--Royal-Museum-of-Fine-Arts-Ghent--1--1-1.jpg) The nymph Salmacis and Hermaphroditus, François-Joseph Navez, 1829, Royal Museum of Fine Arts Ghent, 1829\. Public domain. This kind of parody appeared not only in low or popular settings. Elite houses at [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-tavern-inn-wine-bar-the-hospitality-business-of-an-ancient-roman-city/) could contain learned visual jokes that depended on sophisticated recognition. The viewer had to know the myth, the artistic convention, and the prestige of the original theme in order to appreciate the comic transformation. Parody did not necessarily destroy the value of mythological culture. It could display familiarity with it. A patron who commissioned such imagery was not rejecting elite visual culture, but playing with it. Humor could become a way of showing cultural competence. The same world that admired heroic and divine images could also laugh at them. Roman visual culture did not keep reverence and mockery in separate compartments. The gods, heroes, and foundational stories of myth could be solemn in one context and comic in another. ### Laughter, Sex, and the Rules of the Body Sexual humor in Roman art depended on rules. Modern popular images of Rome often exaggerate Roman sexual freedom. The visual material shows a more complicated pattern. Many erotic images are not comic at all. They present idealized couples and positive sexual enjoyment, often in domestic or refined settings. Humor appears when the image breaks rules, crosses boundaries, or stages acts marked as improper, excessive, ridiculous, or taboo. Roman sexual rules were strongly shaped by status, gender, and active or passive roles. Elite male respectability depended on distinctions that do not match modern categories. Comic sexual images could show acts that proper Roman ideology condemned, even while patrons and buyers still enjoyed seeing them represented. This produced a market for sexual humor. Paintings, lamps, and ceramics could display sexual inventions that broke social expectations. Some images may also have served protective functions, especially when placed in settings where laughter against the Evil Eye mattered. Others seem to have been enjoyed simply as comic, outrageous, or transgressive. ![Four images of sex between a female and a male. Applied pottery medallion. Date: 2nd to 3rd Century CE.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Four-images-of-sex-between-a-female-and-a-male.-Applied-pottery-medallion-1.jpg) Four images of sex between a female and a male. Applied pottery medallion. Date: 2nd to 3rd Century CE. Public domain. Gods were frequent figures in sexual humor. Priapus and Hermaphroditus were especially suited to comic and apotropaic representation because their bodies themselves could provoke laughter or surprise. Human sexual folly also appeared in portable objects, including lamps and ceramics that circulated widely beyond Pompeii. The humor does not translate neatly. Some scenes that amused Roman viewers may appear crude, disturbing, or opaque now. But the pattern in the visual material is clear enough: sexual laughter often came from the violation of Roman expectations about body, role, status, and propriety. ### Macabre Laughter in the Arena Some Roman laughter belonged to public violence. Staged punishments could turn myth into deadly spectacle. Condemned criminals might be forced to play mythological roles in the arena. A man could be dressed as Daedalus and dropped with artificial wings. A woman could be made to play Pasiphae in a sexualized reenactment involving a bull. A criminal cast as Orpheus could appear to charm animals until the scene turned and he was killed by a bear. A Hercules figure could be burned alive in a failed parody of apotheosis. Such spectacles made myth literal, but also grotesquely wrong. The audience knew the story and watched it fail in a fatal way. The condemned person was not a revered performer but a criminal marked for punishment. Humiliation was part of the performance. The comic element came from reversal, exposure, and the transformation of myth into staged death. This material shows how far some Roman laughter can stand from modern expectations of amusement. What could be experienced as entertainment within the arena was also punishment, spectacle, and state violence. The status of the condemned mattered. A person already marked as criminal and infamous could be made into the object of a joke performed with the body itself. The arena did not require laughter and cruelty to remain separate. In some spectacles, the comic effect depended on the mismatch between mythic role and condemned body. ### Animals, Mimicry, and the Edge of the Human Roman laughter also gathered around the boundary between human and animal. Monkeys and apes were often treated as laughable because they seemed close to humans and yet wrong in crucial ways. Ancient medical and philosophical writers used them to think about imitation and bodily resemblance. One explanation of why apes made people laugh focused on caricature: they preserve a likeness to humans in many parts but fail in important ones. Their resemblance is close enough to be recognizable and different enough to be comic. This kind of laughter depends on the unstable border between likeness and difference. The monkey imitates the human. The mime imitates another person. The jester imitates a social type. A body can become funny when it seems to copy something familiar while failing, distorting, or lowering it. ![Psyche in the Garden of Amor, illustration of Apuleius Metamorphoses c. 24. Manuscript Vat. Lat. 2194 in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana in Rome.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Apuleius-Metamorphoses--1--1.jpg) Psyche in the Garden of Amor, illustration of Apuleius Metamorphoses c. 24\. Manuscript Vat. Lat. 2194 in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana in Rome. Public domain. Roman literature also played with the human-animal boundary in more elaborate ways. Apuleius’ *Metamorphoses*, or The Golden Ass, turns a man into a donkey and eventually brings him back to human form through Isis. The novel includes a festival of Laughter, making the comic and the uncanny part of the same narrative world. Laughter at animals, mimics, and transformed bodies therefore opened questions about what counted as human, what counted as imitation, and when resemblance became ridiculous. ### The Roman Joke Book The *Philogelos*, or Laughter Lover, is the only surviving ancient joke book. It is late, probably compiled in the Roman imperial period, and it preserves jokes that often feel strange, repetitive, or surprisingly familiar. Some are about stock figures: the scholastikos, often translated as the egghead or pedant; the miser; the coward; the incompetent doctor; the barber; and men from places that functioned as comic stereotypes. Some jokes have descendants in later joke traditions. Others survive as reminders that a joke can travel while its social force changes. The joke book is important not because it gives direct access to what every Roman found funny, but because it shows how laughter could be organized around types. The stupid intellectual, the tricked professional, the literal-minded fool, the incompetent specialist, and the socially misplaced speaker all become repeatable comic figures. It also shows the difficulty of translating ancient humor. A joke may depend on a pun, social stereotype, local reputation, professional expectation, or stock comic role. When those conditions disappear, the joke becomes flat unless reconstructed. Even then, understanding why it was funny is not the same as laughing at it. The Philogelos keeps Roman laughter close and distant at the same time. Some jokes still work. Some can be explained. Some remain opaque. All of them show that ancient laughter was shaped by habits of speech, type, setting, and expectation. ### Traces of Roman Laughter Roman laughter did not belong to one place or one medium. It appeared in elite oratory and street entertainment, in theater and taverns, in domestic painting and public spectacle, in triumphal songs and dinner parties, in jokes about bodies and in images placed to ward off evil. It could be verbal, visual, ritual, social, sexual, political, or violent. It could flatter a patron, shame an enemy, protect a threshold, mock a general, entertain a tavern, decorate a bath, or turn a myth into parody. It could also be difficult to control. A senator might have to hide his laughter in front of Commodus. A parasite might laugh on command for food. An orator might risk losing authority by joking badly. An emperor might force laughter from someone who had no choice. A viewer might laugh at an image because that was part of the image’s protective power. A crowd might laugh at a condemned person because the spectacle had turned death into performance. The surviving evidence does not make Roman laughter simple. It shows laughter operating in jokes, images, rituals, performances, public spectacles, elite display, ordinary spaces, and bodily humor. Some of it is still recognizable. Some of it can be reconstructed only with care. Some of it remains distant because the assumptions that produced the laugh no longer belong to the viewer’s world. Roman humor was not always funny to modern eyes. But the surviving evidence shows how much Roman laughter could do: mark status, cross boundaries, stage reversals, handle fear, mock bodies, play with myth, and use images as well as words to make laughter happen. 💡 ****Sources Used**: "Laughter in Ancient Rome: On Joking, Tickling, and Cracking Up" by Mary Beard. "Looking at Laughter: Humor, Power, and Transgression in Roman Visual Culture, 100 B.C.–A.D. 250" by John R. Clarke ### The Most Dangerous Place in Rome? Beside the Emperor URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-dangerous-place-in-rome-beside-the-emperor/ Last updated: 2026-06-10T22:38:53.000Z In the Roman Empire, power gathered around one man. That made the people nearest to him unusually influential – and unusually exposed. The emperor was not only a distant figure on coins, statues, military standards, and public monuments. He was the living center of petitions, appointments, letters, hearings, favours, punishments, inheritances, legal rulings, accusations, and careers. Cities could send embassies to him. Governors could consult him. Private individuals could place written petitions before him. Senators needed his favour. Jurists could sit beside him in council. Freedmen and secretaries could manage the flow of letters, requests, and information. Prefects commanded the soldiers stationed closest to his body. To stand near the emperor was to stand near the machinery of [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/). That closeness could bring rank, wealth, honours, military command, social elevation, and influence far beyond ordinary expectation. But it could also turn a person into a target. Near the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-emperor-hadrian-vengeance-modern-palestine-israel/), favour was visible. Influence provoked resentment. Access created suspicion. A whisper could become an accusation. A rival could become an enemy. The guards who protected the palace could also threaten it. Imperial confidence could make a career, but the loss of that confidence could end a life. The imperial court was not a formal constitutional institution like the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/). It had no fixed legal shape, no public rulebook, and no stable membership that made its power easy to define. Yet imperial history cannot be understood without it. Around the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/valens-the-emperor-rome-remembered-through-disaster/) gathered relatives, senators, equestrians, jurists, freedmen, secretaries, guards, prefects, petitioners, envoys, favourites, and rivals. Their world was not merely ceremonial. It was a political space where access to imperial favour was negotiated. It was also a place where everyone watched everyone else. ## The Court Had No Constitution, but It Had Power The Roman court was difficult to define because it was not simply one thing. It was not just the emperor’s family, although wives, mothers, sons, daughters, and relatives could be central to court politics. It was not merely the imperial household, although slaves and freedmen could occupy positions of extraordinary practical importance. It was not the Senate, although senators moved through it and depended on imperial favour. It was not the [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/), although bodyguards and Praetorian prefects made the palace a military space as well as a political one. The court was where these groups overlapped. ![Altes Museum, Berlin. Ancient Roman busts](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Busts-of-Roman-Emperors--1--1.jpg) Altes Museum, Berlin. Ancient Roman busts. Credits: Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP(Glasg), CC BY-SA 4.0 It was the space around the ruler where people sought favour, recognition, office, protection, advancement, and survival. Its power did not need a constitutional title. It operated through presence, access, proximity, recommendation, observation, and exclusion. Public spectacles displayed imperial power before the people. The emperor could be seen at the [games](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-greek-glory-to-roman-spectacle-the-olympic-games-evolution/), in ceremonies, in processions, and in the monumental spaces of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/). But spectacle was not the same as the working center of rule. The court’s deeper function was the concentration and redistribution of power. Around the emperor, office, wealth, judgement, social advancement, and political survival could be pursued. The Palatium was therefore more than a residence. It was the monumental setting of a system that gathered ambition around the ruler. In the Republic, power had been pursued through office, elections, family prestige, patronage, and public competition. Under the [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), competition increasingly turned toward imperial favour. The question was no longer only which aristocratic family held rank, or which nobleman could win office before the people. The question became who could reach the emperor, who could influence those near him, and who could survive the rivalries created by that access. This was why the court was dangerous. ## Seeing, Being Seen, and Hiding Everything The court functioned like a stage, but not a harmless one. People came to be seen by the emperor, or to be seen by those who could reach him. They watched rivals trying to do the same. A greeting could matter. A summons could matter. [A place at dinner ](https://romanempiretimes.com/convivium-how-the-romans-turned-dinner-into-a-display-of-power/)could matter. A sign of exclusion could be read as a warning. A rumour could move faster than an official order. The court was open enough for social life to unfold, but the political process remained partly veiled. Decisions might later appear publicly as appointments, verdicts, letters, edicts, or punishments. Yet the route by which they were shaped could remain hidden inside conversations, recommendations, rivalries, household influence, and private access. Visibility was power, but it was also exposure. Everyone could be seen, and everyone had something to hide. This is why descriptions of court life often linger on faces, gestures, silences, and reactions. The palace was not only a place where decisions happened. It was a place where people displayed loyalty, fear, ambition, grief, caution, and calculation, whether they wished to or not. The death of Britannicus gives one of the clearest images of this world. The setting was not a battlefield or a public execution. It was a dinner. Britannicus sat in the emperor’s presence, surrounded by [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-romes-most-infamous-ruler-part-1/), members of the imperial household, and elite observers. ![ The Death of Britannicus, drawing, Alexandre Denis Abel de Pujol](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/The-Death-of-Britannicus--1--1.jpg) The Death of Britannicus, drawing, Alexandre Denis Abel de Pujol. Public domain. The poison was administered in a way designed to evade the usual precaution of tasting the wine. When Britannicus collapsed, the room itself became part of the event. The account does not focus only on the death. It also records the reactions of those present. Some were frightened and fled. Others, more aware of the danger, remained still and looked toward Nero. [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-rome-most-infamous-ruler-part-2/) reclined as though nothing unusual had happened and claimed that Britannicus had long suffered from such attacks. The most revealing details concern [Agrippina](https://romanempiretimes.com/agrippina-the-younger-the-first-empress-of-rome-in-a-male-dominant-society/) and Octavia. Agrippina tried to suppress her terror, but the effort itself revealed what she understood: Britannicus’ death had removed an important counterweight and warned her of what Nero might do next. Octavia, though still young, had already learned to conceal grief, affection, and every emotion. At such a table, survival depended not merely on innocence, rank, or blood. It depended on self-control. To show fear could be dangerous. To mourn openly could be dangerous. To understand too quickly could be dangerous. Even the face had to be governed. Near the emperor, the body itself became political. ## The Emperor’s Side Was a Working System The people closest to the emperor mattered because imperial rule was intensely personal. The emperor received information and gave answers. He was approached by [cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), provincial communities, officials, associations, and private persons. He heard cases, issued replies, confirmed privileges, dealt with disputes, and gave decisions that could affect [status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/), office, property, [punishment](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/), or favour. The business of government moved toward his person. That made the circle around him more than ceremonial. A ruler who answered petitions needed people who could receive, prepare, draft, advise, organize, and transmit. A ruler who heard cases needed assessors and legal minds. A ruler who travelled needed escorts and attendants. A ruler who controlled appointments and honours needed advisers, secretaries, and trusted intermediaries. A ruler guarded by soldiers needed commanders near him. Imperial power was personal, but it was never solitary. The emperor’s entourage included several different kinds of people. Some were public attendants whose presence linked the imperial age to older republican habits of office. Others came from the emperor’s own household. Some were freedmen who held secretarial or administrative functions. Others were educated men, rhetoricians, jurists, or members of the equestrian and senatorial orders who entered imperial service from outside the household. Friends and advisers stood near the ruler in less easily defined ways. Praetorian prefects held a specific office that placed them beside the emperor through command of the guards. These groups did not all hold the same rank or perform the same work. But they shared one important feature: they stood close to imperial activity. They were near the place where requests were heard, letters sent, petitions answered, information judged, and decisions formed. This created a dangerous middle zone. Power did not lie only in the final decision. It also lay in the route by which a matter reached decision. ## Freedmen and the Uneasy Routes to Power Few groups show the strangeness of court power better than imperial freedmen. Freedmen had existed in [Roman society](https://romanempiretimes.com/inside-roman-society-how-ordinary-life-shaped-an-extraordinary-empire-part-1/) long before the emperors, and wealthy households could depend on them in many ways. But monarchy gave some freedmen a new kind of visibility. A freedman attached to the emperor’s household might stand closer to power than men of far higher birth. This disturbed Roman social expectations because it allowed former [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) to acquire influence, wealth, and status through service to the ruler. ![Giulio Romano. The Emperor Claudius on horseback.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/The-Emperor-Claudius-on-horseback--1--1.jpg) Giulio Romano. The Emperor Claudius on horseback. Public domain. The court of [Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/) became especially associated with powerful freedmen. Narcissus, Pallas, and Callistus appear as men whose influence was striking because it crossed normal expectations of rank. They were not senators from old families. Their importance came from imperial service, household access, and closeness to the channels through which requests, information, and decisions moved. Their power was remembered not simply because they had once been slaves, but because they worked near imperial decisions and the emperor’s relations with his subjects. Their influence was only a small part of the much larger imperial household, which contained many slaves and freedmen serving in palaces, villas, estates, and administrative roles. Yet the few who worked near the emperor attracted disproportionate attention. Their position created tension because it bent conventional Roman hierarchy. A senator might possess ancestry, office, and public dignity, yet still need access through someone of servile origin. A freedman could be socially inferior and politically useful at the same time. That contradiction made him visible and resented. The closer he stood to imperial business, the easier it was for others to see him as an obstruction, broker, favourite, or hidden power. Narcissus was especially associated with decisive action during the crisis of [Messalina](https://romanempiretimes.com/messalina-was-she-really-the-most-dangerous-woman-of-the-roman-empire/). Pallas became linked with Agrippina’s rise and with financial influence. Callistus appears among the influential freedmen of the reign. Such men are often framed as manipulative or overmighty, but their prominence also shows a structural fact about the court: those who stood near the emperor’s business could become politically essential. Their danger followed from the same source. A freedman close to the emperor could be useful while imperial favour lasted. But because his influence offended elite expectations, he was easy to hate and easy to blame. When court alignments shifted, such men had few protections beyond the imperial confidence that had raised them. ## Secretaries, Jurists, and the Work of Decisions The emperor’s work required skilled assistants. Government involved correspondence, petitions, legal cases, hearings, and written decisions. This created a need for men who could manage language, law, documents, and procedure. The emperor’s side therefore attracted secretaries, intellectuals, orators, jurists, and men trained in public communication. Closeness to the emperor was not achieved only through birth, wealth, household service, or military command. It could also come through expertise. Men who were prominent in their native cities, or distinguished in literature and rhetoric, could be drawn toward imperial service. Others came through the equestrian military and civilian career that developed during the first century CE. These routes brought men from Italian and provincial upper classes into contact with the emperor. Law became especially important because jurisdiction formed a major part of imperial activity. The emperor heard cases, gave decisions, answered legal questions, and issued written replies. By the second century, men with legal qualifications became more visible in imperial service. The names of great jurists such as Papinian, Paul, and [Ulpian](https://romanempiretimes.com/ulpian-the-roman-lawyer-who-helped-define-justice/) belong to this world, where legal expertise and imperial government overlapped. Their role should not be imagined as purely bureaucratic. Legal writing in this period also belonged to a broader literary and intellectual culture. Jurists were educated men operating in a world where knowledge of law, custom, language, and precedent could bring them close to imperial power. But this closeness carried risk. The jurist near the emperor did not work in a quiet academic space. He entered the world of imperial decisions, petitions, justice, office, favour, and armed force. To advise the ruler was to stand near conflicts. To participate in judgement was to be connected with outcomes that created winners and losers. To hold office beside the emperor was to become visible to rivals, soldiers, and political enemies. Ulpian’s death gave one of the starkest examples. He was a jurist of exceptional stature and held high office under Severus Alexander. His role placed him near the young emperor and near the attempt to bring order to government. Yet the [Praetorian Guard](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/) turned violently against him. The soldiers killed him despite his position at the center of imperial authority. ![ Praetorians Relief (c. 51–52 AD), from the Arch of Claudius](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Relief-of-the-Praetorians--1--1.jpg) Praetorians Relief (c. 51–52 AD), from the Arch of Claudius. Credits: Christophe Jacquand, CC BY-SA 4.0 The significance of the episode lies in the contrast between law and armed force. Ulpian represented legal knowledge, administration, and imperial counsel. The Praetorians represented the soldiers closest to the emperor’s person. When conflict came, law did not protect the lawyer. Near the emperor, the distinction between legal authority and physical force could collapse. ## Friends, Advisers, and the Price of Intimacy Beyond formal posts stood the less easily defined circle of imperial friends and advisers. The emperor could appear before subjects, petitioners, or litigants accompanied by a group of friends and counsellors. These men were expected, at least in principle, to provide advice. Their presence gave the emperor’s decisions a social and political setting. A ruler might be the source of judgement, but he was not imagined as acting without any surrounding council of trusted men. This circle could include people of senatorial or equestrian rank. It could include men with rhetorical, legal, administrative, or military experience. Their status did not always depend on a single office. Some were near the emperor through friendship, trust, experience, or usefulness. Others held formal positions, but their influence came as much from access as from title. Such closeness was delicate. A friend of the emperor might appear honoured, but his standing depended on imperial favour. His position could be difficult to measure from outside, and perhaps even from inside. Those who came before the emperor saw him attended by friends and advisers, yet the exact weight of any one adviser’s voice was not always visible. Influence was real, but often hard to define. This uncertainty mattered. It meant that people seeking favour could look not only to the emperor, but to those around him. A petitioner, envoy, official, or rival might try to understand who had access, who could advise, who could recommend, and who could obstruct. The emperor’s friends became part of the route toward imperial response. The relationship between ruler and adviser could therefore produce both honour and exposure. Advisers were close enough to share in the prestige of imperial decisions. They were also close enough to share in blame when decisions angered others. ## Sejanus and the Danger of Becoming Too Powerful The rise and fall of Sejanus showed how dangerous imperial closeness could become when command, access, honours, and suspicion converged. Sejanus was not emperor. His power came from standing near [Tiberius ](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/)and commanding the Praetorian Guard. That position placed him beside the military force closest to the imperial person. Tiberius’ withdrawal from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) made Sejanus’ role even more visible. He could appear as the man through whom power was reached, feared, and interpreted. His elevation went beyond ordinary favour. He received high honours, and his name could be linked publicly with the emperor’s. He was appointed consul for 31 CE, although he had not passed through the usual senatorial career. The distinction was extraordinary because it placed a Praetorian prefect inside one of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/)’s highest symbols of public honour. This visibility made his position more dangerous. A man who became indispensable near the emperor could also become intolerable. The closer his name came to imperial prestige, the easier it became to see him as something more than a servant of power. His fall was sudden and public. The man who had seemed to stand nearest the center was destroyed by that same center. His case showed a recurring pattern of imperial politics: proximity could lift a man above his formal station, but it could also make his destruction necessary once he appeared too powerful. ![Sejanus is arrested and condemned to death](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Sejanus-is-arrested-and-condemned-to-death-1.jpg) Sejanus is arrested and condemned to death. Public domain. The danger lay not simply in ambition. It lay in visibility. Sejanus became powerful enough for others to fear that he was no longer only serving imperial authority, but sharing or threatening it. ## The Praetorian Prefect: Guardian and Threat No office better reveals the danger of proximity than the Praetorian prefecture. The prefect stood beside the emperor through command of the Praetorian Guard. This gave him a direct connection to the ruler’s security, his entourage, and the soldiers closest to the imperial person. Unlike the undefined friendship of an adviser, the prefecture had a formal basis. But it was still revocable at the emperor’s will, and its power came from proximity as much as from title. The presence of the Praetorian prefect near the emperor could be intimidating. When [Herodes Atticus](https://romanempiretimes.com/herodes-atticus-a-bridge-between-greek-heritage-and-roman-power/) appeared before [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/10-things-you-did-not-know-about-marcus-aurelius/) at Sirmium in the 170s, the prefect Bassaeus Rufus threatened him with death. The episode shows the prefect not as a distant administrator, but as a figure standing near imperial judgement and capable of making the danger of the ruler’s presence immediately felt. The prefecture also developed over time. Later, some of its functions moved beyond the old role of standing at the emperor’s side. But the older connection remained fundamental: the Praetorian prefect belonged to the ruler’s immediate world. He was part of the entourage, but also more than an attendant. He represented armed authority close to the emperor. That made the office powerful and unstable. A man who commanded the guards could protect the emperor. He could also become indispensable, feared, or suspected. His role connected military force with court access. He was near audiences, decisions, and the physical security of the regime. In a system where the emperor’s person was the center of power, the commander of the soldiers nearest that person could not be politically neutral. The prefect’s danger lay in this closeness. His office made him useful, but usefulness beside the emperor could easily turn into vulnerability. If he displeased the ruler, he could be removed. If he became too powerful, he could be feared. If he stood between the emperor and others, he could be hated. If soldiers resented him, the palace itself could become dangerous. The office embodied one of the central patterns of imperial politics: near the emperor, service and threat could become difficult to separate. ## Plautianus and the Fatal Marriage into Power Plautianus, the Praetorian prefect under [Septimius Severus](https://romanempiretimes.com/septimius-severus-founder-fighter-and-father-of-a-new-rome/), shows how proximity could become dangerous even at the highest level of imperial trust. He rose to extraordinary prominence beside Severus. His position as prefect already placed him near the emperor’s person, the guards, and the machinery of power. His influence grew further when his daughter Plautilla was married to [Caracalla](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/). That [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/) tied his family to the imperial house and seemed to give his power dynastic weight. ![Jean-Baptiste Greuze - Septimius Severus and Caracalla ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Jean-Baptiste-Greuze-Septimius-Severus-and-Caracalla--1--1.jpg) Jean-Baptiste Greuze - Septimius Severus and Caracalla. Public domain. But the connection that looked like security also sharpened the danger. Caracalla’s hostility toward Plautilla made the marriage politically unstable. Plautianus was not merely a powerful prefect; he was now a figure whose household had been inserted into the future of the dynasty. A powerful minister might be tolerated. A powerful minister whose daughter was married to the heir could appear threatening. Plautianus was accused of conspiracy and killed. His daughter was exiled and later killed after [Caracalla](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/) became sole ruler. The fall of the family shows the violent instability of power beside the throne. Imperial marriage could elevate a household beyond ordinary rank, but it could also turn that household into a rival to be removed. Plautianus did not fall because he was distant from power. He fell after his power had been drawn into the imperial family itself. ## Women Near the Emperor The danger of closeness did not belong only to men holding office. [Women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) of the imperial household could be central to court politics because dynastic power depended on marriage, birth, legitimacy, [adoption](https://romanempiretimes.com/to-adopt-or-not-to-adopt-rome-took-a-clear-position/), and succession. A mother, wife, sister, or daughter could influence access, patronage, and public perception. She could also become a focus of fear. Agrippina the Younger stood near power through marriage, motherhood, and imperial blood. Her influence under Claudius and in the early reign of Nero shows how women of the imperial house could shape politics without holding ordinary office. She helped secure Nero’s position and stood at the center of succession. Her public prominence, family connections, and maternal authority made her one of the most powerful figures near the throne. But dynastic power could become dangerous once the emperor no longer needed it. Agrippina’s authority helped elevate [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/), but after his accession it also threatened to overshadow him. The same maternal position that had strengthened his legitimacy could later appear as control. The narrative of Nero’s reign presents her isolation as a stage in his movement toward independence. Her allies were removed or weakened. Her access became more restricted. Her presence, once useful, became intolerable. Agrippina’s fate shows that imperial kinship did not guarantee safety. In the court, family closeness could become political danger. A mother could be honoured as the source of legitimacy, then feared as a rival center of authority. Messalina, wife of Claudius, shows another side of the same world. Her story is preserved through scandal, accusation, sexual politics, and court intrigue. However exaggerated some details may be, the political structure beneath them is clear. ![Messalina by Eugène Cyrille Brunet](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Messalina-by-Eug--ne-Cyrille-Brunet--1--1.jpg) Messalina by Eugène Cyrille Brunet. Credits: Credits: User:Ash\_Crow, CC BY-SA 4.0 The emperor’s wife was not merely a domestic figure. Her relationships, allies, enemies, and perceived ambitions mattered because she stood near the emperor’s person and the imperial household. Women near the emperor could be honoured, feared, blamed, or eliminated. Their danger came from dynastic visibility. They were close to the emperor not only in space, but in blood, marriage, and legitimacy. ## Hearings, Petitions, and the Visibility of Power The emperor’s work often took place through hearings and responses. Embassies could appear before him. Cities could send decrees and requests. Individuals could submit written petitions. Legal cases could be heard in his presence. In these settings, the emperor was not merely an image of rule. He was an active point of communication between subjects and power. Hearings involved more than silent receipt of documents. They could include speeches, exchanges, questions, and replies. The emperor might listen with advisers present. In legal cases, consultation with a council is explicitly attested. The form of the procedure could vary according to the emperor’s preferences. Some rulers preferred formal speeches; others dealt with matters separately. Written evidence, oral interrogation, personal judgement, and advice from assessors could all belong to the world of imperial decision-making. Written petitions created another channel. The emperor’s replies to petitions were a regular part of imperial work. Rescripts and other responses could be issued frequently when circumstances allowed, while edicts appear to have been less frequent in ordinary imperial business. The routine activity of the ruler was therefore heavily tied to answering, deciding, corresponding, and responding. This helps explain why access mattered so much. A person did not need to command an army to influence imperial government. A secretary who handled requests, a jurist who advised on law, a friend who spoke at the right moment, a prefect who stood by the emperor, or a freedman who knew the channels of communication could all matter because the emperor’s government depended on these channels. The emperor could not personally gather every fact, prepare every case, draft every answer, hear every petition, manage every audience, or judge every issue without assistance. His power was personal, but its operation depended on a surrounding structure of people. That structure made proximity useful. It also made proximity dangerous. ## The Guards Who Could Kill The final danger near the emperor was the simplest: armed men. The Praetorian Guard was meant to protect the ruler, but its proximity to the imperial person gave it leverage. Guards could defend an emperor, intimidate his enemies, murder him, or force political change. Their role varied across time, but the pattern was clear enough: the men closest to the emperor’s body could become decisive when legitimacy faltered. The murder of Pertinax revealed this danger with brutal clarity. ![Lodovico Pogliaghi - Death of Pertinax. A wretched Batavian, named Tausius, broke the spell by hurling his sword at the emperor.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Lodovico-Pogliaghi-Death-of-Pertinax-1.jpg) Lodovico Pogliaghi - Death of Pertinax. A wretched Batavian, named Tausius, broke the spell by hurling his sword at the emperor. Public domain. Pertinax came to power after [Commodus](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-commodus-truly-the-megalomaniac-gladiator-emperor/) and attempted to restore discipline and order. The Praetorian Guard, however, had its own expectations, especially over money. When those expectations were disappointed, the palace became the site of fatal confrontation. The guards entered the palace and killed the emperor after a reign of only a few months. The men meant to protect the ruler became the force that ended him. Pertinax’s death exposed the fragility of imperial authority when soldiers at the center turned hostile. The emperor could command provinces, armies, governors, and cities in theory, but if the troops inside [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) refused obedience, the immediate danger was physical and direct. After Pertinax was killed, the imperial center became the object of open competition. Didius Julianus gained power in the crisis that followed, remembered as a disgraceful moment when imperial rule was treated as something to be bought from the soldiers. His brief reign showed what happened when the Praetorian Guard’s proximity to power became a political marketplace. Julianus obtained the title, but not real security. The same soldiers who could help create an emperor could not guarantee the loyalty of the empire. Provincial armies moved against him. Support collapsed. He was abandoned and killed. His case shows that standing beside the emperor – or even becoming emperor through those beside him – did not necessarily mean controlling the empire. Palace power could be immediate but unstable. The guards could make a ruler in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/), but armies elsewhere could reject him. The imperial center was powerful, but it was not self-sufficient. ## Macrinus and the Leap from Prefect to Emperor [Macrinus](https://romanempiretimes.com/macrinus-true-story-gladiator-2-power-player-rome-brief-emperor/) carried the danger of proximity further than most. As Praetorian prefect under Caracalla, he stood close to imperial security, information, and military authority. The prefecture placed him near the emperor in a practical sense and near the violence that could surround the imperial person. When Caracalla was murdered in 217 CE, Macrinus emerged as emperor. His rise showed how the office of prefect could become a route to the throne. It also showed how unstable that route could be. Macrinus had not been born into the senatorial imperial aristocracy. His power came from office, proximity, and the military-political crisis created by Caracalla’s death. Once emperor, he faced the difficulty of turning palace opportunity into lasting rule. His reign was short. The same system that allowed a prefect to rise quickly also allowed opposition to gather quickly against him. Macrinus’ career shows the double edge of standing near the emperor. A prefect could be close enough to imperial power to emerge from the death of one ruler as the next. But the leap from powerful servant to emperor did not erase the instability of his position. It made it more visible. ## Why the Emperor Needed Dangerous People The system was dangerous, but it could not function without proximity. The emperor needed people around him because imperial rule required constant mediation. Someone had to receive letters. Someone had to draft replies. Someone had to advise on law. Someone had to command guards. Someone had to arrange audiences. Someone had to manage records, petitions, finances, and appointments. Someone had to tell the emperor what was happening beyond his sight. ![Lionel Royer - Vercingetorix Throwing down His Weapons at the feet of Julius Caesar](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Lionel-Royer---Vercingetorix-Throwing-down-His-Weapons-at-the-feet-of-Julius-Caesar--2--1.jpg) Lionel Royer - Vercingetorix Throwing down His Weapons at the feet of Julius Caesar. Public domain. The emperor could not be everywhere. His statues, inscriptions, and portraits gave him symbolic presence across the empire, but government still required human channels. Provincial cities, governors, [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/), associations, and private individuals all generated requests and information. Those currents moved toward the imperial center, and people near the emperor helped process them. That necessity explains why the same kinds of figures kept appearing: freedmen, secretaries, jurists, prefects, friends, relatives, imperial women, and trusted companions. They were not accidental ornaments of monarchy. They were part of how personal rule worked. But because their authority depended on closeness, favour, and access rather than transparent constitutional office, it remained unstable. A senator could resent a freedman. Soldiers could resent a jurist. A prince could resent his father’s favourite. A mother’s influence could anger an army. A prefect’s command could become indistinguishable from ambition. A useful adviser could be reimagined as a secret ruler. The emperor needed such people, but the system made them suspect. ## The Paradox of Standing Beside Power Roman imperial power created a recurring paradox. The closer a person stood to the emperor, the more powerful he or she could become. Yet that same closeness made the person more visible, more envied, more useful as a scapegoat, and more vulnerable to sudden destruction. The emperor’s side was a place of opportunity. It was also a place of exposure. A freedman could become richer and more influential than men born into old families. A jurist could help shape imperial justice. A prefect could command the soldiers who guarded the ruler. A senator could gain office through favour. A woman of the imperial family could shape succession. A secretary could stand near the flow of decisions. A favourite could rise faster than formal rank alone would allow. But none of these positions was safe. The same court that granted access also created rivals. The same favour that elevated a person also marked that person out. The same proximity that allowed advice also invited blame. In a system where decisions gathered around one man, every person near that man became politically charged. That is why the most dangerous place in Rome was not always the battlefield, the frontier, or the Senate floor. For many of the empire’s most powerful figures, danger waited in the palace, at dinner, in the council, among guards, behind petitions, inside imperial friendship, and beside the emperor himself. Power in Rome did not only flow from the throne. It also burned those standing too close to it. 💡 ****Sources Used** \- “The Roman Imperial Court: Seen and Unseen in the Performance of Power.” by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill \- "**The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC–AD 337)*." by Fergus Millar \- “The Roman Emperor and the Local Communities of the Roman Empire.” by Jonathan Edmondson \- Tacitus, **Annals*. \- Suetonius, **Lives of the Caesars*. \- Cassius Dio, **Roman History*. \- Herodian, **History of the Empire*. \- Historia Augusta, used for Severan material. ## ### Ulpian: The Roman Lawyer Who Helped Define Justice URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/ulpian-the-roman-lawyer-who-helped-define-justice/ Last updated: 2026-06-10T16:13:01.000Z Rome was not held together by armies alone. Behind the legions, governors, courts, contracts, inheritances, punishments, petitions, appeals, freedmen, slaves, and imperial commands stood another force: law. It was less visible than a triumph and less dramatic than a civil war, but it shaped daily life across the Roman world. It decided who could inherit, who could be freed, who could appeal, who could be punished, and how power itself could be translated into procedure. Few men embodied that legal world more fully than Domitius Ulpianus, better known simply as Ulpian. He was not an emperor, a general, or a conqueror. He was a jurist from Tyre, an imperial official, a legal writer of astonishing productivity, and eventually one of the most powerful men in Rome. His life belonged to the [Severan](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-severan-marble-plan/) age, a period of cosmopolitan ambition, military pressure, dynastic violence, and administrative expansion. His death belonged to that same world: he was murdered by the [Praetorian Guard](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/) after rising to the office of praetorian prefect. Yet his afterlife was far greater than his career. When [Justinian](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-plague-of-justinian-when-death-came-to-constantinople/)’s compilers assembled the Digest in the 6th century CE, they drew on Ulpian more than on any other Roman jurist. His words became part of the legal inheritance of later Europe. Through him, Roman [law](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) continued to speak long after the world that produced him had vanished. ### A Lawyer from Tyre Ulpian came from Tyre, the famous Phoenician city on the eastern Mediterranean coast. By his time, Tyre belonged firmly within the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/), but its older civic identity had not disappeared. It was a city of deep antiquity, [Greek ](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-greek-glory-to-roman-spectacle-the-olympic-games-evolution/)culture, Phoenician memory, and Roman [status.](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/) ![Main colonnaded street at Al Mina excavation site. Dating to the 3rd millennium BC, a street paved with Roman and Byzantine mosaics with rows of large columns. Tyre, Sur, Lebanon.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/tyre--1--1.jpg) Main colonnaded street at Al Mina excavation site. Dating to the 3rd millennium BC, a street paved with Roman and Byzantine mosaics with rows of large columns. Tyre, Sur, Lebanon. Credits:Vyacheslav Argenberg, CC BY 4.0 One of the most revealing details about Ulpian is that he himself referred to Tyre as his place of origin. In his work on taxation, he described it as a splendid colony in Phoenician Syria, ancient in the long sequence of its history, strong in arms, and faithful to its treaty with [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/). The Latin phrase *unde mihi origo est* – “from where my origin is” – gives the passage its personal force. This is one of the rare moments when the legal writer seems to step forward as a [man ](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-thought-made-a-man-weak/)with a [city](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), a background, and a local pride. The exact details of his birth, family, and early education are not known. There is no ancient biography of him, no surviving memoir, and no collection of letters. The private Ulpian is mostly hidden. His life has to be reconstructed from legal texts, inscriptions, imperial rescripts, and later historical notices. There is also one fascinating, uncertain glimpse that may belong to his world. A water-pipe found near Santa Marinella, northwest of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/), has been connected by some scholars with a Gnaeus Domitius Annius Ulpianus. If the reconstruction is correct, it may point to a large country house owned by a wealthy man of that name. In the same area, a statue of Meleager was found – a poet and Cynic philosopher associated with the eastern Greek world and with Tyre. The identification is not certain, and the owner may have been another member of a cultivated family from the same region. Still, it gives a vivid sense of the world in which Ulpian may have moved: eastern, Greek, Roman, [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/), literary, and legally powerful. Ulpian’s career unfolded under the Severan dynasty. [Septimius Severus](https://romanempiretimes.com/septimius-severus-founder-fighter-and-father-of-a-new-rome/) came from Lepcis Magna in North Africa; his wife Julia Domna came from Emesa in Syria. This was not the old Italian aristocracy simply reproducing itself. It was an imperial court with African and Syrian dimensions, military foundations, and a strong interest in law and administration. The Severan age was harsh, but also cosmopolitan. The [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) mattered enormously. The [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-stoic-emperor-how-marcus-aurelius-outwitted-death-in-the-germanic-wilds/) judged cases and answered petitions. Lawyers became central to government. The imperial rescript system – by which the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/the-year-of-the-four-emperors/) replied to legal petitions – gave jurists an important role in shaping decisions that affected people and communities across the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-behind-rome-how-society-really-worked/). Ulpian seems to have worked in this legal-administrative environment before he became famous as an author. From about 202 or 203 to 209 CE, he appears to have been connected with the drafting of imperial rescripts under Septimius Severus and [Caracalla](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/). This is important, because his legal imagination was formed close to power. He did not write law only as an academic exercise. He knew how law moved through petitions, replies, offices, governors, litigants, and imperial authority. Then came the crucial transformation of Caracalla’s reign. Septimius Severus died in 211 CE at York, leaving Caracalla and Geta as joint emperors. The arrangement collapsed quickly when [Caracalla had Geta ](https://romanempiretimes.com/brothers-divided-the-tragic-tale-of-emperors-caracalla-and-geta/)murdered. Soon afterward, in 212 CE, Caracalla issued the Antonine Constitution, extending Roman citizenship to almost all free inhabitants of the empire. ![Lawrence Alma-Tadema - Geta and Caracalla 1907](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Caracalla-and-Geta-1.jpg) Lawrence Alma-Tadema - Geta and Caracalla 1907\. Public domain. That decision changed the scale of Roman law. Citizenship, once a prized and limited status, now reached almost the whole free population of the[ empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/empire-size-comparison-how-did-the-roman-empire-compare-to-alexanders-or-the-mongols/). Roman law had to speak to a much wider world. Ulpian’s greatest writings appear to belong to the years after this expansion, when the law of Rome was being restated for a new imperial community. ### The Huge Task of Organizing Roman Law Ulpian’s output was astonishing. His mature genuine or probably genuine works may have amounted to 216 or 217 books, using “book” in the ancient sense of a liber, roughly comparable to a substantial chapter or scroll. His largest works included an 81-book commentary On the Edict, a 51-book work On Sabinus, 20 books on the Julian and Papian law, 10 books of Disputations, 10 books on the office of the proconsul, and many shorter works on appeals, adultery, trusts, taxation, guardianship, public offices, and imperial administration. This was not one neat treatise about [justice](https://romanempiretimes.com/foundations-of-justice-romes-twelve-tables/). It was a vast attempt to organize a legal civilization. Ulpian wrote about the everyday machinery of[ empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/): magistrates, governors, judges, heirs, mothers, [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/), freedmen, [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/), merchants, officials, petitioners, and defendants. His law was practical, but it was not shallow. One of the most interesting features of his work is the possibility that much of it was dictated. His legal prose often has the movement of speech: examples, clarifications, objections, analogies, qualifications, and careful shifts of thought. It can feel like a disciplined legal mind thinking aloud. This helps explain why his writing often has more life than one expects from Roman legal fragments. He does not merely list rules. He tests them. The speed of his production is equally striking. Much of his great legal survey may have been composed between 213 and 217 CE, after Caracalla’s citizenship grant. If that reconstruction is right, Ulpian was working at extraordinary speed, perhaps almost to a plan. The result was a massive exposition of law and public administration for the rulers and citizens of a newly enlarged Roman world. His method was empirical and example-based. He liked to reason from cases. He repeatedly used phrases equivalent to “for instance,” “but what if,” and “unless perhaps,” moving through the consequences of a rule before settling on an answer. This gives his writing a practical human texture. One example concerns a mother who had gained a right of succession to her children. She had to make sure guardians were appointed for them. What if the legal wording mentioned guardians, but the relevant official in a particular case was actually a curator? ![ Brussels: Palais de Justice, grand staircase, southern ascent, flanked by statue of Domitian Ulpianus (aka Ulpian)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Brussels-Palais-de-Justice--grand-staircase--southern-ascent--flanked-by-statue-of-Domitian-Ulpianus--aka-Ulpian---1--1.jpg) Brussels: Palais de Justice, grand staircase, southern ascent, flanked by statue of Domitian Ulpianus (aka Ulpian). Credits: Matthias Nonnenmacher, CC BY 4.0 Ulpian extended the rule to the curator, because the point was the protection of the children. What if the appointed guardians died? Again, the mother had to act, because the purpose of the rule was not merely formal; it was protective. Yet Ulpian was not sentimental. In another case, a wife who [divorced](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/) was forbidden to free slaves shortly before the divorce, because a slave might be freed to prevent torture and conceal adultery. The rule could apply even to field slaves or slaves in another province. Ulpian thought this harsh, since such slaves could hardly know what was happening in the household, but he still deferred to the wording of the law. This balance is part of what makes him interesting. He cared about purpose, equity, and utility, but he did not simply ignore legal language when the result felt hard. Other examples show the same quality. If one person gave money intending it as a gift, while the receiver understood it as a loan, there was no true agreement. Strictly, recovery might seem possible. But if the money had already been spent as the giver intended, recovery would be unfair, and Ulpian allowed a defence. In another case, where strict law blocked a mother from reopening proceedings about inheritance, he allowed a remedy because the earlier judgment had dealt with the revocation of an instrument, not whether it had existed in the first place. Freedom was especially important. Ulpian allowed appeals in criminal cases not only by the condemned person but also by others, even when the condemned person did not want to appeal. He also recognized proceedings for the production of a free person thought to be wrongfully detained – something that, in broad terms, recalls the later idea of *habeas corpus*. These details are where Ulpian becomes more than a name. His greatness is not only in famous definitions, but in thousands of small legal adjustments by which Roman law tried to become workable, rational, and fair within an unequal [society](https://romanempiretimes.com/inside-roman-society-how-ordinary-life-shaped-an-extraordinary-empire-part-2/). ### Freedom, Dignity, and the Human Person Ulpian’s Rome was not a modern world of human rights. It was a slave-owning empire, ruled by emperors, structured by status, and full of inequalities that modern readers cannot ignore. But within that world, his legal thought preserved ideas that later readers could recognize as morally expansive. In his Institutes, he distinguished between *ius naturale, ius gentium, and ius civile.* Natural law referred to what nature itself taught. The law of nations concerned rules common among human peoples. Civil law was the particular law of a community. This distinction mattered sharply in the discussion of slavery. By natural law, all human beings were born free. Slavery entered through the *ius gentium*, the law of nations. Once slavery existed, manumission followed as the legal act by which a [slave](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-zoninus-collar-the-iron-collar-that-spoke-for-the-silenced/) was released from another’s power. This was not abolitionism. Ulpian did not call for the end of slavery, and Roman law continued to regulate slavery as an accepted institution. But the wording created a tension inside Roman legal thought. If all are naturally born free, then slavery is not the deepest truth about the human person. It is a legal condition created by human arrangements. Freedom stands closer to nature. Dignity also mattered. In discussing the legal action for wrongs, Ulpian cited the older jurist Labeo for the view that injuries could be against the body, or could relate to dignity or reputation. To be beaten or defamed was not only material harm. It could be an offence against a person’s standing and personality. ![Except from the 6th-century Littera Florentina manuscript containing Digest 1.5.17 in which Ulpian describes the Constitutio Antoniniana](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Except-from-the-6th-century-Littera-Florentina-manuscript-containing-Digest-1.5.17-in-which-Ulpian-describes-the-Constitutio-Antoniniana--1--1.jpg) Excerpt from the 6th-century Littera Florentina manuscript containing Digest 1.5.17 in which Ulpian describes the Constitutio Antoniniana. Public domain. This did not mean equal dignity in the modern sense. Roman law still recognized degrees of rank and status. Men could be treated as having more dignity than women; married women more than concubines; slaves often less than free people. But the language still matters. It shows law trying to recognize that a person could be harmed not only physically or financially, but also in honour, reputation, and standing. The famous definitions at the beginning of Justinian’s Digest should be handled carefully. The definition of justice as the constant and perpetual will to give each person his due, and the precepts > “to live honourably, not to harm another, and to give each his own,” are traditionally associated with Ulpian. But some works attributed to him are disputed. These lines belong safely to the Ulpianic legal tradition, but they should not be presented too confidently as his secure personal voice. The more secure passage from his Institutes is powerful enough. There, law is connected to Celsus’ phrase > *ius est ars boni et aequi* – law is “the art of the good and the equitable.” Then comes the striking image of jurists as almost priestly figures: > cuius merito quis nos sacerdotes appellet – “for this reason someone may rightly call us priests.” The jurist cultivates justice, professes knowledge of the good and the fair, separates the equitable from the inequitable, and distinguishes the lawful from the unlawful. That is elevated language, but in Ulpian it remained tied to practical life. His law dealt with mothers, children, slaves, shipmasters, debtors, heirs, governors, criminal appeals, public officials, and imperial petitions. His achievement was to give practical law a higher vocabulary: reason, utility, equity, freedom, and dignity. His later influence was immense. Texts from Ulpian take up roughly two-fifths of Justinian’s Digest, and for many topics Justinian’s compilers chose his treatment as the core text. Through the Digest, Roman law entered later legal education and the Western legal tradition. Ulpian’s political life ended violently, but his legal mind survived because later ages found his work indispensable. ("Ulpian: Pioneer of Human Rights." by Tony Honoré) ### Ulpian as an Intellectual in Politics Ulpian can also be approached through the relationship between legal scholarship and power. He was not simply a private thinker. He belonged to a world in which juristic writing and imperial law-making constantly interacted. The Roman emperor did not govern only by issuing grand commands. He judged cases, replied to petitions, issued rescripts, gave decisions, sent instructions, and shaped legal practice through many small acts. Jurists worked inside and around this system. Their writings could reflect imperial decisions, but imperial decisions could also absorb juristic reasoning. This makes Ulpian a particularly important example of an intellectual in politics. His legal style may first be visible in the period when he was connected with the drafting of private rescripts between 203 and 209 CE. His enormous scholarly output then followed in the second decade of the 3rd century. The relationship between imperial legal rulings and private juristic works was therefore not distant. It was part of the same legal culture. His background also complicates any simple description. Ulpian came from the Greek East, but “Greek” alone is too simple. Tyre retained a Phoenician memory and identity, even while functioning within the Roman imperial order. His first language may have been Greek, but his legal education required immense reading in earlier Latin juristic literature. He was a provincial at Rome, but not an outsider to Roman intellectual authority. His public status can be seen in imperial language. In 222 CE, Severus Alexander referred to a reply of Domitius Ulpianus, prefect of the annona, jurist, and “my friend” – *iuris consultus, amicus meus*. By December of the same year, when Ulpian had become praetorian prefect, the emperor referred to him as *parens meus*, meaning something like “my parent” or “my guardian.” These are not casual labels. They suggest a man whose authority was personal, political, and legal at once. ![Portrait of Alexander Severus. Marble, Roman artwork, 222–235 CE.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Alexander-Severus-Musei-Capitolini-MC471--1--1.jpg) Portrait of Alexander Severus. Marble, Roman artwork, 222–235 CE. Public domain. His reputation outlived him.[ Diocletian](https://romanempiretimes.com/diocletian-architect-of-the-roman-empires-renewal/) later referred to a principle established by the highly prudent Domitius Ulpianus in his *Publicae Disputationes*. Lactantius knew material from Ulpian’s *De Officio Proconsulis*. A partially preserved Greek inscription from Ephesus also appears to refer to legal provisions found in that same work on the duties of the proconsul. The works on public offices are especially revealing. Ulpian wrote on the duties of the proconsul, the consul, the urban prefect, the quaestor, and others. These were not merely private-law exercises. They connected law with administration. They tried to define what office-holders could and should do inside the imperial state. There was also a historical and antiquarian side to his legal thinking. In the work on the quaestor, he reached back to early Roman tradition, citing Gracchanus Iunius for the claim that Romulus and Numa each had two quaestors appointed by popular election. This reminds us that Roman legal scholarship could be technical, but also historical and constitutional. The question remains whether Ulpian should be called a philosopher. His Institutes made a serious claim for the status of jurisprudence. Legal study could be presented as true philosophy, not a false imitation. But much of his writing does not resemble philosophical analysis in the style of Plato, Aristotle, or the [Stoics](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/). It is legal reasoning: classificatory, procedural, practical, and professional. That does not diminish him. It may be the very reason he matters. His “philosophy” was not usually expressed as abstract speculation. It appeared in legal categories, public offices, procedures, remedies, distinctions between forms of law, and the attempt to connect imperial power with ordered reasoning. Ulpian therefore belongs among the Roman intellectuals whose thought mattered because it entered public life. He was not simply a philosopher-statesman, but neither was he merely a bureaucrat. He was a legal intellectual whose work moved inside the machinery of government. (“Government and Law: Ulpian, a Philosopher in Politics?” by Fergus Millar, in Philosophy and Power in the Graeco-Roman World, edited by Gillian Clark and Tessa Rajak) ### The Lawyer Who Entered the Danger Zone A third portrait of Ulpian is darker. It places him not first among legal humanists, but among lawyers in government – men whose expertise brought them close to imperial power and therefore close to danger. In earlier Roman history, knowledge of the law had belonged largely to the governing class. [Senators](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) and men of rank could be leading authorities in legal science. Over time, however, the great jurists of the imperial age increasingly became non-senatorial specialists attached to government. Under the [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/), law became more closely tied to centralized rule. The Severan age produced three famous legal names: Papinian, Ulpian, and Paul. Papinian and Ulpian both reached the height of administration. Papinian became praetorian prefect under Septimius Severus and was killed by Caracalla. Ulpian became praetorian prefect under Severus Alexander and also died violently. Paul’s supposed prefecture is much less secure. ![Statue of Aemilius Paulus Papinianus at the entrance to the Palace of Justice in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Aemilius-Paulus-Papinianus--1--1.jpg) Statue of Aemilius Paulus Papinianus at the entrance to the Palace of Justice in Rome. Credits:Rabax63, CC BY 4.0 The appointment of a jurist to command the Praetorian Guard raises an obvious question. What did a lawyer have to do with a powerful city garrison? The prefects had acquired jurisdiction and courts of their own, so legal expertise had some value. But that explanation does not fully solve the problem. A military prefect could consult legal experts without being one. Personal confidence, court politics, loyalty, ambition, and imperial favour mattered too. Under Severus Alexander, who came to power in 222 CE as a boy, real authority depended on imperial [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/), ministers, advisers, and soldiers. Julia Maesa and Julia Mamaea initially held great influence, but the question soon becomes who actually directed government. The attractive image of Ulpian as the wise counsellor of a model young prince owes much to the Historia Augusta, especially the biography of Severus Alexander. But that source is deeply problematic. Its flattering portrait of Alexander and his advisers cannot simply be accepted as sober history. The firmer evidence shows a rapid rise. Ulpian may have been secretary a libellis under Severus Alexander, either while Alexander was still Caesar under [Elagabalus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-divine-chaos-of-elagabalus-romes-most-unconventional-emperor/) or briefly after his accession. By the last day of March 222 CE, Ulpian was *praefectus annonae*, responsible for Rome’s food supply. By the first day of December, he was praetorian prefect. That was an extraordinary ascent. The [food ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/)supply of Rome was already politically sensitive. The praetorian prefecture placed him at the center of imperial power, but also at the center of danger. The first praetorian prefects of Alexander’s reign were Julius Flavianus and Geminius Chrestus. Through the influence of Mamaea, Ulpian was placed above them. Friction followed. A plot was suspected, and both men were put to death. Ulpian became sole commander of the Praetorians. The soldiers resisted him. At one stage, fighting broke out in the streets of Rome and lasted for three days. Eventually, Ulpian himself was murdered by the Praetorians. The most dramatic account has him killed before the eyes of the helpless young emperor. The date of his death is significant. Older tradition placed Ulpian’s death in 228 CE, allowing him several years as the guiding figure of Alexander’s government. But a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus changed the picture. Epagathus, connected with responsibility for Ulpian’s murder, was already prefect of Egypt in May or June 224\. Ulpian’s period at the top therefore has to be cut short. He may have held supreme influence for little more than a year. This darker portrait does not erase his legal importance, but it complicates the man. Ulpian described jurists in elevated terms, almost as priests of justice. Yet his final career moved through court favour, faction, office, rivalry, military resistance, and violence. He may have answered the call of duty; he may also have been driven by ambition. The evidence does not allow a simple moral verdict. What is clear is that his death reveals the limits of legal authority. A jurist could organize law, define justice, and rise to high office. But when the Praetorian Guard turned violent, words and offices could fail. (“Lawyers in Government: The Case of Ulpian.” by Ronald Syme) ### Why Ulpian Still Matters Ulpian is difficult to reduce to a single image, and that is what makes him worth reading. He was a legal mind of extraordinary reach, but also a man of government. He wrote about justice, equity, freedom, dignity, and public office, but he lived in a world of emperors, soldiers, court politics, and lethal ambition. His work preserves the noblest language of Roman legal culture; his death preserves the harsher reality in which that law had to operate. That tension is the story. Ulpian stands at the meeting point of law and power. He shows how Rome tried to make rule intelligible through legal reasoning. He also shows how fragile that effort could be when confronted by imperial violence. His body fell in the Severan palace world. His words did not. Through later Roman legal tradition, they became one of the longest-lived voices of Roman justice. That is why Ulpian deserves his place among the great figures of Roman civilization: not because he made Rome gentle, and not because he imagined a modern world, but because he helped give the ancient world a language for thinking about law, fairness, freedom, dignity, and the human person. ### Did Ovid Change the Greek Medusa Myth Forever? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/did-ovid-change-the-greek-medusa-myth-forever/ Last updated: 2026-06-04T16:48:31.000Z Medusa is one of the most recognizable figures in ancient mythology: snake-haired, deadly-eyed, and so terrifying that one glance could turn the living into stone. Yet the Medusa most modern readers remember is not only a monster. She is also a woman wronged by gods. That second Medusa – the violated woman transformed into a monster – owes much to [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/). He did not invent her. Medusa was already an old figure in [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) myth, [poetry](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/), and art long before the *Metamorphoses*. But Ovid gave her story one of its most influential surviving turns. In earlier Greek poetry, Medusa appears as a Gorgon, born into a family of strange and terrifying beings. In Ovid, she is given a before and after: beauty, violation, punishment, transformation, beheading, and finally use as a weapon. The result is not the replacement of one fixed myth by another. Ancient myth did not work like a single official text. But when the older surviving tradition is placed beside Ovid’s version, the difference is striking. One Medusa is a mortal Gorgon. The other is a woman made monstrous after divine violence. ### Medusa Before Ovid: The Mortal Gorgon In Hesiod’s *Theogony*, Medusa appears inside a vast genealogy of [gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/), sea-beings, and monsters. The poem is not interested in her inner life, her [beauty](https://romanempiretimes.com/beauty-in-ancient-rome/), or her personal tragedy. She belongs to the family line of Phorcys and Ceto, among beings who live at the edges of the human world. Hesiod first names the Graiae, then the Gorgons: > “And again, Ceto bore to Phorcys the fair-cheeked Graiae, grey from their birth… and the Gorgons who dwell beyond glorious Ocean in the frontier land towards Night.” The Gorgons are then named: > “Sthenno, and Euryale, and Medusa who suffered a woeful fate.” Medusa is different from her sisters because she alone is mortal: > “She was mortal, but the two were undying and grew not old.” Poseidon is already part of Medusa’s story in this early account, but the episode is brief and carries none of the later Ovidian framing. Hesiod writes: > “With her lay the Dark-haired One in a soft meadow amid spring flowers.” The “Dark-haired One” is Poseidon. There is no temple of Athena. There is no [punishment](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/) by the goddess. There is no account of Medusa as a beautiful maiden transformed into a monster because of what happened to her. The story moves quickly to Perseus: > “And when Perseus cut off her head, there sprang forth great Chrysaor and the horse Pegasus.” In this older surviving account, Medusa is already a Gorgon. Her death produces new life: Pegasus and Chrysaor emerge from the violence of her beheading. The emphasis is genealogical and mythic. Medusa’s body belongs to the world of monsters, [gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-religion-of-ancient-rome-how-roman-worshipped-their-gods/), and strange births. ![Central panel of a mosaic floor with the head of Medusa, 1st-2nd century AD, National Museum of Rome, Baths of Diocletian, Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Medusa-mosaic--Baths-of-Diocletian-Rome-1-1.jpg) Central panel of a mosaic floor with the head of Medusa, 1st-2nd century AD, National Museum of Rome, Baths of Diocletian, Rome. Credits: Bari' bin Farangi, CC BY-SA 4.0 This does not mean that Hesiod gives the “only” original Medusa. [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) myth was fluid, and different versions could coexist. But it does show that one of the earliest surviving literary accounts does not present Medusa as a beautiful woman punished after rape in a sacred space. She is a mortal member of a monstrous sisterhood, and her “woeful fate” is not transformation into a Gorgon but death at the hands of Perseus.( Hesiod, Theogony.) ### Ovid’s Medusa: Beauty Before Horror Ovid’s Metamorphoses changes the emotional shape of the myth. The story is told after Perseus has already killed Medusa. He is asked why only one of the Gorgon sisters had snakes mingled with her hair. His answer becomes Medusa’s backstory. Before the snakes, there was beauty. Ovid says that Medusa had once been famous for her appearance, and especially for her hair. In one translation of the passage, she is remembered as “most famous for her beauty,” the desired hope of many suitors, with no feature more admired than her hair. Then comes the sentence that changes the myth’s moral center: > “The lord of the sea violated her in Minerva’s temple.” The god who commits the violence is [Neptune](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-caligula-really-declare-war-on-neptune/), the Roman Poseidon. The goddess whose sanctuary is violated is Minerva, the Roman Athena. But Minerva’s response does not fall on Neptune. It falls on Medusa. Ovid describes the goddess turning away and covering her chaste eyes with the aegis. Then, so that the outrage would not go unpunished, Minerva changes Medusa’s hair into snakes. The punishment is exact and cruel. The feature that had made Medusa most admired becomes the sign of her horror. Her beauty is not simply removed. It is inverted. Hair becomes serpents. Desire becomes terror. The woman once pursued by suitors becomes a figure no one can safely face. Ovid then adds the final irony. Minerva later wears the snakes she created on her own breastplate, so that they may terrify her enemies. Medusa’s punishment becomes Minerva’s weapon. ![Caravaggio - Medusa](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Caravaggio-Medusa--1--1.jpg) Caravaggio - Medusa. Public domain. This is why Ovid’s version is so powerful. It does not only explain why Medusa had snakes for hair. It changes the moral weight of the story. The Gorgon is no longer only a monster born among monsters. She becomes someone whose monstrosity has a cause. In Hesiod, Perseus kills a mortal Gorgon. In Ovid, the same heroic act is reframed by the memory of a woman whose horror followed divine violence and divine punishment. ### The Heroic Story Changes After the Backstory The order of Ovid’s narrative matters. Medusa is first presented through Perseus’ success. He reaches the Gorgons by passing through remote and difficult places. He sees the bodies of [men](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-thought-made-a-man-weak/) and beasts turned into stone. He avoids the fatal gaze by looking not at Medusa directly, but at her reflection in his[ shield](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-soldiers-shield-that-never-returned-home/). Then he cuts off her head while she sleeps. The heroic frame comes first: Perseus defeated the monster. Only afterward does the backstory appear. That delayed explanation changes what has already been told. The monster Perseus killed had once been a beautiful [woman](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/). Her danger came after Neptune’s assault and Minerva’s punishment. The heroic deed remains in the poem, but it no longer feels simple. Ovid’s own description of Perseus’ approach emphasizes distance, danger, and indirect sight. The Gorgon’s territory is remote. Her victims are already statues. Her face cannot be met directly. Perseus survives because he uses reflection: > “He had seen Medusa’s looks reflected in his bronze shield.” Medusa’s face is dangerous, but it is also withheld. She appears through reflection, through Perseus’ narration, and later through her severed head. Even her [story](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-story-rome-wanted-to-hear/) is not told by her. It is told by the hero who killed her. This gives the myth a strange imbalance. Medusa is the center of the episode, but she does not speak. She is desired, violated, punished, hunted, killed, and used. Others look, act, explain, and possess. Medusa herself remains almost entirely silent. Her power also survives her death, but no longer belongs to her. Perseus carries the head and uses it against enemies. Minerva later fixes it to her shield. The gaze that once made Medusa terrifying becomes a controlled instrument in the hands of others. ![Perseus and Medusa by Francesco Maffei](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Perseus-and-Medusa-by-Francesco-Maffei--1--1.jpg) Perseus and Medusa by Francesco Maffei. Public domain. This is one of the deepest changes in Ovid’s version. Medusa is not only transformed from woman into monster. She is transformed again from monster into object: trophy, weapon, emblem, and divine armor. (“Medusa in Ovid’s Metamorphoses: Refracted Rapes.” by Simona Martorana) ### Beauty, Fear, and the Female Gaze Ovid’s version also turns Medusa’s beauty into a problem. In the older surviving tradition, her monstrous identity is already present. In the Metamorphoses, beauty comes first. Her hair is admired. Her desirability draws attention. Neptune’s violence occurs inside Minerva’s temple. Then the punishment falls on the very feature that had made her desirable. The myth therefore joins beauty, sexuality, punishment, shame, and fear in one body. Medusa becomes terrifying, but the story also asks why she became terrifying. Her gaze is especially important. A woman once looked at with desire becomes a figure whose own look destroys. Men and animals who meet her eyes are turned into [stone](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-used-more-than-stone/). The power of looking no longer belongs only to the observer. Medusa looks back. That reversal is unsettling within the story. Perseus survives by refusing the direct encounter. He looks at an image instead of the woman. The shield makes Medusa visible while preventing her from returning the gaze. Her face is turned into something that can be managed, reflected, and used. After her death, the danger remains but the autonomy disappears. The severed head still petrifies, but Perseus controls when it is shown. Later, Minerva carries the same terror on her own shield. Medusa’s gaze, once feared, is absorbed into heroic and divine power. The story can therefore be read as a myth about the control of female danger, but also as a myth that exposes the violence of that control. Medusa is treated as a threat, yet Ovid has already told us that her monstrosity followed an injury done to her. (“How Does Ovid’s Version of the Medusa Myth Reflect Roman Anxieties About Female Sexuality?” by Francesca Kübler) ### Medusa and Minerva: Opposites or Doubles? Ovid’s version also complicates the relationship between Medusa and Minerva. On the surface, they are opposites. Minerva is the [virgin](https://romanempiretimes.com/vestal-virgins-keepers-of-romes-eternal-flame-and-protectors-of-the-state/) goddess, guardian of her own sacred space. Medusa is the violated woman whose body becomes the site of punishment. Minerva is divine order. Medusa becomes monstrous danger. ![ Head of Medusa, originally attributed to Leonardo Da Vinci. This painting was later believed to have been created by a Flemish painter in the late 16th or early 17th century. But we have reason to believe that this painting was done by Caravaggio](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Head-of-Medusa--1--1.jpg) Head of Medusa, originally attributed to Leonardo Da Vinci. This painting was later believed to have been created by a Flemish painter in the late 16th or early 17th century. A painting sometimes attributed to Caravaggio. Public domain. Yet the boundary between them is not clean. Snakes could be associated with Athena-Minerva. The goddess’ own gaze could be imagined as powerful and frightening. When she places Medusa’s head on her breastplate, she takes into herself the very terror she created. The punished monster becomes part of the goddess’ identity. The shield and mirror motif deepens this connection. Perseus does not defeat Medusa by strength alone. He defeats her through reflection, and the means of reflection belongs to Athena’s world of strategy, craft, and controlled sight. Medusa cannot be met face to face. She can only be mediated: through a shield, a severed head, an emblem, or an image. This is one reason the myth became so important in later literature and art. Medusa is “representable,” but not easily “presentable.” She can be shown as mask, reflection, trophy, or symbol, but the living woman at the center of the story remains absent. The beautiful Medusa before the punishment is already gone by the time her story is told. Beneath the Gorgon mask lies the trace of a human face. Ovid’s Medusa is not only the head that Perseus carries. She is also the woman whose story appears only after the monster has already been killed. ("Companion to Literary Myths, Heroes and Archetypes" edited by Pierre Brunel) ### A Chain of Violence Ovid’s Medusa does not suffer one transformation only. Her story moves through several acts of violence. Neptune violates her. Minerva punishes her. Perseus kills her. Her head is then carried, displayed, and used. Each stage changes her again. ![Perseus and Medusa by Francesco Maffei - Gallerie Accademia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Perseus-and-Medusa-by-Francesco-Maffei-Gallerie-Accademia--1--1.jpg) Perseus and Medusa by Francesco Maffei - Gallerie Accademia. Public domain. The rape in Minerva’s temple produces the transformation. The transformation produces the monster. The monster becomes the target of Perseus’ heroic mission. The beheading produces a trophy and a weapon. The weapon becomes an emblem of divine protection. This chain is important because it shows how Medusa loses more than beauty. She loses identity. The woman is turned into a monster. The monster is turned into a head. The head is turned into an object of power for others. The Metamorphoses does not pause to offer a simple moral judgment. Perseus remains the hero of the episode. Medusa remains dangerous. The stone victims show that her gaze is lethal. Yet the backstory makes it impossible to see the killing as only the defeat of evil. The deepest cruelty lies in the sequence. Medusa is first made vulnerable by desire, then blamed through punishment, then hunted as a danger, then appropriated after death. The woman disappears beneath the monster; the monster disappears beneath the weapon. That is why Ovid’s version continues to disturb. It does not merely make Medusa sympathetic. It shows how quickly a victim can be turned into a sign of danger, and how easily that danger can then be taken over by those who punish, kill, or display her. (“Medusa in Ovid’s Metamorphoses: Refracted Rapes.” by Simona Martorana) ### The Face That Is Never Seen Ovid’s Medusa is famous for her face, but the living face itself is almost never available. Before the transformation, the face belongs to a woman remembered through report. During the killing, Perseus sees her only in reflection. After the killing, the face survives as a severed head. The most famous image of Medusa is therefore not a living person but a controlled object: held by Perseus, displayed to enemies, fixed to Minerva’s shield. This absence is part of the myth’s force. Medusa’s face is everywhere, yet the woman is almost nowhere. Her beauty is reported. Her rape is reported. Her punishment is reported. Her silence is complete. The reflection in the shield becomes more than a trick of survival. It is a way of turning Medusa into an image before she becomes a trophy. Perseus does not encounter her as a speaking subject. He encounters her as a reflected danger. After he kills her, he controls when and where that danger appears. The severed head then becomes an instrument of petrification. Perseus uses it against enemies. Minerva uses it as an emblem. Medusa’s gaze continues to act, but under another will. In this sense, Ovid’s Medusa is one of the most extreme transformations in the Metamorphoses. Daphne becomes a tree, but her transformed body is still her own form of escape. Actaeon becomes a stag, but the reader still follows his terror. Medusa becomes something others can carry. ![Perseus With the Head of Medusa by Feodosy Fedorovich Shchedrin 1800, at Grand Cascade of Peterhof.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Perseus-With-the-Head-of-Medusa-Grand-Cascade-of-Peterhof--1--1.jpg) Perseus With the Head of Medusa by Feodosy Fedorovich Shchedrin 1800, at Grand Cascade of Peterhof. Credits: Yair Haklai, CC BY-SA 3.0 Her transformation does not end with snakes. It continues through the shield, the sword, the severed head, and the armor of Minerva. ("Proust’s Medusa: Ovid, Evolution, and Modernist Metamorphosis." by Gregory John Mercurio) ### Why Ovid’s Medusa Lasted Ovid’s Medusa lasted because she is unstable. She is monster and victim, beauty and horror, woman and weapon, face and mask, danger and defense. She belongs to ancient myth, but she also became one of the great figures through which later literature and art thought about looking, desire, fear, punishment, and transformation. That later power depends on Ovid’s change. A born monster can terrify. A punished woman can haunt. Ovid’s version gives Medusa a tragic history but does not give her a voice. It makes her more human, but only after she has already been killed. It explains her horror, but the explanation comes too late to save her. It gives her power, but that power is taken over by Perseus and Minerva. This is the strange brilliance of the episode. The story still belongs to Perseus’ heroic cycle, but Medusa begins to pull the meaning away from the hero. The reader is invited to admire the slaying of the Gorgon, then forced to learn that the Gorgon had once been someone else. The myth no longer asks only how Perseus killed Medusa. It asks how Medusa became Medusa. So, Was Medusa Always a Monster? In the oldest surviving literary version considered here, Medusa is already a Gorgon. She is mortal, unlike her sisters, but she belongs to the monstrous genealogy of Phorcys and Ceto. Poseidon lies with her in a meadow, Perseus cuts off her head, and Pegasus and Chrysaor spring from her body. Ovid does something different. He gives Medusa a past. She had once been beautiful. Her hair had once been admired. Neptune violated her in Minerva’s temple. Minerva punished her by turning that hair into snakes. Perseus killed her. Minerva later wore the result. Ovid did not create Medusa from nothing, and he did not erase every other ancient version of her myth. But he gave later readers one of the most influential Medusas of all: not simply the monster Perseus killed, but the woman who became a monster because the gods made her one. That is why Ovid’s Medusa feels so different from the older Gorgon. Her story is not only about a hero facing a monster. It is about how a woman was made into one. ### The Empire behind Rome: How Society Really Worked URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-behind-rome-how-society-really-worked/ Last updated: 2026-06-03T11:11:12.000Z Ancient Rome is often remembered through what survived: temples, roads, aqueducts, baths, amphitheaters, statues, inscriptions, arches, and the broken remains of imperial power. These monuments can make Rome appear as a civilization of marble, ceremony, and spectacle. Yet the empire did not function only through stone. It functioned through systems. Behind the public face of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) was a world of households, farms, apartment blocks, shops, schools, [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/), [roads](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/), soldiers, engineers, patrons, clients, administrators, [taverns](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-tavern-inn-wine-bar-the-hospitality-business-of-an-ancient-roman-city/), [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), [festivals](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/), and crowds. These were not separate details of [Roman life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/). They were the mechanisms that allowed Roman society to work. To understand daily life in ancient [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/), it is not enough to imagine a citizen waking at dawn, walking through the Forum, eating dinner, or going to the [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/). The deeper question is how life was organized. Who held authority? Who produced [food](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/)? Who carried [water](https://romanempiretimes.com/romans-consumed-250-gallons-of-water-per-person-daily-why-is-this-important-for-modern-cities/)? Who guarded the frontiers? Who built the roads? Who maintained comfort? Who had leisure, and who made that leisure possible? The answer is less romantic than marble, but more revealing. Roman society was a machine of habits, obligations, labor, [status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/), law, engineering, and survival. ### The Empire Made Daily Life Larger Than the City Roman daily life was local, but it was never only local. By the first and second centuries CE, the Mediterranean and much of western Europe formed one political world. A person could travel from Mesopotamia to [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-life-really-like-in-roman-britain/) without crossing a modern-style national frontier. Goods, soldiers, officials, letters, taxes, grain, [oil](https://romanempiretimes.com/olive-oil-in-the-roman-empire-how-the-romans-discovered-the-liquid-gold/), [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/), marble, metals, and luxury items moved through the same imperial system. Citizenship was one of[ Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s most powerful social tools. Unlike many ancient states, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) repeatedly extended citizenship to conquered communities, provincial [elites](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/), [soldiers,](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/) freed [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/), and eventually most free inhabitants of the empire. ![Scale model of ancient Rome (Brussels)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/scale-model-of-ancient-rome--2--1.jpg) Scale model of ancient Rome (Brussels). Credits: Karmakolle, CC BY-SA 4.0 Citizenship brought legal protection, status, and access to new opportunities. It also helped make people born far from the [Tiber](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/) think of themselves as Roman. The [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/)’s [openness](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/) did not remove inequality. It made hierarchy more flexible, not equal. Some provincials could rise into administration, the army, commerce, and even imperial power. Others remained [poor](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/), enslaved, dependent, or forgotten. Still, the Roman world was held together not only by [legions ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/)and laws, but by roads, citizenship, [markets](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/), taxes, commerce, and the idea that many different peoples could belong to one imperial order. Rome itself was the nerve center of this world. Its streets held aristocrats, freedmen, slaves, bankers, shipowners, craftsmen, beggars, foreign merchants, soldiers, officials, and clients. It was a capital, a marketplace, a theater of power, and a city of ordinary survival. ### The Household Was Rome’s First Structure of Power Roman society began inside the family, and the family was not merely private. It was one of the first structures of Roman order. At its head stood the *paterfamilias*, the oldest male authority in the household. His power reached over children, property, [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/) arrangements, and family decisions. Even adult sons and daughters could remain legally dependent while he lived. Salaries, inheritances, and possessions might still fall under his authority if the family member remained within his power. This authority began at birth. When a child was born, the father decided whether the infant would be accepted into the household or exposed. Exposure was practiced by both poor and wealthy families, though for different reasons. The poor might fear another mouth to feed. The rich might fear the division of property among too many heirs. Some exposed infants died. Others were taken and raised as slaves, either for a household or for sale. Marriage also belonged to the machinery of family interest. Girls could marry in their early teens, while boys usually married somewhat later. Families arranged marriages with property, inheritance, and continuity in mind. A dowry was central to the arrangement, though it remained the [woman](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/)’s property in an important legal sense. If the husband died or the marriage ended, it was supposed to be returned, sometimes with deductions. ![Tombstone of a Roman family from the Vatican Museums](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Married-couple-with-child-1.jpg) Tombstone of a Roman family from the Vatican Museums. Credits: Agnete, CC BY 3.0 A Roman wedding could be full of ceremony. A bride might wear a special white wool tunic and an orange or yellow veil. The house could be decorated with flowers and evergreen. A contract was signed before witnesses, the couple joined hands, and a feast followed. Toward evening, the bride was led in procession to her new home. At the doorway, she might mark the posts with wool and oil before being lifted over the threshold. The old phrase > *Ubi tu Gaius, ego Gaia* – “Where you are Gaius, I am Gaia” – expressed union. Yet the union could be ended with striking simplicity. One divorce formula was *Tuas res tibi habeto* – “Keep what’s yours for yourself.” The patriarchal household did not mean that Roman women disappeared from family life. Widows and wives could become central figures in property management, household survival, and moral memory. Cornelia, mother of the [Gracchi](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-gracchi-brothers-visionaries-or-socialist-revolutionaries/), became a model of maternal authority and education after widowhood. These examples do not erase the legal power of the paterfamilias, but they show that the Roman home was more complex than a single line of command. The Roman family was therefore not only a place of affection. It was a legal, economic, and social institution. Before a Roman entered the forum, the army, the marketplace, or the baths, he or she had already been shaped by the household. ### The Countryside Fed the City Rome’s daily life did not begin in Rome. It began in fields, vineyards, olive groves, estates, pastures, and provincial farms. The city depended on agricultural production. Grain fed the population. Wine, oil, vegetables, livestock, and other produce supported daily consumption. Wealthy Romans might live elegantly in the city, but their income often came from land. Villas were not only retreats. Many were tied to estates that produced wealth through tenants, managers, slaves, and agricultural labor. This rural world was not always pastoral or peaceful. Farms required supervision. Estates had to be managed. Slaves and laborers worked under authority. Bailiffs handled the practical business of rural production. Landowners could enjoy country air and villa leisure because other people maintained the economic base beneath it. ![A possible representation of farm workers on the field.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/farm-workers-1.jpg) A possible representation of farm workers on the field. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT The countryside also shaped Roman ideas of virtue. The image of the farmer-citizen remained powerful, even when elite life had become far more urban and imperial. [Cincinnatus](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-cincinnati-ohio-get-its-name-the-story-of-lucius-quinctius-cincinnatus/), called from his fields to rescue Rome and then returning to his farm, became a model of duty without clinging to power. The story mattered because it joined agriculture, military service, restraint, and civic virtue into one Roman ideal. But the real countryside was also a place of hierarchy. Rural slaves, tenant farmers, estate managers, and absentee landlords all belonged to the agricultural machinery beneath urban life. The [bread](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) sold in Rome, the wine poured at dinner, and the oil used in lamps and baths were tied to labor far beyond the city walls. ### Rome Was Divided Between Marble and Brick The grandest parts of Rome advertised power. Imperial palaces rose on the Palatine. Public buildings, temples, courts, colonnades, and baths gave the city a monumental face.[ Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) was later remembered for turning a city of brick into a city of marble. But most Romans did not live inside that marble image. Away from the monumental center and elite districts, the city was crowded, noisy, and built for density. Much of the population lived in apartment buildings, or [insulae](https://romanempiretimes.com/insulae-apartment-buildings-ancient-rome-romans/). These blocks could rise several stories high. The lower floors were more desirable. The upper floors were less convenient, harder to reach, and more dangerous in a fire. [Fire](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) was one of the great fears of urban life. Lamps, braziers, cooking flames, wooden fittings, and crowded buildings created constant risk. Collapse was another danger. Ancient complaints about cracked shops, failing buildings, and unsafe housing remind us that Rome’s urban splendor existed beside fragile structures and anxious tenants. ![A possible representation of a two-story insulae with shops on the ground floor. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Insulae-1.jpg) A possible representation of an insula with shops on the ground floor. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT A Roman apartment was not a self-contained modern home. Many dwellings lacked private water, proper kitchens, or bathrooms. Water had to be carried. Waste had to be removed. Food was often bought outside. Baths, fountains, latrines, shops, bakeries, taverns, and markets supplied what the home did not. This made the street part of domestic life. The city worked because private needs spilled into public space. People bought food outside, bathed outside, met others outside, and conducted much of life within the sound of neighbors, sellers, carts, animals, workers, and crowds. Rome was therefore a city of contrast. Marble temples and imperial halls stood in the same urban organism as cramped rooms, steep stairs, smoke, noise, and danger. The ruins preserve the stone. Daily life depended just as much on brick, water jars, stairwells, shopfronts, and public fountains. ### Slaves Were the Human Engine of Daily Life No account of Roman daily life can avoid slavery. It was not a marginal institution or only a feature of farms, mines, or [punishment](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/). It entered the household, the street, the shop, the schoolroom, the kitchen, the office, and the systems of comfort that made life easier for free people. A moderately prosperous household might own several slaves. A great aristocratic mansion could have hundreds. Some cooked, cleaned, carried water, removed waste, tended children, served meals, dressed their owners, and managed ordinary domestic tasks. Others were trained as tutors, secretaries, accountants, craftsmen, doctors, or managers. Some were more educated than the people who owned them. The physical labor behind comfort was constant. Beds had to be prepared. Lamps had to be cleaned and filled. Ash had to be removed from braziers. Clothing had to be maintained. Food had to be bought, cooked, served, and cleared away. In apartment buildings, where water and lavatories were limited, enslaved workers could spend much of their time carrying water up stairs and carrying refuse – including human waste – back down again. [Slavery](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-zoninus-collar-the-iron-collar-that-spoke-for-the-silenced/) also shaped childhood. Nurses and nannies could raise children. Boys might be escorted to school by *paedagogi*. Educated slaves could tutor children at home. In elite households, slaves handled correspondence, accounts, scheduling, and administration. A grand house was not only a family residence. It was an institution staffed by enslaved and freed people. Some slaves could accumulate money known as *peculium* and eventually buy freedom. Freedmen might remain attached to former owners through duties, patronage, or continued residence. The Roman world allowed certain paths from slavery into freedom and sometimes even social advancement. But the possibility of manumission did not soften the system into something benign. Many enslaved people lived lives of hardship, especially in mines, large farms, workshops, and harsh households. Roman comfort rested heavily on coerced labor. The water that appeared in a house, the meal that arrived at a table, the child escorted to school, the letter written for a patron, the apartment cleared of waste – all could pass through enslaved hands. Slavery was not simply present in Roman life. It was one of the forces that made Roman life function. ### Elite Leisure Was Built on Work The life of a Roman gentleman could look beautifully ordered. It could include [villas](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/), libraries, correspondence, public service, country walks, baths, [dinners](https://romanempiretimes.com/convivium-how-the-romans-turned-dinner-into-a-display-of-power/), literary readings, and carefully arranged leisure. But this calm depended on land, income, slaves, freedmen, tenants, and imperial office. [Pliny’](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/)s routine at his Tuscan villa captures the ideal of cultivated elite life: > “I wake when I please, generally at dawn, often earlier, rarely later.” He kept the shutters closed so that darkness and stillness protected his concentration. He thought through his work, called his secretary, dictated, walked, rode in his carriage, dictated again, slept briefly, recited aloud in [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) or [Latin](https://romanempiretimes.com/contrary-to-what-you-think-not-all-romans-spoke-latin-heres-what-they-actually-spoke/), exercised, bathed, dined with his wife or guests, listened to books or music, and then walked with members of his household. Even hunting became literary: > “Occasionally I go hunting – but with pen in hand, so that I come back with something even when I’ve bagged nothing!” This was leisure, but not idleness. It was a disciplined life of writing, reading, conversation, health, reputation, and control. It was also a life that required support. ![A possible representation of Pliny’s routine at his Tuscan villa.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Pliny-the-elder--2--1.jpg) A possible representation of Pliny’s routine at his Tuscan villa. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT The secretary who took dictation, the household that maintained the villa, the estates that produced income, and the slaves and freedmen who performed the work were all part of the system. Elite daily life also carried public obligations. Wealthy men funded buildings, supported communities, endowed public works, and served in administration. A gentleman could be called away from villas and literary routine to govern a province, inspect city finances, investigate failed [aqueducts](https://romanempiretimes.com/marvel-ancient-roman-aqueducts/), review public buildings, respond to fires, and report to the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/). Even leisure belonged to Rome’s machinery. The refined life of the upper class was therefore not outside the system. It sat at the top of it. ### Food Was a Daily Network Food in Rome was never just food. It was agriculture, trade, class, labor, household management, and [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-roman-empire-a-brief-history/). The [city](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) depended on supplies from far beyond its walls. Grain, wine, oil, metals, marble, spices, and other goods moved through the imperial network. Egypt, Gaul, Spain, North Africa, and other regions helped feed and supply Rome. Roads and ships carried goods to markets, warehouses, shops, and households. For ordinary Romans, the first two meals of the day were often light. Breakfast might be a small piece of [bread](https://romanempiretimes.com/panis-quadratus-the-ancient-bread-that-fed-an-empire/), cheese, or both. Lunch was commonly simple and cold. Dinner was the main meal, especially for families with the means to make it a social occasion. Class shaped the table. The poor depended on bread, oil, wine, vegetables, legumes, cheese, and cheap foods. Wealthy households could turn dining into display, with cooks, servants, imported ingredients, elaborate courses, and guests reclining in a *triclinium*. [A ceremonial elite menu ](https://romanempiretimes.com/some-recipes-date-back-to-ancient-rome-french-toast-foie-gras-and-braised-flamingo/)could include sea urchins, oysters, mussels, thrush on asparagus, fatted hen, wild boar, hare, sow’s udder, duck, game, and Picentine bread. Such excess was not everyday eating. It was food as status, wealth, and performance. For many city dwellers, however, eating outside the home was practical. Cramped apartments, limited cooking equipment, and the danger of fire made public food outlets important. [Taverns and restaurants ](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-did-the-ancient-romans-eat-the-rich-tapestry-of-ancient-roman-gastronomy/)flourished in Italy, even if upper-class opinion often looked down on them. Some sold quick meals to eat on site or carry away. Others were arranged so customers could obtain food without leaving their wagons or entering the building at all – an ancient function that feels surprisingly close to “drive-through” service. A Roman meal, then, was not only a plate. It was a network. Someone had to grow the grain, transport it, sell it, grind it, bake it, buy it, serve it, and clean up afterward. For the wealthy, food could display the empire. For ordinary people, it was a daily problem solved through markets, shops, taverns, and labor. ### Education Was Discipline, Noise, and Ambition Roman education did not begin as a state system. In early Rome, the family carried much of the burden. As Greek influence deepened, wealthy families increasingly used tutors, many of them Greek or Greek-speaking. Later, fee-paying schools became part of urban life. ![ Relief found in Neumagen near Trier, a teacher with three discipuli. Around 180–185 CE. Photo of casting in Pushkin museum, Moscow.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Roman-school--1--1.jpg) Relief found in Neumagen near Trier, a teacher with three **discipuli*. Around 180–185 CE. Photo of casting in Pushkin museum, Moscow. Credits: Shakko, CC BY 3.0 Children who went to school usually began around the age of six or seven. They learned reading, writing, and [arithmetic](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-ancient-romans-calculate/). Lessons did not require a formal school building. A teacher might hold class in his own home, under a public portico, or even near the street. Pupils could learn within earshot of ordinary city noise. The tools were simple. Children wrote on wax tablets with a *stilus*. One end was sharpened for cutting letters into the wax. The other was flattened so the wax could be smoothed and used again. Arithmetic could be taught with counting boards and pebbles. The material was basic, but the discipline could be severe. Ancient memories of school often preserve the teacher’s temper and the rod as clearly as the lessons. Not every Roman voice praised harshness. [Quintilian ](https://romanempiretimes.com/quintilian-a-roman-theory-of-education-that-left-its-mark-from-antiquity-onwards/)preferred encouragement, praise, games, and competition, especially for young children. Learning should not become hateful before it had properly begun. He accepted that very young children might absorb only a little, but even that was better than leaving the mind idle. Education had a social purpose. It trained memory, language, obedience, and ambition. At higher levels, boys studied grammar, literature, Greek and Latin authors, and rhetoric. A Roman of status had to speak, argue, persuade, quote, and perform in public. Roman school was therefore not a quiet classroom removed from life. It was part of the city’s noise – early hours, wax tablets, repetition, fear, ambition, and the long process of turning children into Romans. ### The Street Kept the City Moving The Roman street was not simply a path between home and destination. It was a workplace, marketplace, political stage, news channel, and social arena. Shops opened directly onto the street. Artisans worked where people could see them. Food sellers, porters, traders, clients, slaves, animals, carts, and officials moved through the same public world. Much of Rome’s economy was visible and audible. The city worked aloud. Status moved through the streets too. The morning visit to a patron, the salutatio, turned social hierarchy into daily action. Clients arrived to greet powerful men, ask favors, offer support, or receive small gifts. Patronage was not an abstract relationship. It had footsteps, waiting rooms, greetings, obligations, and public display. Politics also belonged to this social world. Office, ancestry, wealth, family reputation, and recognition all mattered. A *novus homo*, a “new man” from a family without a tradition of high office, could rise, but the achievement was difficult enough to be remembered. Roman ambition was therefore not only a matter of elections. It was a daily contest of visibility, connections, dignity, favors, and memory. Beyond the city, roads extended this machinery across the empire. Roads allowed officials, soldiers, merchants, messengers, and travelers to move with greater reliability. But travel was not easy. Roads could mean heat, dust, insects, robbers, poor inns, delays, and fatigue. Roman engineering made the empire work. It did not make movement effortless. ### Soldiers Guarded the System The empire’s peace depended on soldiers. Augustus transformed Rome’s armed forces into a standing [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) and [navy](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-navy-the-forgotten-force-that-helped-rule-the-sea/), with the emperor as commander in chief. The army guarded frontiers, secured conquered regions, and stood behind imperial order. The navy helped keep sea lanes safer from pirates, allowing grain, merchants, officials, and communications to move more securely. ![Aniello Falcone - Roman soldiers in the circus.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Roman-Soldiers-in-the-circus--2--1.jpg) Aniello Falcone - Roman soldiers in the circus. Public domain. The soldier’s life was not simply heroic battle. It was routine, discipline, training, marching, guard duty, construction, patrol, camp life, and long service. Soldiers built roads, forts, walls, and frontier systems. They carried Rome’s authority into the provinces and lived far from the city whose power they defended. Military life also offered social movement. Men from the provinces could serve, earn pay, receive citizenship or privileges, and become part of the Roman system. The army was both an instrument of control and a path into Roman identity. It was one of the ways the empire made provincials into Romans. Yet the army was also dangerous to the state that depended on it. The emperor controlled the soldiers, but in later periods soldiers could make and unmake emperors. In the first and second centuries, discipline and careful imperial management kept that danger mostly contained. The daily order admired by Roman elites rested on men stationed at the edges of the world. ### Engineering Turned Order into Stone and Water Roman society worked because engineers made it work physically. Roads carried armies and messages. Aqueducts brought water. Bridges crossed rivers. Harbors received ships. Baths required heating, water management, drainage, and massive construction. Domes and [concrete](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-concrete-stronger-self-healing-and-built-to-last-forever/) allowed new forms of architecture. [Engineering ](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-engineering-the-backbone-of-an-empire/)turned Roman order into stone, brick, water, and usable space. [The Pantheon](https://romanempiretimes.com/unveiling-the-eternal-things-about-the-pantheon-you-did-not-know/) showed the ambition of this world. Earlier round temples had been small and traditionally roofed. Roman builders had already used domed chambers in bath complexes, with circular openings, or oculi, to admit light. The Pantheon transformed that idea into a freestanding monument. Its great dome became an ancestor of later Christian and Islamic domes. [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-four-journeys-of-hadrian-the-globetrotter-emperor-of-the-roman-empire/)’s architectural imagination was bold enough to offend older professionals. One story tells that [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/)’s chief architect, irritated by the young Hadrian’s advice, snapped: > “Go draw your pumpkins!” The insult became revealing because [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrians-wall-the-roman-empires-enigmatic-frontier/) later created experimental architecture full of curves, domes, and unexpected forms. At his villa, buildings played with shape and space. In Rome, the Pantheon made the avant-garde monumental. Engineering also belonged to administration. Failed aqueducts, collapsing [theaters, ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-epic-roman-theater-of-philadelphia-amman/)badly planned baths, fire damage, canals, roads, and public buildings all required oversight. Provincial cities could waste money on poor construction, and imperial officials might have to request engineers, inspect works, or seek the emperor’s approval. Roman engineering was therefore not only about famous monuments. It was the infrastructure of daily life: water for fountains and baths, roads for movement, [bridges](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-phenomenal-roman-bridges-connecting-past-with-present-2/) for traffic, drains for cities, harbors for grain, and buildings for public identity. Without engineers, Rome’s social machinery would have had no physical body. ### Religion and Festivals Gave Rhythm to Life [Religion in Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-religion-of-ancient-rome-how-roman-worshipped-their-gods/) was not confined to private belief. It belonged to the state, the household, the calendar, the army, the city, and the individual. Temples stood in public spaces. Sacrifices marked civic rituals. Household gods belonged to domestic life. Festivals interrupted ordinary routines. New cults entered from the East, while traditional gods remained part of public identity. Roman religion could be formal and civic, but also intimate, anxious, practical, and local. The sacred and the spectacular often overlapped. Public games could belong to [religious festivals](https://romanempiretimes.com/saturnalia-roman-festival-inspired-spirit-christmas/). Processions, sacrifices, music, images of [gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/), elite youth, athletes, and crowds all formed part of civic display. *The Ludi Romani,* held in September, began with a large procession from the Capitoline through the Forum to the[ Circus Maximus](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-circus-maximus-and-why-there-is-nothing-left-of-it/). It included young men from distinguished families, [charioteers](https://romanempiretimes.com/fury-on-wheels-the-legendary-chariot-races-of-ancient-rome/), athletes, armed dancers, musicians, incense bearers, men carrying precious vessels, and images of the gods. After sacrifice came races and contests. This was not entertainment separated from religion. It was public life arranged as ceremony, hierarchy, movement, sound, and spectacle. Roman religion could also turn reputation into drama. When the cult of Cybele was brought to Rome in 204 BCE, one story told that the ship carrying the goddess’s sacred objects became stuck in the Tiber. ![Saturnalia by Antoine Callet](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Saturnalia-ezgif.com-compress-jpg-1.jpg) Saturnalia by Antoine Callet. Public domain. Claudia, whose chastity had been questioned, prayed that she would free the vessel only if she were innocent, then pulled it loose. Whether read as miracle, legend, or moral example, the story shows how religion could become a public test of virtue, identity, and divine favor. For ordinary people, the divine world helped manage uncertainty. Birth, travel, illness, marriage, business, farming, war, and death all carried risk. Gods, omens, vows, prayers, festivals, and rituals gave Romans ways to seek order in a fragile world. ### Baths, Games, and the Need for Escape Leisure was not a minor feature of Roman life. It was part of the city’s structure. The baths offered more than washing. They provided exercise, conversation, relaxation, news, sociability, and relief from cramped homes. For many people, public baths supplied facilities that private housing did not. They were hygienic, social, recreational, and civic all at once. The games worked on a larger scale. Chariot races, theater, [gladiatorial combats](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/), animal hunts, athletic contests, and festivals gathered the crowd and displayed the generosity of magistrates or emperors. Entertainment created emotion, loyalty, rivalry, and fame. Roman spectators remembered names. Chariot horses could become celebrities of the track. Some were credited with striking victory totals: Olympus with 152 wins, Faustus with 128, Indus with 116, and Leo with 58\. The vast majority won far fewer, which made the champions stand out even more. Roman racing had favorites, statistics, reputations, and remembered performers. [Gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/ave-imperator-morituri-te-salutant-what-did-gladiators-actually-say-before-fighting/) too could become famous. At [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/), Celadus carried the nickname *Suspirium Puellarum* – “Heartthrob of the Girls.” The phrase is too vivid to ignore. It shows that Roman spectacle was not experienced only as violence. It also created admiration, gossip, desire, and fan culture. This does not make Roman entertainments gentle. Gladiatorial combat and animal hunts could be brutal. But the crowd did not experience them in one dimension only. Games were spectacle, danger, status, skill, celebrity, politics, and escape. They gave people a shared public language of excitement. For a population living with heat, noise, hierarchy, debt, labor, crowded housing, and social obligation, leisure mattered. The bath, the circus, the theater, and the [amphitheater](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/) were part of how Rome released pressure. !["Roman gladiators" by American illustrator Howard Pyle (1853-1911)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/06/Romangladitors-ezgif.com-compress-jpg-1.jpg) "Roman gladiators" by American illustrator Howard Pyle (1853-1911). Public domain. ## The Emperor Was the System Made Visible The emperor stood above the daily machinery, but he was also part of it. His face appeared on[ coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/). His name appeared on monuments. His decisions shaped provinces, armies, careers, taxes, public buildings, and religious honors. He was the state made visible. Augustus created an autocracy that still wore republican clothing. Consuls, magistrates, and the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) continued, but the emperor held the army, foreign policy, domestic direction, provincial administration, and political favor. His informal title, *Princeps*, meant “First Citizen,” but the reality was monarchy without the old royal name. The best emperors worked through administration. They appointed governors, answered petitions, supervised finances, maintained frontier defenses, and supported building projects. A ruler could not personally manage every road, aqueduct, fire, lawsuit, temple, town council, or military post. But the emperor’s office stood behind the machinery that did. Hadrian made this visible through travel. He moved across the empire, inspected frontiers, encouraged building, visited provinces, and treated the Roman world as something that had to be seen and managed. He was not only a palace ruler. He was emperor as traveler, architect, administrator, intellectual, and performer of power. Yet the emperor was also mortal. Near death, Hadrian suffered intensely and tried to arrange the succession while still carrying on the business of state. At the end, he composed the small poem that begins: > Animula vagula, blandula > “Sweet soulkin, flitting, fair, > my body’s guest and friend…” The poem turns the master of the Roman world into a dying man speaking to his own soul. It is a reminder that even the highest part of the system ended in the same human uncertainty as everyone else. ### Old Age, Retirement, and the Hope of Peace Daily life did not end when public ambition faded. For those who had the means, [old age and retirement](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-elderly-in-ancient-rome-voices-of-respect-and-fear/) could become a carefully shaped life of walking, reading, bathing, exercise, writing, conversation, and controlled leisure. One admired retired Roman rose early, walked several miles, rode in a carriage, walked again, wrote in Greek and Latin, swam, played handball, bathed, ate modestly, and received guests. He remained vigorous into his late seventies. This was not idleness. It was *otium* as cultivated peace – a life after duty, but not without discipline. Retirement could also be interrupted. Like in the case of Cincinnatus , Professional performers and fighters had their own forms of retirement. The charioteer [Appuleius Diocles](https://romanempiretimes.com/gaius-appuleius-diocles-a-billionaire-on-wheels-the-richest-athlete-ever/) retired at forty-two after a twenty-four-year career and 1,462 victories, with enormous winnings behind him. Gladiators who completed their service could receive a *rudis*, the wooden sword that symbolized release. Some became trainers. Others were tempted back for money. Horace tells of Veianius, who hung up his equipment in a shrine of Hercules so it could not be retrieved when others urged him to return. The most haunting retirement story belongs to Gaius Sulpicius Similis, who left imperial service under Hadrian and spent seven years in the countryside. His tomb reportedly declared: > “Similis lies here. He existed for so many years, but lived for seven.” For Romans who could choose it, retirement was not simply the end of work. It raised a final question: what counted as truly living? ### The Machinery Beneath the Monuments Roman daily life feels familiar because its concerns are recognizable. People worried about housing, food, money, children, education, reputation, work, travel, leisure, aging, and death. They sought comfort, status, security, pleasure, recognition, and peace. But the world that shaped those concerns was profoundly different. Paternal authority, slavery, exposure of infants, crowded apartment life, public religion, patronage, military discipline, imperial rule, and sharp inequality structured ordinary existence. Some Romans benefited from the system. Others carried it, cleaned it, cooked for it, taught within it, entertained it, built it, defended it, or were trapped beneath it. The monuments survived because stone endures. But Rome was also made of repeated acts: carrying water, buying bread, escorting children, greeting patrons, opening shops, preparing meals, writing on wax tablets, inspecting aqueducts, cheering horses, bathing in public, praying at shrines, guarding frontiers, answering imperial letters, and climbing apartment stairs. Behind the marble was machinery. Behind the machinery were people. And for most Romans, that was where the empire was truly lived. ***Sources used: This article draws on Lionel Casson’s Everyday Life in Ancient Rome for the broader social portrait of Roman households, cities, countryside, slavery, elite life, soldiers, roads, religion, engineering, emperors, and leisure. It also uses David Matz’s Daily Life of the Ancient Romans for additional ancient-source examples and details on schooling, food outlets, politics, festivals, public entertainment, and retirement.*** ### Before the CIA: How Ancient Rome Built Its World of Spies and Informers URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/before-the-cia-how-ancient-rome-built-its-world-of-spies-and-informers/ Last updated: 2026-05-31T20:23:07.000Z Rome did not have a modern intelligence agency. It did not separate foreign intelligence, domestic security, policing, military communications, surveillance, taxation, and administration into the neat categories familiar today. Yet the Roman state depended constantly on information. Armies needed scouts. Governors needed reports. Emperors needed messengers. Provincial authorities needed warnings. The centre needed to know what was happening at the edges. The Roman system grew slowly. It began with old forms of foreknowledge, military reconnaissance, prisoners, deserters, envoys, traders, and personal networks. Under the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/), communications became more structured, soldiers increasingly carried intelligence, and imperial security turned inward as well as outward. By the third and fourth centuries, Rome had developed agents whose work could include messages, inspection, surveillance, arrest, denunciation, and internal security. The result was not a Roman CIA. It was a Roman world of intelligence: practical, military, administrative, and often intrusive. ### Rome and the Problem of Knowing The first caution is methodological. [Rome ](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)should not be treated as if it possessed a modern intelligence bureaucracy. The strongest warning is simple: “Do not look to Rome for an ancient equivalent of the FBI or the CIA. There was none.” That does not mean intelligence was absent. It means Roman intelligence activities were spread across many people and institutions. Private citizens, magistrates, [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/), commanders, governors, envoys, traders, informers, scouts, couriers, and imperial officials could all gather or transmit information. Intelligence could include reconnaissance, counterintelligence, covert action, clandestine operations, codes, ciphers, military messages, political surveillance, and other practices that modern states would classify under intelligence work. The early Romans sought foreknowledge in more than one way. They used scouts, prisoners, deserters, allies, and local informants, but they also sought signs of divine will. Augury, prodigies, sacred chickens, haruspicy, and oracles belonged to the decision-making culture of early Rome. These practices did not provide the kind of practical knowledge a commander needed about [roads](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/), passes, terrain, supplies, numbers, or enemy intentions, but they formed part of the same effort to act with confidence before danger. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) gradually learned the limits of such methods. The early Republic had no central intelligence organization. Military intelligence was often tactical, immediate, and dependent on the commander. Scouts and reconnaissance patrols could warn an army, but they did not create an enduring system. Prisoners and deserters could provide useful information, but their reliability had to be judged. Envoys, merchants, and local allies might know foreign conditions, but information depended on chance, contact, and initiative. As Rome expanded, the need for intelligence grew. A small [city](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) defending itself in central Italy required one level of information; a state campaigning across Italy, Spain, North Africa, [Greece](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-greece-is-restoring-a-roman-monument-to-its-former-glory/), Asia Minor, [Gaul](https://romanempiretimes.com/locusta-of-gaul-the-imperial-poisoner-of-ancient-rome/), [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-leave-britain/), and Parthia required another. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) needed strategic intelligence, not only battlefield reports. It had to learn the geography, politics, alliances, resources, roads, ports, and military habits of peoples far beyond Latium. The Republic remained slow to create permanent mechanisms. Its institutions were built around magistracies, [aristocratic](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) competition, senatorial debate, and short commands. Information often stayed attached to the person who gathered it. One commander might be careful, another negligent. One campaign might be guided by good reconnaissance, another ruined by ignorance. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s intelligence activity was real, but it did not yet belong to a centralized service. [The civil wars](https://romanempiretimes.com/for-rome-no-war-was-worse-than-civil-war/) changed the environment. Men competing for supreme power used trusted soldiers, private agents, messengers, spies, and political informers. The state’s needs and the ambitions of individuals began to converge. Intelligence was no longer only a military necessity abroad; it became a tool of internal power. [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) brought a major transformation. His new regime required better communication across the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-roman-empire-a-brief-history/) and better security at home. The creation of the *cursus publicus*, the imperial transport and [communication system](https://romanempiretimes.com/acta-diurna-how-rome-made-news-public/), was central. It replaced the loose Republican dependence on private messengers with a more regular official system for carrying state business. ![Statue of Augustus in Turin](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Statue-of-Augustus-in-Turin--1--1.jpg) Statue of Augustus in Turin. Credits: TorinoDoc, CC BY-SA 4.0 At first [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/augustus-secret-syracuse-the-mystery-of-the-emperors-private-room/) used a relay of messengers, but he then adjusted the system so that a messenger could travel the whole route and be questioned about the origin of the message. Reliability mattered as much as speed. The *cursus publicus* was not a public postal service. It existed for government business. Diplomas or warrants regulated access to it, and its privileges were valuable enough to be abused. Relay stations, animals, carriages, lodging, and staff made imperial communication more dependable. The system helped the emperor receive military and political information, send instructions, and keep the provinces within reach. This communication network eventually became tied to internal security. Soldiers and officials used the road stations; later, *frumentarii* and other enforcement personnel operated through the same system. By the late [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/), individual road stations could serve both the postal system and the officials who used it for surveillance or enforcement. Augustan intelligence was not only about messages. The age also saw geographical intelligence. Conquest, administration, and diplomacy required knowledge of lands beyond the old Roman world. Surveys, maps, itineraries, military routes, embassies, traders, hostages, and reports from campaigns all contributed. Generals operating near frontiers were expected to gather information, and the expansion of [Roman power](https://romanempiretimes.com/convivium-how-the-romans-turned-dinner-into-a-display-of-power/) helped produce a wider geographical vision of the world [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) claimed to govern. Internal security also became more important. Augustus had lived through civil war and knew the danger of conspiracy. During the wars, he had used agents and trusted personnel for dangerous tasks. As ruler, he did not rely on one single secret agency, but he did create conditions in which surveillance and political control could grow. Informers, soldiers, court agents, and officials could all serve the regime. Private informers, the *delatores*, became especially important in imperial politics. Under Augustus and his successors, denunciation could become a weapon. Charges of treason, conspiracy, or disloyal speech could protect the ruler, but they could also destroy opponents. In this environment, the boundary between security and political accusation was often unstable. Military personnel also acquired intelligence and security roles. *Speculatores* served as scouts, messengers, collectors of military intelligence, couriers, bodyguards, and sometimes executioners or agents of arrest. Augustus formalized their role in the [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/), and imperial use of them continued across the first century. They could serve the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), commanders, governors, and the[ Praetorian ](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/)structure. Their functions overlapped with policing, intelligence, communication, and political security. By the third century, some functions once associated with *speculatores* were increasingly taken over by the *frumentarii.* These men, originally connected with supply, became central to imperial communication and internal security. They carried messages, moved through the provinces, observed conditions, and were later associated with surveillance, arrest, and political policing. Their development marks one of the clearest points at which Roman administration became intelligence work. ![Graffiti from the guard-room of the 7th cohors of the Roman vigiles (firefighters) located in Trans Tiberim (today Trastevere).](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Graffiti-from-the-guard-room-of-the-7th-cohors-of-the-Roman-vigiles--firefighters--located-in-Trans-Tiberim--today-Trastevere-_png-1.jpg) Graffiti from the guard-room of the 7th cohors of the Roman vigiles (firefighters) located in Trans Tiberim (today Trastevere). Public domain. The later[ Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/) added other agents and offices. [Diocletian](https://romanempiretimes.com/diocletian-architect-of-the-roman-empires-renewal/) replaced the hated *frumentarii* with the *agentes in rebus*. Yet even this later corps was not a pure intelligence agency in the modern sense. It was primarily concerned with internal security and also had other administrative functions. The same applies to *notarii*, imperial secretaries whose roles could overlap with security, communication, and court politics. The larger point is that[ Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s intelligence history moved from scattered, personal, and military practices toward more regular imperial communications and internal security. It never became a neat modern agency. It remained distributed across the army, court, postal system, provincial administration, informers, and trusted agents. But by the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/), information gathering had become inseparable from rule. ("Intelligence Activities in Ancient Rome: Trust in the Gods, but Verify" by Rose Mary Sheldon) ### The Police of the Capital A separate question is policing. Before discussing Rome’s “secret service,” it is necessary to distinguish ordinary public order from intelligence work. The two could overlap, but they were not the same. In early Rome, law and order rested heavily on citizens and magistrates. The office of policeman was not regarded as honourable in the ancient world, and Rome, like many [Greek ](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/)states, had only limited arrangements in its earlier period. Certain authorities, especially the *aediles*, had responsibilities connected with the safety of the city. A small night-time force also existed, but it was inadequate and had to serve as fire brigade as well as watch. The late Republic exposed the weakness of this system. Political violence, organized gangs, street fighting, intimidation of voters, and attacks on opponents’ houses became recurring features of public life. The state lacked a standing urban force capable of restoring order. Political leaders used hired gangs, and the official authorities often lacked either the means or the will to act effectively. [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) introduced some measures for urban regulation, including traffic rules, but his assassination prevented a full restructuring. Augustus later reorganized the capital’s security as part of his wider imperial settlement. The system that developed was military in tone, reflecting the military foundation of imperial authority. The chief police official was the City Prefect, the *praefectus urbi*. He commanded police forces and also acted as a major judicial authority. Under him stood the Urban Cohorts, organized on a military basis. They were closely connected to the Praetorian Guard, and their duties were especially visible at public functions, festivals, [gladiatorial shows](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/), and [circus races](https://romanempiretimes.com/fury-on-wheels-the-legendary-chariot-races-of-ancient-rome/), where crowd control mattered. The Urban Cohorts were not a modern detective force. The ordinary handling of theft, larceny, housebreaking, and similar offences developed through other arrangements. One of the most important was the *Vigiles*. Originally raised primarily as a fire brigade, the Vigiles also served as the night watch. Since the prevention of fire required inspection and presence in the streets after dark, their work naturally expanded into policing. ![The underground remains of an ancient Roman fire station](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/The-underground-remains-of-an-ancient-Roman-fire-station--1--1.jpg) The underground remains of an ancient Roman fire station. Credits: Seth Schoe, CC BY-SA 2.0 The Prefect of the Vigiles became a judicial authority in his own right. [Crimes](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/) committed at night, burglary, robbery, theft, unsafe fires, and [runaway slaves ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-zoninus-collar-the-iron-collar-that-spoke-for-the-silenced/)could come under his jurisdiction. The force that began as a fire service became part of Rome’s policing system. The *castra peregrinorum* provides the bridge between urban policing and imperial intelligence. This barracks housed soldiers from the frontier armies who came to Rome with orders, reports, prisoners, escorts, and related business. The officers connected with it were not simply city police, but their movement between Rome and the provinces placed them in a position to carry information. Speculatores and frumentarii operated within this mobile military-administrative world. *Speculatores* were picked messengers attached to legions and used for communication with headquarters. *Frumentarii* were connected with supply and travelled to arrange provisions and report to Rome. Their constant movement made them useful collectors of information about provincial conditions. Over time, such functions could turn toward espionage. [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-four-journeys-of-hadrian-the-globetrotter-emperor-of-the-roman-empire/) was said to have “known all secrets through the *frumentarii*.” They were associated with [Christian arrests](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-actually-feed-christians-to-the-lions/), political removals, and the kind of “dirty work” expected of a secret police under an increasingly autocratic regime. Diocletian’s later abolition of them did not end the need for such work, and the *agentes* in rebus took over many functions under a new name. The policing of Rome itself remained broader than secret service. The capital had Urban Cohorts, *Vigiles,* holding cells, police magistrates, and armed forces of order. Its population, fires, crowds, slaves, games, grain supply, and dark streets made policing necessary. The secret-police element grew within a larger environment of public order, military movement, and imperial control. (“The Police in Ancient Rome.” by P. K. Baillie Reynolds) ### Police Functions Without a Modern Police Force A modern correction is needed. It is misleading to say simply that Rome had “no police.” It is also misleading to imagine Rome had police departments in the modern sense. The better approach is to speak of police functions. Roman enforcement was carried out by many types of people and institutions. Magistrates, public slaves, attendants, soldiers, guards, local officials, governors, market authorities, prison staff, military detachments, and imperial representatives could all be involved in maintaining order or enforcing state authority. These arrangements were not always coordinated, professional, or centralized, but they were real. Roman law enforcement depended heavily on [social status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/), private initiative, local power, and military involvement. In many cases, victims, households, patrons, local communities, or municipal authorities had to act. The state did not provide the kind of public prosecution and routine policing expected from a modern system. Yet the state could intervene forcefully when order, revenue, imperial authority, or public security required it. Military policing was especially important. Soldiers were not used only for battle. They guarded roads, escorted prisoners, hunted bandits, pursued fugitives, assisted governors, suppressed riots, controlled crowds, protected officials, and enforced imperial interests. Their use in public order grew from late Republican crisis and became more systematic under Augustus and later emperors. Rome’s policing arrangements were layered. Civilian, local, gubernatorial, imperial, and military authorities could all appear in different circumstances. A governor’s staff might investigate, punish, or deploy soldiers. A military detachment might act as a police force. An imperial order might pass through administrative channels that also served intelligence needs. The same machinery could be used for communication, coercion, and surveillance. This framework helps avoid exaggeration. Rome did not possess a modern police state in the institutional sense. It did possess a wide range of state-organized coercive tools. These tools could compel obedience, control movement, punish disorder, support tax collection, and protect the ruler’s interests. The relevance to intelligence is clear. Roman intelligence grew inside this broader environment of enforcement. Soldiers, messengers, road stations, governors’ staffs, and imperial officials all moved through the same administrative world. A man could be a courier in one context, an escort in another, an arresting officer in another, and a source of information in another. The division of labour was not rigid. Rome therefore had no neat boundary between police work, military administration, and intelligence. That looseness was characteristic of the system. It made Roman enforcement flexible, but it also made it easy for administration to become surveillance and for surveillance to become coercion.( “Police Functions and Public Order,” by Christopher J. Fuhrmann, in The Oxford Handbook of Roman Law and Society.) ### The Roman “Secret Service” The phrase “Roman secret service” needs careful handling. It can suggest a modern internal security agency, but the expression should be treated only as a “convenient, if not perfectly descriptive, label.” The Roman institution had no exact modern parallel. A permanent secret service developed late. The idea of a centralized agency was foreign to the political habits of classical city-states and Republican Rome. Early Rome relied on citizen informers, prosecutors, magistrates, and ad hoc enforcement rather than a permanent detective service. Such a body also implied centralized authority and bureaucracy, both of which sat uneasily with senatorial oligarchy. The first prototypes appeared in the civil wars of the late Republic. Rival leaders used trusted soldiers from their personal military circles, including Praetorian-style guards, to gather information, arrest enemies, and carry out executions. Augustus knew such methods before becoming sole ruler, but the first century of the Empire still did not rely on a single agency to detect subversion. Emperors used *delatores*, Praetorians, freedmen, procurators, provincial officials, and other trusted channels. ![Relief of Soldiers of the Praetorian Guard](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Relief-of-Soldiers-of-the-Praetorian-Guard--1--1.jpg) Relief of Soldiers of the Praetorian Guard. This relief depicts six Praetorians in parade armour. It comes from a triumphal arch in Rome that commemorated Claudius' conquest of Britain. Credits: Jamie Heath, CC BY-SA 2.0 The corps that eventually came closest to a Roman secret service was the *frumentarii*. Their origin was military and administrative. Their name came from *frumentum*, grain, because their original functions concerned the purchase and distribution of grain for the troops. They were supply personnel before they became intelligence agents. Their usefulness came from movement. Supply required travel, contact with soldiers, officials, local communities, roads, ports, and provincial populations. Men performing such duties were well placed to observe conditions and report information of interest to the central government. The frumentarii probably emerged from reforms in the supply section of the imperial general staff. They were detached from provincial legions for temporary duty in Rome, while still formally belonging to their original units. Their base was the *castra peregrinorum* on the Caelian Hill, and their commander, the princeps *peregrinorum*, was responsible to the emperor or the Praetorian Prefecture. They were not an ethnically or geographically exclusive elite corps. The idea that they came only from the western provinces is rejected. All legions sent *frumentarii* to Rome, and they reflected the wider non-commissioned officer cadre of the imperial army. Their career prospects were also not automatically superior. Some rose, especially in the Severan period, but secret-service work was not normally a direct path to the highest offices. Their number is uncertain. No table of organization survives. It is estimated that in the second century each legion may have supplied about five or ten *frumentarii*, giving a total of perhaps around two hundred in the provinces and at the capital. The number may have increased in the third century as communication, supply, taxation, and internal security became more pressing. Their three basic duties were as couriers, tax collectors, and policemen. As couriers, they were among the important users of the state highways and could requisition animals, vehicles, lodging, and supplies. As supply personnel, they remained connected with grain for military use and later with collections in kind. They also had permanent posts at Portus and along the [Appian Way](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-appian-way-europe-most-travelled-road-is-not-a-modern-highway/) toward Puteoli, connected with Rome’s grain system. Their role as internal security agents became clearer over time. It cannot be stated categorically that they served as a secret-service agency from the moment of their foundation. By the first quarter of the second century, however, they were spies in the service of the central government. Hadrian is the first emperor clearly known to have used them as detectives, including surveillance within the imperial court. By the late second and early third centuries, evidence for their espionage is extensive. No class was beyond their reach. Generals, senators, Christians, and ordinary people could become objects of attention. They worked in Rome near the urban police, investigated and arrested suspects, and could be commissioned to carry out political [assassinations](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-shadow-of-the-dagger-assassinations-of-roman-emperors/). They were also associated with plain-clothes work and agents provocateurs, though their exact methods are often obscure. Their work was not always hidden. In some official capacities, especially as bureaucrats and couriers, their presence was visible through uniform or symbols of authority. This is important. The Roman secret service did not operate only in darkness. Sometimes its power came from being seen as the representative of central authority. They also performed many miscellaneous duties: supervision of mines and quarries, prisons, public works, and other tasks assigned by the central government. Individually, some of these duties resembled those of other military bureaucrats. Taken together, however, the functions of the *frumentarii* made them distinctive. Their reputation suffered because their duties touched areas that made them hated: revenue, subversion, arrest, inspection, and the enforcement of imperial power. Inscriptions may show them as loyal friends and family men, but their office did not endear them to the population. By the third century, they were under pressure to guarantee revenue in kind and protect an increasingly strained state. Provincial complaints associated them with arbitrary arrests and exactions. They were eventually regarded as a plague, and their snooping became unbearable. ![Under the church there is a 2nd-century mithraeum, related to the presence of the barracks of Roman soldiers in the neighbourhood. The cult of Mithras was especially popular among soldiers. The remains of Castra Peregrinorum, the barracks of the peregrini, officials detached for special service to the capital from the provincial armies, were found right under Santo Stefano Rotondo. The mithraeum belonged to Castra Peregrinorum but it was probably also attended by the soldiers of Cohors V Vigilum, whose barracks stood nearby on the other side of Via della Navicella.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/The-remains-of-Castra-Peregrinorum--the-barracks-of-the-peregrini--officials-detached-for-special-service-to-the-capital-from-the-provincial-armies--were-found-right-under-Santo-Stefano-Rotondo.---1--1.jpg) Under the church of S. Stefano Rotondo, there is a 2nd-century mithraeum, related to the presence of the barracks of Roman soldiers in the neighbourhood. The cult of Mithras was especially popular among soldiers. The remains of Castra Peregrinorum, the barracks of the peregrini, officials detached for special service to the capital from the provincial armies, were found right under Santo Stefano Rotondo. The mithraeum belonged to Castra Peregrinorum but it was probably also attended by the soldiers of Cohors V Vigilum, whose barracks stood nearby on the other side of Via della Navicella. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 Diocletian is usually credited with disbanding them. Diocletian appears to have reorganized them under a new name, the *agentes in rebus*. The new corps performed a wide range of functions similar to those of the *frumentarii*, but differed in structure. Its recruitment was civilian rather than military, even though its ranks and privileges were quasi-military. It was placed under the Master of Offices rather than the Praetorian Prefecture. The *agentes in rebus* became much more numerous. Their work was tied to communication, inspection, internal security, and the monitoring of administration. They could be placed in important offices in order to watch superiors and subordinates alike, though they sometimes cooperated with their superiors rather than simply spying on them. The internal security agencies of the Roman Empire deserve the title “secret service” even though many of their activities were neither secret nor directly related to political safety. They were centralizers of administration, rooted first in the military establishment and later in imperial bureaucracy. They represented imperial power in ways that could affect the lives of subjects and eventually made them hated.(“The Roman Secret Service.” by William G. Sinnigen) ### What Rome Actually Built Rome’s intelligence system was not created in a single reform. It developed through practical needs: military reconnaissance, diplomatic reporting, communication with provinces, control of the capital, protection of the emperor, revenue collection, policing, and internal security. In the Republic, intelligence activity was widespread but not centralized. Under Augustus, communication and internal security became more regular. The *cursus publicus* created a stronger infrastructure for official messages and later security work. Military personnel such as *speculatores* and *frumentarii* carried information, watched, escorted, arrested, and reported. Urban forces such as the Urban Cohorts and *Vigiles* maintained order in the capital. Provincial and military authorities enforced Roman power beyond the city. Later, the *agentes in rebus* and related officials carried the system into a more bureaucratic form. The result was neither absence nor modernity. Rome had no modern intelligence service, but it did possess a complex world of intelligence activities and internal security. Its agents were not always secret. Its police were not always police. Its soldiers were not always only soldiers. Its couriers did not always merely carry messages. The same men and institutions that moved grain, guarded roads, delivered letters, watched fires, escorted prisoners, served governors, and protected emperors could also gather information. In Rome, intelligence grew out of administration, war, communication, and the need to preserve authority across distance. Rome did not build a CIA. It built a Roman system: uneven, overlapping, military, administrative, and often feared. ### Augustus’ Secret Syracuse: The Mystery of the Emperor’s Private Room URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/augustus-secret-syracuse-the-mystery-of-the-emperors-private-room/ Last updated: 2026-05-28T22:42:57.000Z Some details in Roman history survive almost by accident, yet they open doors into much larger worlds. One of them is a private nickname: “Syracuse.” Suetonius tells us that Augustus, the man who reshaped Rome after civil war, used this name for a place where he could withdraw from interruption. It sounds like a small domestic habit — almost a joke. But why would Rome’s first emperor name his private retreat after a Greek city in Sicily? ### The Strange Name in Suetonius [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) gives the detail in the part of the Life of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) devoted to the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-stoic-emperor-how-marcus-aurelius-outwitted-death-in-the-germanic-wilds/)’s private life. When [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/) wanted to do something secretly or without interruption, he had a special place, set apart and high up, which he called “Syracuse” and his *technophuon*. > “If ever he proposed to do anything secretly or without interruption, he had a particular place high up, which he called ‘Syracuse’ and his technophuon.” Suetonius, Life of Augustus 72.2 The second name is difficult. The [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-greek-glory-to-roman-spectacle-the-olympic-games-evolution/) term is rare, and its exact manuscript form is uncertain. But it seems to mean something like a workshop, laboratory, or “scheme-generating” place. The first name is clearer and stranger. Syracuse was a real city, but here it became the name of an imperial retreat. The simplest explanation points to Archimedes. Syracuse was his city. He was remembered as the famous mathematician and inventor whose machines helped defend it during the Roman siege of 212 BC. Ancient stories imagined him absorbed in his diagrams while the [city](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) fell around him. He was the man so taken up with thought that interruption became almost an attack. ![ Archimedes directing the defenses of Syracuse](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Archimedes-Directing-the-Defenses-of-Syracuse--1--1.jpg) Archimedes directing the defenses of Syracuse. Public domain. In that sense, Augustus’ “Syracuse” may have worked like an elegant “do not disturb” sign. The ruler of the Roman world could disappear into his private workshop and, for a moment, play the part of Archimedes: the thinker, planner, and inventor hidden away from noise. But the name did not stop there. Syracuse was too heavy with memory to be reduced to one man. ### A Room No One Can Safely Find Modern visitors to the Palatine may be tempted to identify Augustus’ “Syracuse” with a real room in the so-called House of Augustus. A small painted upper chamber has sometimes been presented as the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/)’s study. The idea is attractive, but certainty is impossible. The ancient wording does not prove that the place was inside his main residence, and Suetonius’ language may suggest that Augustus “crossed over” somewhere else. The room itself may never be located. That uncertainty is not a failure; it may be part of the point. What survives most clearly is not a floor plan, but a name. “Syracuse” becomes an imaginary location, a place on Augustus’ personal map. It was private, but not empty. It was hidden, but not meaningless. [Roman elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) culture gave importance to such spaces. Private rooms could be places for reading, writing, thinking, pleasure, secrecy, philosophical retreat, or escape from daily business. A named room could say something about its owner. It could create a small world inside a larger house. In Augustus’ case, that small world had the name of a city. To go to “Syracuse” was therefore almost to make a miniature journey. The emperor did not simply withdraw from interruption. He entered a symbolic place — distant and nearby, Greek and Roman, conquered and admired, playful and dangerous. ### Why Syracuse? Syracuse was not just another [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) city. It had once been one of the great powers of the western Mediterranean. It had defeated [Athens](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrian-gate-in-downtown-athens-below-acropolis-a-gateway-to-history/)’ Sicilian expedition, faced [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spartan-who-saved-carthage-and-broke-a-roman-invasion/), produced tyrants, sheltered luxury, and later fallen to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/). In Roman memory, it was a place where empires rose and declined, where Greek splendour met Roman conquest. Ancient writers described Syracuse with extraordinary admiration. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) called it the greatest of Greek cities and the loveliest of all cities. Theocritus had called it the “marrow” of Sicily, the choicest part of the island. Yet the city also carried darker associations: tyranny, guarded power, luxurious excess, and the uneasy afterlife of conquest. Its geography added to the symbolism. Syracuse belonged to Sicily, an island close to Italy but separated by sea. It was near enough to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) to seem almost attached to it, but far enough to feel like another world. The city itself had its island-like heart, Ortygia, joined to the rest by a narrow connection. Syracuse could suggest retreat, distance, protection, and a place that was both connected and separate. ![Aerial view of Syracuse with Mount Etna in the background](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Aerial-photo-of-Syracuse--1--1.jpg) Aerial view of Syracuse with Mount Etna in the background. Credits: Angelo Bonomo, CC BY 2.0 That made it a fitting name for an imperial hideaway. Augustus’ “Syracuse” could be imagined as a little island inside Roman power: close to the centre, yet apart from it; domestic, yet full of history; private, yet looking outward onto the Mediterranean past. ### Archimedes, Marcellus, and the Roman Unease of Conquest The Archimedes association is charming, but Syracuse also recalled Marcellus, the Roman general who captured the city in 212 BC. Ancient accounts lingered over the emotional weight of that conquest. Marcellus was remembered as the Roman victor who looked upon a great Greek city and understood that Rome was destroying something magnificent. The conquest of Syracuse became a story of victory mixed with cultural unease. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/) gained the city, but the capture brought Greek treasures to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-story-rome-wanted-to-hear/) and raised uncomfortable questions about art, plunder, admiration, and power. Marcellus’ spoils were later remembered both as a civilizing moment and as the beginning of a more acquisitive Roman relationship with Greek culture. Archimedes and Marcellus were therefore linked in the Roman imagination. One represented Greek genius, invention, abstraction, and the life of the mind. The other represented Roman conquest, military success, and the uneasy admiration of the victor for what he had overcome. A Roman ruler thinking of Syracuse could hardly avoid both figures. Augustus’ private name may have allowed him to hover between them. As Archimedes, he could imagine himself as the absorbed planner in a workshop. As Marcellus, he could stand in the Roman tradition of conquest softened by cultural reverence. Each role was attractive. Each was also dangerous. The conqueror might admire what he has conquered, but conquest remains conquest. The thinker might retreat from the world, but Augustus could never truly cease to be ruler of it. ### The Shadow of Dionysius Syracuse also belonged to the memory of Dionysius, the famous tyrant. That association made the name more troubling. Dionysius was linked with guarded spaces, suspicion, fortified rule, and the fear that surrounds absolute power. Ancient stories about Syracusan tyrants often turned private rooms, palaces, towers, islands, and hidden places into symbols of political anxiety. ![A possible representation of Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Dionysius-of-Syracuse-1.jpg) A possible representation of Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT That matters because Augustus’ power always had to avoid the appearance of tyranny. He held a position no Republican magistrate had ever held, but he did not call himself king. He presented himself as restorer, citizen, princeps, and guardian of order. The language of monarchy was dangerous. The memory of tyrants was worse. A private retreat called “Syracuse” therefore carried a risk. The name could point to Archimedes’ workshop, but it could also whisper of Dionysius’ guarded palace. It could suggest a thinker’s study, but also a tyrant’s hidden room. The ambiguity may have been part of the appeal. Augustus often succeeded by letting dangerous meanings remain present but softened, playful, deniable, or absorbed into older Roman forms. His “Syracuse” may have been exactly that kind of space: a room where the emperor could seem like an [inventor](https://romanempiretimes.com/have-romans-discovered-an-indestructible-glass/) rather than a monarch, a private man rather than a tyrant, a playful imitator rather than a dangerous ruler. ### Sicily in Augustus’ Own Memory The name also touched Augustus’ own life. Sicily was not merely a literary landscape from the Punic Wars. It had been part of his rise to power. The war against [Sextus Pompeius](https://romanempiretimes.com/sextus-pompeius-the-last-pompeian-who-challenged-octavian/) made Sicily central to the struggle for control of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/). Sextus used the island and the sea routes around it to threaten grain supplies and challenge Octavian’s position in the West. Victory in Sicily helped remove one of the most serious obstacles from Octavian’s path. After that victory, Syracuse itself was drawn more tightly into Roman control. Veterans were settled there, and the city’s status changed. Later, in 21 BC, Augustus visited Syracuse and began a symbolic restoration of the city. That restoration should not be treated as simple generosity. It belonged to the long Roman pattern of conquering, possessing, admiring, and then “restoring” famous Greek cities. To restore Syracuse was also to display power over Syracuse. The city may also have carried family echoes through the Marcelli. The great Marcellus who captured Syracuse belonged to the ancestral memory of the family into which Augustus’ sister Octavia had married. The young Marcellus, once a dynastic hope for Augustus, brought that name into the centre of Augustan family politics. This connection should not be overstated, but it adds another possible layer to the Sicilian memory surrounding Augustus. Syracuse therefore touched several parts of Augustus’ world: his civil-war past, his relationship with conquered Greek culture, his dynastic imagination, and his ability to turn restoration into rule. ### The City with a View Suetonius says Augustus’ place was in edito — high up. That detail may matter. Syracuse itself could be imagined as a place of view and distance. Sicily was often treated as a kind of watchtower in the Mediterranean, a place from which Italy, Greece, and Africa could be conceptually surveyed. Ancient stories played with the visibility of ships, straits, islands, and coastlines. ![A possible representation of Augustus in his private room, Syracuse.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Augustus-in-his-private-room-1.jpg) A possible representation of Augustus in his private room, Syracuse. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT A high “Syracuse” in Rome could therefore suggest not only a place of hiding, but a place of looking. A private retreat is usually imagined as inward-facing. But Augustus’ “Syracuse” may have been the opposite as well: a room apart from the world, yet symbolically looking out over it. That is why the modern identification with a windowless Palatine chamber is not fully satisfying. The name suggests more than enclosure. It suggests perspective. From “Syracuse,” Augustus could be imagined as withdrawing, but also surveying. That double movement suits him: the ruler who steps away from interruption, yet never truly leaves power behind; the private man whose solitude remains imperial. ### A Joke, a Mask, or a Workshop? There is still one possibility that should not be lost: the name may have been funny. Augustus was remembered for jokes, verbal play, and deliberately homely behaviour. Calling his private retreat “Syracuse” may have been a small performance of wit, as if he were saying he was just “crossing over” to Sicily when he slipped away from business. The second name, *technophuon*, strengthens that possibility. It sounds like a playful Greek label for a workshop of schemes. Yet jokes around Augustus were rarely meaningless. They could soften the reality of power. They could make something grand appear small. They could turn a ruler’s private planning into something almost domestic, experimental, or amateur. This is the brilliance of the name. “Syracuse” could be serious and unserious at once. It could be Archimedes’ study, Marcellus’ conquered city, Dionysius’ guarded retreat, Sicily’s civil-war memory, and Augustus’ own little joke about stepping aside to think. The emperor did not need the name to have one meaning. Its power came from the fact that it had too many. ### The Little Room with the Large Past Augustus’ “Syracuse” was more than a study, if it was ever a study at all. It was a tiny theatre of imperial imagination. Behind its closed doors, the ruler of Rome could appear to become private, playful, thoughtful, or withdrawn. Yet the name he gave that retreat pulled in the whole Mediterranean past. Syracuse carried Archimedes and his diagrams, Marcellus and his conquest, Dionysius and his tyranny, Sicily and its uneasy closeness to Rome, Sextus Pompeius and the civil wars, Greek brilliance and Roman power. It was a city conquered by Rome but never emptied of meaning. That is why the detail is so fascinating. Augustus’ privacy was not simple. Even when he stepped out of sight, the language around him created images of rule. His secret room did not erase empire. It miniaturized it. The most powerful man in Rome went to “Syracuse” to be alone. But the name made sure he never went there without history. ("Augustus and 'Syracuse.' " by Emily Gowers) ### Sextus Pompeius: The Last Pompeian Who Challenged Octavian URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/sextus-pompeius-the-last-pompeian-who-challenged-octavian/ Last updated: 2026-05-27T20:12:09.000Z Sextus Pompeius was born into one of the most powerful names in Rome, but he came of age in defeat. His father, Pompey the Great, was murdered in Egypt after Pharsalus. His elder brother, Gnaeus, carried the family cause into Spain and died after Munda. By the time Sextus emerged as a major force, the Republic had already been battered by civil war, dictatorship, assassination, proscriptions, and the rise of men who claimed to restore order while concentrating power in their own hands. Yet Sextus did not disappear into the ruins. From Spain to Sicily, from Pompeian memory to naval command, he turned inheritance into resistance. To his enemies, he could be dismissed as a pirate. To refugees, proscribed men, dispossessed families, and many who still feared the Caesarian order, he became something far more dangerous: the last Pompeian around whom an alternative future could gather. ### After Pharsalus, the Pompeian Cause Did Not Die The defeat at [Pharsalus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-battle-of-pharsalus-the-victory-that-changed-rome/) in 48 BC did not immediately end the Pompeian cause. [Pompey the Great](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/) escaped the battlefield and made his way to the coast, then to Lesbos, where Cornelia and Sextus were waiting. From there, the family sailed toward Egypt. On the beach at Pelusium, Pompey was murdered in front of Cornelia and Sextus, a scene that turned political defeat into family catastrophe. Gnaeus, Pompey’s elder son, had been elsewhere during the battle, probably at Corcyra with a squadron of warships. After Pompey’s death, the surviving Pompeians regrouped. Africa became the next centre of resistance, where [Scipio](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-was-the-best-roman-warrior-scipio-africanus-a-man-who-never-lost-a-battle/), [Cato](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-younger-the-last-roman-of-the-republic/), Labienus, Afranius, Petreius, Faustus Sulla, and others gathered against Caesar. Their backgrounds and priorities were not identical, but hostility to [Caesar ](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/)held them together. Ancient hostile tradition often treated Gnaeus harshly. He could be presented as impulsive, violent, passive, incompetent, or an awkward ally whom other Pompeian leaders wished to remove from Africa. That picture is too easy. It depends heavily on sources shaped by the Caesarian side and later hostile memory. A more careful reconstruction gives Gnaeus a real role in the continuation of the war. Gnaeus had already shown activity at sea during the earlier civil war, and after Pharsalus he was not simply idle. The Spanish front became crucial because Pompey’s name still carried weight there. Pompey the Great had long-standing connections in Spain, and those connections could be used against Caesar’s governors. When unrest grew in the Spanish provinces, Gnaeus was the obvious figure to send. He brought more than military skill; he brought a name that could mobilize loyalty. A later summary preserved the importance of this mission clearly: > “Gnaeus Pompeius, son of Pompey the Great, after he gathered men in Spain and because neither Afranius nor Petreius wanted to command them, renewed the war against Caesar.” (Livy, Periochae 113) The significance was clear because it does not place Gnaeus outside the Pompeian cause. It places him inside its final attempt to continue the war. ![Bust of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus in the garden of Villa Borghese in Rome, Italy](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Bust-of-Gnaeus-Pompeius-Magnus-in-the-garden-of-Villa-Borghese-in-Rome--Italy--1--1.jpg) Bust of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus in the garden of Villa Borghese in Rome, Italy. Credits: Krzysztof Golik, CC BY-SA 4.0 The Spanish mission should therefore not be treated as a convenient way to get rid of him. It was a serious strategic decision. Spain offered the Pompeians the possibility of a second front. Gnaeus’ arrival gave the revolt a recognisable leader, one whose father’s memory mattered to local elites and soldiers. His later activity in Spain confirmed that he was not a useless figure in the anti-Caesarian coalition. This is important for Sextus because it shows that the Pompeian cause did not pass directly from Pompey’s death into irrelevance. First Gnaeus carried the family name into the Spanish war. Only after his death did Sextus become the surviving son whose name, ships, and political usefulness could still disturb Caesar’s heirs. The Pompeian inheritance was wounded, but it was not dead. (“Gn. Pompeius, the Son of Pompey the Great: An Embarrassing Ally in the African War? (48–46 BC).” By Piotr Berdowski) ### The Son Who Survived the Collapse Sextus first appears in the shadow of others. His father was Pompey the Great, conqueror in the East, destroyer of the pirates, and [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/)’s great rival. His elder brother Gnaeus first inherited the more visible military role after Pharsalus. Sextus, by contrast, was younger, less tested, and easier for hostile tradition to reduce to a secondary figure. But his apparent marginality is misleading. He had been present at some of the most traumatic moments of the civil war. He saw his father’s flight after Pharsalus. He was with Cornelia when Pompey was killed in Egypt. He lived through the collapse of a political world in which family name, senatorial rank, personal loyalty, military command, and survival had become inseparable. His youth should not make him seem insignificant. He was probably still very young during the first great phase of the civil war, but he did not remain a protected child for long. By the mid-40s, he had become part of the continuing struggle against [Caesar ](https://romanempiretimes.com/caesar-comet-how-a-seven-day-star-helped-found-an-empire/)and his representatives. After Munda in 45 BC, the Pompeian cause seemed finished once more. [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/) had defeated the last major Pompeian army in Spain. Gnaeus was dead. Caesar could present himself as victor. Yet Sextus survived, and survival itself became politically dangerous. As long as a son of Pompey remained alive, the name of Pompey could still be attached to military resistance, naval action, and hopes for reversal. The meaning of “Republican” had also changed by then. Many who opposed Caesar had been killed, defeated, pardoned, or absorbed into compromise. The old senatorial world had been shaken too deeply for simple restoration. Sextus did not stand in a clean, untouched Republic. He stood in the wreckage of one. That is why his story is more interesting than a tale of family revenge. He was not merely trying to avenge Pompey. He became a point around which different forms of opposition could gather: former Pompeians, refugees, dispossessed families, men threatened by the proscriptions, enemies of the Triumvirs, and those who still saw the Caesarian order as domination disguised as settlement. Sextus’ strength came from the fact that he could be many things at once. He was Pompey’s son. He was a naval commander. He was a refuge for the condemned. He was a threat to Rome’s grain supply. He was a negotiator whom the Triumvirs eventually had to recognise. He was also a figure whose enemies needed to reduce him, because admitting his importance made the road to the Principate look less inevitable. ### The Sea as a Political Weapon Sextus’ power was inseparable from the sea. This was not accidental. His father’s greatest public fame had included the campaign against piracy in 67 BC, when Pompey the Great received extraordinary command to clear the Mediterranean. That memory was significant. A son of Pompey who commanded ships could evoke not only family inheritance, but a naval tradition associated with security, grain, and the protection of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/). ![Aureus of Sextus Pompeius, 42-40 BC, minted in Sicily](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Aureus-of-Sextus-Pompeius--42-40-BC--minted-in-Sicily-1.jpg) Aureus of Sextus Pompeius, 42-40 BC, minted in Sicily. Credits:Dimka Totskiy, CC BY-SA 4.0 The sea had already shaped the civil war before Sextus reached his greatest power. Pompey the Great had relied on ships, coastal movement, and control of communications. Caesar had repeatedly suffered from weaker naval resources. The war was not simply a contest of armies on land. It was also a contest over ports, grain, islands, transport, and movement across the Mediterranean. Sextus understood this world. After Caesar’s assassination in 44 BC and the renewed chaos that followed, he found his opportunity. His naval command gave him a role that could not be ignored, and Sicily became his great base. Sicily was not just an island. It was one of the keys to Rome’s food supply. Control Sicily, and the sea routes to Italy could be threatened. Control the routes, and Rome itself could be pressured. That was Sextus’ great strategic advantage. He did not need to march on Rome to become dangerous. He could make [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) feel hunger, uncertainty, and fear. His ships could intercept grain, shelter fugitives, move men, and force negotiation. In a world where the Triumvirs used armies and proscriptions to control Italy, Sextus used the sea to create a rival centre of power. His enemies called this piracy. The charge was politically useful. Rome had long feared pirates, and Pompey the Great’s own glory had been built on suppressing them. To call Sextus a pirate was to strip him of legitimacy and turn a political opponent into a criminal. But the label hides more than it explains. Sextus was not simply a raider outside the state. He held commands, negotiated with [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/)’s rulers, controlled territory, issued [coinage](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/), protected refugees, and drew support from men whose political position cannot be reduced to banditry. His use of [naval power](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-navy-the-forgotten-force-that-helped-rule-the-sea/) also exposed the weakness of his rivals. [Octavian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) in particular struggled against him. Sextus defeated or embarrassed his fleets more than once, and storms added to the disasters. The contest was not an easy march toward [Augustan ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/)victory. It was uncertain, costly, and humiliating. Sextus made the sea a political weapon because the sea allowed him to survive where land-based opponents had been crushed. Armies could be defeated in one battle. A fleet based in Sicily, supported by ports, ships, and maritime skill, was harder to eliminate. It could retreat, return, strike, blockade, and wait. The son of Pompey had found the one arena where Octavian was weakest. ### Pirate, Admiral, or Republican? The memory of Sextus was shaped by the men who defeated him. To the future Augustan order, he was most convenient as a pirate. A pirate had no programme, no legitimacy, no claim to the Republic, and no honourable political constituency. A pirate could be defeated without admitting that he represented something troubling. But Sextus’ career does not fit that simple category. He did not operate as an isolated adventurer with no allies, no ideology, and no connection to the wider [civil war](https://romanempiretimes.com/for-rome-no-war-was-worse-than-civil-war/). His power drew strength from Pompeian memory, anti-Caesarian networks, naval command, Sicily, and the refugees who came to him after the proscriptions. ![Bust of Sextus Pompeius Magnus Pius](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Bust-of-Sextus-Pompeius-Magnus-Pius--1--1.jpg) Bust of Sextus Pompeius Magnus Pius. Public domain. The proscriptions gave his position a moral force that mere piracy could never have supplied. When the Triumvirs published lists of men to be killed and property to be seized, Sextus offered refuge. Many who escaped Italy came to him. Their presence turned Sicily into more than a military base. It became a place where victims of the new order could imagine survival. This did not make Sextus a pure Republican hero. The world he inhabited was too compromised for that. Roman politics had become a struggle of armies, wealth, personal loyalties, family names, inherited prestige, and competing claims to legitimacy. Sextus was ambitious. He used propaganda. He negotiated when useful. He fought when necessary. He was no simple defender of an untouched constitution. Yet the same must be said of his enemies. Octavian, [Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/), and Lepidus claimed to act for order, vengeance, and the state, but their power rested on extraordinary commands, violence, confiscation, and the elimination of rivals. In that world, the line between criminality and legitimacy was drawn by victory. The war against Sextus was later easier to remember if it became a war against pirates and [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/). That interpretation reduced the political discomfort of what had happened. It made the defeat of Pompey’s son look less like the end of a civil-war alternative and more like the restoration of public order. But the scale of the conflict, the negotiations that preceded it, and the anxiety Sextus created show something larger. The man Octavian had to defeat was not merely a sea-raider. He was the last Pompeian who could make the Caesarian victory feel unfinished. ### Sicily, Refugees, and the Alternative Republic Sicily made Sextus impossible to ignore. The island gave him ships, harbours, position, and access to the grain routes on which Rome depended. It also gave him distance from Italy’s violence while keeping him close enough to threaten it. From Sicily, he could present himself as both protector and pressure point. His base attracted those who had nowhere else to go. Proscribed men, escaped [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/), dispossessed families, political enemies of the Triumvirs, and old Pompeian supporters all found reasons to seek him out. Some came from conviction. Others came from necessity. The result was a strange but powerful coalition. This coalition could be portrayed negatively by Sextus’ enemies. A base filled with fugitives, sailors, freedmen, and men condemned by the Triumvirs was easy to describe as disorderly or[ criminal](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/). But from another point of view, Sicily preserved lives that the proscriptions were meant to destroy. It became a place where those excluded from the new order could gather under the protection of Pompey’s son. This was one of the reasons Sextus remained dangerous. He did not simply command ships. He represented a living reminder that the Triumvirs had enemies, victims, and unfinished business. His existence contradicted the idea that the political world had been settled after Philippi. Even after Brutus and Cassius were dead, resistance had not ended. The battlefield had moved from land to sea. The language of the Republic was no longer simple after Philippi. Some who had fought for the Republic died there. Others joined Antony. Others came to Sextus. Others compromised with Octavian. The old labels had become unstable. But Sextus’ Sicily preserved at least one alternative to immediate submission. His control of grain routes made that alternative felt in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/). Hunger was political. A shortage of grain could turn public opinion against rulers who claimed to protect the Roman people. The Triumvirs could defeat [senatorial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) enemies and confiscate property, but they could not easily ignore the anger of a city fearing famine. Sextus’ power over the sea entered Roman politics through the stomach of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-defeat-rome-never-forgot-teutoburg-forest-9-ce/). ![ John Hamilton Mortimer,(1740-1779). Sextus the son of Pompey applying to Erictho, to know the fate of the Battle of Pharsalia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Sextus-the-son-of-Pompey-applying-to-Erictho--to-know-the-fate-of-the-Battle-of-Pharsalia-1.jpg) John Hamilton Mortimer,(1740-1779)****.** Sextus the son of Pompey applying to Erictho, to know the fate of the Battle of Pharsalia. Public domain. This helped force negotiation. The Treaty of Misenum in 39 BC marked the moment when Sextus could no longer be treated merely as a criminal nuisance. The Triumvirs had to come to terms with him. He was recognised, rewarded, and brought into a settlement that, however temporary, acknowledged his power. For Sextus, this was the high point. The son of Pompey, once a survivor in the ruins, now sat across from the men who were dividing the Roman world. The sea had made him a power among powers. ### Magnus Pius and the Memory of Pompey Sextus’ public image relied heavily on memory. His father’s head appeared on coinage. His brother could also be recalled. The name Pompeius carried the weight of military glory, eastern conquest, anti-pirate command, and the lost rivalry with Caesar. Sextus turned that memory into a political language. The word *pietas* was central. It did not mean simple private affection. In Roman culture, it could bind family, [gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-religion-of-ancient-rome-how-roman-worshipped-their-gods/), country, ancestors, and duty. A son who honoured his father, avenged wrong, protected dependants, and preserved memory could present himself as *pius*. In the civil wars, where legitimacy often came through the dead, this was powerful. Octavian also built his position through filial duty. He was Caesar’s heir and avenger. Sextus answered with another form of inheritance. If Octavian’s legitimacy came from Caesar, Sextus’ came from Pompey. Rome was being asked to choose not only between living commanders, but between rival dead men and what their names meant. Neptune also became part of Sextus’ imagery. A naval leader based in Sicily could naturally associate himself with the god of the sea. Stories later developed around his relationship with [Neptune](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-caligula-really-declare-war-on-neptune/), including sacrifices and claims that he was the [god](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/)’s favourite. Some of these stories were hostile or exaggerated, but the connection itself made sense. Sextus’ power was maritime. Neptune gave religious shape to naval success. This imagery was not decoration. It helped explain why Sextus could claim more than force. He was not merely holding Sicily with ships. He was presenting himself as the rightful heir of Pompey, favoured at sea, bound by duty, and capable of protecting those whom the Triumvirs had cast out. Coins were especially useful for this message. In a world without newspapers, coinage could carry images of father, son, gods, ships, victory, and legitimacy into circulation. The coinage connected Sextus with Pompey’s memory and gave visual form to his claim. It showed that he was not content to be a fugitive commander. He wanted his power to be understood. This is one reason the hostile charge of piracy was so important. To defeat Sextus militarily was not enough. His enemies also had to defeat his meaning. They had to make Pompey’s son look like a criminal rather than a legitimate political rival. The more Sextus claimed *pietas*, Neptune, and Pompeian memory, the more useful it became for Octavian’s side to insist that the war against him was a war against pirates. The struggle was fought with fleets, but also with words, images, and inherited names. ### Misenum: The Moment Sextus Could Not Be Ignored The Treaty of Misenum in 39 BC was one of the strangest and most revealing moments of the Triumviral age. Sextus, Octavian, and Antony came to terms after years of blockade, anxiety, and political pressure. The agreement promised peace, restored many exiles, and recognised Sextus’ position in a way that made him impossible to dismiss as a mere criminal. The settlement was not minor. Sextus retained Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, and was promised the Peloponnese. Exiles were allowed to return. Some property arrangements were made for those who had lost their estates. Men who had served him were protected. His free-born soldiers were to receive benefits comparable to veterans. His position was also connected with promises of future office. These terms mattered because they revealed the scale of his power. The Triumvirs could insult him in rhetoric, but they had to negotiate with him in reality. He had done what few enemies of the Caesarian order managed to do after Philippi: he forced the rulers of Rome to treat him as a political fact. Misenum was also emotional. It promised return, safety, and relief after years of proscriptions and fear. For those who had fled to Sicily, the treaty offered the possibility of going home. For Rome, it promised grain and calm. For the Triumvirs, it offered breathing space. For Sextus, it was recognition. The famous banquet after the agreement captured the tension of the moment. Men who had been enemies drank together on Sextus’ ship, yet the peace rested on fear as much as trust. ![A possible representation of the famous banquet after The Treaty of Misenum in 39 BC, when Sextus Pompeius, Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus temporarily made peace. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/The-banquet-after-Misenum--1--1.jpg) A possible representation of the famous banquet after The Treaty of Misenum in 39 BC, when Sextus Pompeius, Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus temporarily made peace. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT. According to Plutarch, Menas whispered to Sextus Pompeius: > “Shall I cut the cables and make you master, not of Sicily and Sardinia only, but of the whole Roman empire?” Sextus considered for a moment and replied: > “Menas, this might have been done without acquainting me; now we must rest content; I do not break my word.” Plutarch, Life of Antony 32 Whether polished by later moralising or not, the anecdote preserved an image that suited Sextus’ public position. Pompey’s son could be dangerous, but he also wished to appear bound by honour. He could threaten Rome by sea, but he did not want to be remembered simply as a treacherous criminal. The settlement did not last, but its failure should not hide its significance. Misenum showed that Sextus had become too strong to dismiss. He controlled something the others needed: maritime security. His ships, ports, and grain pressure had brought him to the table. Still, his position was strong rather than secure. His coalition was broad and difficult to manage. His naval power depended on commanders, crews, loyalty, and resources. His enemies were learning from defeat. Octavian in particular would not accept permanent humiliation at sea. To rule the West, he had to break Sextus. The peace therefore became a pause before the final struggle. Sextus had reached the height of his power. He had shown that the Pompeian name could still command ships, islands, refugees, and negotiations. But his survival now depended on winning the next naval war against a rival who was becoming more dangerous with every failure. ### The War That Broke the Last Pompeian The final war against Sextus was decided by preparation, persistence, and [Agrippa](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/). Octavian had suffered badly at sea before. Sextus had defeated or embarrassed his fleets, and storms had added to the disasters. But Octavian had resources, and Agrippa had the skill to turn those resources into a new naval machine. A new fleet was built and trained. Naval bases and preparations changed the balance. Octavian’s side learned from earlier failures, while Sextus faced the difficulty of preserving a coalition under pressure. The struggle was not only a contest of ships; it was a contest of endurance. In 36 BC, the war reached its decisive phase. Sextus’ fleet was challenged near Mylae and finally broken at Naulochus. Agrippa’s victory destroyed the foundation of Sextus’ power. Sicily, the ships, the grain routes, and the political refuge that had made him formidable were lost. The defeat was more than military. It ended the last major Pompeian challenge in the West. Lepidus attempted to take advantage of the situation but was soon politically neutralised by Octavian. With Sextus defeated and Lepidus removed, Octavian’s position in the West became far stronger. The road toward the final confrontation with Antony had been cleared. Sextus escaped, but his cause did not immediately vanish. He moved east, seeking survival in a world now dominated by men who had little reason to trust him. This final phase should not be treated as a meaningless afterword. Even after Sicily, Sextus remained politically sensitive. His name still mattered. His presence in the East created problems for Antony’s commanders, because Pompey’s son could not be handled like an ordinary fugitive. Eventually he was captured and killed in 35 BC. The manner of his end lacked the grandeur of his father’s fall or the dramatic clarity of a battlefield death. But historically it mattered. With Sextus gone, the Pompeian name ceased to be an active military threat. ![Statue of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus in the City Hall of Reggio Emilia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Marcus-Aemilius-Lepidus-1.jpg) Statue of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus in the City Hall of Reggio Emilia. Public domain. Octavian’s later memory could treat the war as a struggle against piracy. That was convenient. A victory over pirates sounded cleaner than a victory over Pompey’s son, over refugees from proscriptions, and over a rival claimant to Roman legitimacy. But the scale of the war, the treaty before it, and the relief after it show that Sextus had been more than a nuisance. He had forced Octavian to fight for the sea before he could fight for the Roman world. (“Magnus Pius: Sextus Pompeius and the Transformation of the Roman Republic”. By Kathryn Welch) ### The Last Obstacle Before Octavian’s West Sextus Pompeius did not save the Republic. He did not restore the old order, and he was not a flawless champion of liberty. His power rested on ships, Sicily, inherited name, political resentment, refugees, and the opportunities created by civil war. But that is precisely why he matters. He belonged to the broken world between Republic and Principate, where legitimacy was improvised from memory, violence, law, family, gods, armies, and survival. He was dangerous because he made the future less certain. After Pharsalus, Thapsus, Munda, Caesar’s assassination, and Philippi, it would be easy to imagine that the story moved inevitably toward Octavian. Sextus interrupts that story. He shows that the Caesarian victory was not secure, that Pompey’s name still had power, and that the sea could still overturn political expectations. His career also reveals how deeply Rome’s civil wars depended on memory. Octavian could not escape Caesar. Sextus could not escape Pompey. Each man turned inheritance into a political weapon. Each claimed duty to the dead. Each fought in a world where fathers, names, and vengeance shaped public life. Sextus’ defeat did not create the Principate by itself, but it removed a major obstacle from Octavian’s path. Once Sicily was taken, the grain routes secured, Lepidus neutralised, and the last Pompeian fleet broken, Octavian could turn more fully toward Antony. The war for Rome’s future had narrowed. But victory was not only military. Sextus’ memory also had to be managed. The Pompeian name could be respected in some contexts, but Sextus himself was harder to absorb into the respectable memory of the new order. He had sheltered the condemned, threatened Rome’s food supply, negotiated with the Triumvirs, and exposed Octavian’s weakness at sea. It was safer to remember him as a pirate than as a civil-war rival. That is why Sextus deserves more than the label his enemies left behind. He was the last Pompeian who made Octavian afraid, the naval commander who forced Rome’s rulers to negotiate, the protector of many whom the Triumvirs condemned, and the survivor who kept a defeated name alive longer than history wanted to admit. Pompey the Great had once cleared the sea of pirates. His son used the sea to challenge the men who inherited Caesar’s world. ### The Roman Navy: The Forgotten Force That Helped Rule the Sea URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-navy-the-forgotten-force-that-helped-rule-the-sea/ Last updated: 2026-05-25T19:14:31.000Z Rome is usually imagined on land: legions marching under standards, roads cutting through provinces, engineers building bridges, emperors watching the frontiers. Yet Roman power also moved by water. It travelled through harbours, sea lanes, river fleets, naval bases, grain routes, patrol ships, and oared warships crossing the Mediterranean. The Roman navy never became as famous as the legions. Its men lived in the [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/)’s shadow, and its victories were less often turned into heroic memory. But [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) could not have ruled the Mediterranean world without ships. The navy helped Rome defeat Carthage, limit [Hannibal](https://romanempiretimes.com/hannibal-ad-portas-how-37-african-elephants-crossed-the-alps/), enter the Greek East, suppress piracy, protect trade, transport armies, guard river frontiers, and hold together an empire built around the sea. ### Rome Was Not Born Afraid of the Sea A familiar ancient story presents [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) as a sudden naval beginner. According to this view, the Romans had scarcely thought about the sea before the First Punic War. Then, faced with Carthage, they copied an enemy ship, trained rowers on land, created a fleet, and turned themselves almost overnight into a naval power. It is a memorable story, but it is too simple. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) did not begin as a great Mediterranean naval power. Carthage was far more experienced, better established, and more deeply maritime. But [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) was not a city that had ignored the sea until 260 BC. Its position on the [Tiber](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/) already connected it to the coast. The river mouth mattered. Ostia mattered. Coastal colonies mattered. So did treaties, docks, naval officials, maritime allies, and the slow accumulation of practical experience. By the mid-fourth century BC, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/) had secured access to the sea and placed itself in coastal positions that could not be defended without ships. Ostia, Antium, and Tarracina were not decorative possessions. They were strategic points. A state that settled citizens near the coast had to think about raids, piracy, enemy fleets, landing places, and the movement of goods and troops. The existence of Roman *navalia*,or docks, by 338 BC is especially important. A navy is never only a fleet of ships. It is timber, rope, sails, pitch, metal fittings, repairs, crews, commanders, navigators, stores, and places where ships can be built and maintained. Such systems do not appear in a single campaign. They need preparation and habit. ![ A Roman naval bireme depicted in a relief from the Temple of Fortuna Primigenia in Praeneste, which was built c. 120 BC. Exhibited in the Pius-Clementine Museum (Museo Pio-Clementino) in the Vatican Museums.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/A-Roman-naval-bireme-depicted-in-a-relief-from-the-Temple-of-Fortuna-Primigenia-in-Praeneste--which-was-built-c.-120-BC.-Exhibited-in-the-Pius-Clementine-Museum--Museo-Pio-Clementino--in-the-Vatican-Mus-1.jpg) A Roman naval bireme depicted in a relief from the Temple of Fortuna Primigenia in Praeneste, which was built c. 120 BC. Exhibited in the Pius-Clementine Museum (Museo Pio-Clementino) in the Vatican Museums. Public domain. The appointment of the *duoviri navales* in 311 BC points in the same direction. These officials were connected with preparing and maintaining naval forces. Their creation suggests that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) had begun to treat naval affairs as part of public business. This was not yet the great navy of the Punic Wars, but it was more than indifference. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/)’s wider activity also shows a state increasingly drawn toward maritime concerns. The island colony at Pontiae, founded in 313 BC, could not survive without sea access. Roman movement along the Campanian coast and toward southern Italy required some command of coastal routes. The Adriatic and the Strait of Messina became more important as Roman ambitions grew. The relationship with Rhodes is another clue. Rhodes was a serious naval power, deeply involved in maritime politics and the suppression of piracy. Roman friendship with Rhodes around the end of the fourth century BC suggests that [Rom](https://romanempiretimes.com/some-of-rome-worst-rulers-nobody-talks-about/)e was already visible to established seafaring states. It does not mean that Rome was already mistress of the sea, but it does mean that Rome had entered a wider maritime world. The older[ Polybian](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/) picture of Rome as almost innocent of naval affairs can therefore be softened. Rome had not yet mastered the sea. It did not yet possess the naval experience of Carthage. But it had already developed coastal interests, naval infrastructure, shipbuilding capacity, maritime obligations, and strategic reasons to look beyond the shore. The First Punic War did not create Roman naval ambition from nothing. It forced Rome to turn an earlier, developing maritime capacity into a full military instrument. Rome did not suddenly discover the sea. It learned, under pressure, how to fight for it. (“Rome at Sea: The Beginnings of Roman Naval Power” by W. V. Harris) ### The War That Turned Rome Into a Naval Power The First Punic War changed the scale of Rome’s naval world. Carthage was not simply another enemy. It was a sea-based power, with ships, harbours, trade routes, naval tradition, and experience across the western Mediterranean. If Rome wanted Sicily, it could not avoid the water. Rome had used ships before, but fighting Carthage required something different: a navy large enough and disciplined enough to confront a major maritime state. The contest for Sicily demanded warships, crews, supply systems, and commanders who could operate across the sea. The most famous Roman response was the *corvus*, the boarding bridge. Carthaginian crews had long experience in naval manoeuvre, ramming, and ship handling. Roman strength lay in infantry combat. The *corvus* allowed [Roman soldiers ](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/)to turn a sea battle into something closer to a fight on land. Once an enemy ship was fixed in place, Roman marines could cross and fight deck to deck. The device did not make naval warfare easy. Roman ships still had to row, steer, approach, survive weather, avoid being outflanked, and keep discipline in chaos. But it helped Rome use its strongest weapon: trained infantry. ![Reconstruction of a Roman ship equipped with a Corvus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/-Reconstruction-of-a-Roman-ship-equipped-with-a----Corvus.-----1.jpg) **Reconstruction of a Roman ship equipped with a Corvus. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT* At Mylae in 260 BC, this new Roman approach produced a dramatic victory. Carthage could no longer assume that its command of the sea was unchallengeable. The First Punic War also showed the terrible cost of naval war. Rome did not lose only to Carthaginian ships. Storms destroyed fleets and killed men on a scale that battles often did not. Ancient warships were vulnerable to weather, and the Mediterranean could be deadly. Ships could be rebuilt more quickly than experienced crews could be replaced. Still, Rome kept rebuilding. That persistence became one of the decisive facts of the war. The Romans suffered losses, changed their methods, improved their ships, and trained new crews. Over time, they became less dependent on the *corvus* and more capable as a naval force in their own right. By the Battle of the Aegates Islands in 241 BC, the Roman fleet was no longer merely improvising. It was prepared, trained, and able to defeat Carthage in the decisive naval action of the war. The victory forced Carthage to seek peace and left Rome with Sicily. Soon afterward, Sardinia and Corsica also came under Roman control. This changed Rome’s place in the Mediterranean. Rome was no longer only the dominant power in Italy. It was now an island-holding, sea-crossing, maritime state. The navy had become central to expansion. ### The Navy That Limited Hannibal The Second Punic War is usually told through Hannibal: the Alps, the elephants, the ambushes, [Cannae](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-battle-of-cannae-romes-darkest-day/), and the long struggle in Italy. Yet the navy helps explain why Hannibal’s brilliance did not become Rome’s defeat. Hannibal won extraordinary victories on land, but he never gained the secure maritime support that could have transformed his campaign. Rome’s control of sea routes made it difficult for Carthage to reinforce him, supply him, or unite his Italian war with other theatres. Naval power did not erase the danger Hannibal posed, but it helped contain it. The importance of the navy in this war was not always spectacular. Great sea battles were not the whole story. Fleets mattered because they controlled harbours, coasts, supply lines, landing places, and the movement of armies. Ancient fleets needed shore access. Crews needed food, water, and rest. Ships needed safe harbours and places for repair. Control of the sea meant control of the network that made movement possible. ![Young Hannibal Swears Enmity to Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Young-Hannibal-Swears-Enmity-to-Rome--1--1.jpg) Young Hannibal Swears Enmity to Rome. Public domain. Rome used that network effectively. Roman fleets guarded routes, transported troops, supplied armies, raided enemy coasts, and prevented Carthage from using the Mediterranean freely. Spain was a crucial theatre because Carthage depended heavily on it for resources. Roman naval operations helped threaten and eventually break that connection. The capture of New Carthage in 209 BC showed the value of combined land and sea action. It was not only a dramatic assault; it struck at the infrastructure of Carthaginian power in Spain. Sicily and Syracuse also mattered because a hostile Syracuse could threaten Roman communications and control of the central Mediterranean. Rome could not let the island become a Carthaginian naval platform. The Adriatic and Greek world were part of the same picture. When Philip V of Macedon became a potential ally of Hannibal, Rome used sea power and diplomacy to prevent a dangerous joining of forces. The navy helped keep the war divided. Hannibal remained formidable, but he was never allowed to become the centre of a fully connected anti-Roman coalition. That may be one of the navy’s greatest achievements in the war. It did not always produce famous scenes, but it limited what Rome’s enemies could do. Hannibal could defeat Roman armies in Italy. He could not make the Mediterranean serve him. ### From Carthage to the Greek East After Carthage, Rome’s naval story moved east. The Mediterranean was not yet a Roman sea. Macedon, the Seleucid kingdom, Rhodes, Pergamum, and other Hellenistic powers still lived in a world where fleets mattered. To enter that world, Rome needed ships, allies, bases, and supply routes. The wars against Philip V of Macedon show why naval power remained essential after the Punic Wars. There were fewer famous sea battles, but that does not mean the navy became unimportant. Roman operations in Greece depended on maritime communications. Armies needed supplies. Fleets needed harbours. Allies had to be supported. Enemy coastal positions had to be threatened. Rhodes and Pergamum were crucial allies, but not replacements for Roman naval effort. They worked with Rome while also pursuing their own interests. Coalition warfare at sea was not a sign that Rome lacked naval power. It was how Rome operated in a complex maritime theatre. The war against Antiochus III made the issue sharper. Antiochus had naval ambitions in the Aegean and along the coast of Asia Minor. Rome could not allow a powerful Hellenistic king to dominate the waters through which Roman armies and allies had to move. The naval war against Antiochus was therefore central, not secondary. ![The Roman Fleet Victorious over the Carthaginians at the Battle of Cape Ecnomus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/The-Roman-Fleet-Victorious-over-the-Carthaginians-at-the-Battle-of-Cape-Ecnomus-1.jpg) The Roman Fleet Victorious over the Carthaginians at the Battle of Cape Ecnomus. Public domain. Battles such as Corycus, Side, and Myonnesus showed that Rome and its allies could defeat the Seleucid fleet. Myonnesus in 190 BC was especially important because it helped remove the last major naval challenge to Roman dominance in the eastern Mediterranean. Between Mylae in 260 BC and Myonnesus in 190 BC, Rome had moved from challenging Carthage off Sicily to defeating a Hellenistic navy off Asia Minor. This was the making of Roman *thalassocracy*, rule of the sea. It was not achieved in one moment. It came through repeated wars, alliances, logistics, coastal control, and the steady removal of rival fleets. Carthage, Macedon, and the Seleucid kingdom all lost the ability to challenge Rome at sea. Rhodes and Pergamum remained important, but Rome increasingly became the power around which all others had to calculate. The [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-enigmatic-disappearance-of-the-9th-roman-legion/) won glory, but the navy made expansion work. Armies could cross because ships carried them. Campaigns could continue because supplies reached them. Diplomacy carried weight because fleets gave Rome reach. The sea turned Roman power from Italian dominance into Mediterranean command. ("The Roman Republican Navy: From the Sixth Century to 167 B.C." by Christa Steinby) ### Ships, Crews, and the Floating World of Rome The Roman navy was not only a story of strategy. It was also a world of ships, men, routines, dangers, and skills. Every warship was a small floating community. It needed rowers, sailors, marines, helmsmen, officers, craftsmen, and men who understood coastlines, weather, stars, harbours, and the moods of the sea. The ships changed over time. Republican fleets used large oared warships such as *triremes*, *quadriremes,* *quinqueremes*, and other types inherited from the wider Mediterranean tradition. ![Fresco of Two Triremes.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Fresco-of-Two-Triremes--1--1.jpg) Fresco of Two Triremes. Credits: Tyler Bell, CC BY 2.0 These ships were built for speed, ramming, manoeuvre, boarding, and carrying soldiers into close combat. They were not comfortable vessels. They were engines of war. A warship depended on rhythm and discipline. Oars had to move together. Commands had to be understood quickly. Crews had to endure heat, exhaustion, fear, and cramped conditions. Commanders had to judge distance, wind, shoreline, enemy movement, and the condition of their own men. A sea battle could become chaos in minutes. Roman marines stood between land and sea. They fought aboard ships, guarded vessels, and landed when needed. Their equipment had to suit the deck. Naval service could not simply copy the army in every detail. The sea demanded adaptation. Life in the fleet was practical and hard. [Food](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/), water, sleep, ship maintenance, and discipline mattered as much as courage. A fleet that could not feed its crews, repair its ships, or find safe anchorages could not operate for long. Storms were sometimes deadlier than enemies. Ancient navigation depended on the sun, stars, landmarks, winds, experience, and local knowledge. The sailing season mattered. So did fog, winter weather, currents, shoals, and narrow straits. Under the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/), naval life became more permanent. Bases such as Misenum and Ravenna were not just places where ships rested. They were military communities tied to supply systems, workshops, command structures, religious life, and the imperial state. Other fleets operated in provincial waters, on rivers, and along frontiers. This daily world is easy to miss because ancient historical memory preferred generals, emperors, and battles. But Roman naval power depended on thousands of men doing difficult work again and again: rowing, repairing, loading, unloading, guarding, scouting, carrying messages, patrolling, and waiting. To rule the sea was not simply to win naval battles. It was to keep ships moving year after year. ### The Imperial Fleets and the Roman Sea [The civil wars ](https://romanempiretimes.com/for-rome-no-war-was-worse-than-civil-war/)of the late Republic brought naval power back to the centre of Roman politics. [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/), [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/), Sextus Pompey, [Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/), [Octavian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), and [Agrippa](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/) all understood that ships could decide who controlled Italy, Sicily, grain supplies, and the wider Roman world. Sextus Pompey proved how dangerous sea power could be when used against Rome. From Sicily, his fleet threatened maritime trade and grain shipments to the capital. Control of the sea could become control of Rome’s stomach. Octavian could not rule securely while Sextus disrupted the waters around Italy. ![ The Battle of Actium (1672), by Lorenzo A. Castro, National Maritime Museum.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Castro-Battle-of-Actium--1--1.jpg) The Battle of Actium (1672), by Lorenzo A. Castro, National Maritime Museum. Public domain. Agrippa’s naval reorganization and victories helped break that threat. Then came the final struggle with Antony and Cleopatra. At Actium in 31 BC, naval power helped decide the future of Rome. Octavian’s victory was not merely another civil war success. It cleared the way for the Augustan order. A sea battle helped make the first emperor. After the civil wars, Augustus inherited an enormous naval force. Much of it was more than Rome needed in peacetime, but naval power could not simply disappear. [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/) and Agrippa reorganized the fleets into a more permanent imperial system. The navy’s role changed. It was no longer mainly a force created for one great war against a rival Mediterranean fleet. It became a permanent guardian of movement, communication, trade, and security. For roughly three centuries, Rome’s dominance in the Mediterranean was almost unchallenged. That success made the navy less visible. Safe movement rarely looks dramatic. Grain arriving on time, pirates kept away, soldiers transported, officials moved, and letters carried do not always produce heroic stories. They produce stability. The imperial navy also reached beyond the Mediterranean. Fleets operated in the Black Sea, the Channel, the North Sea, and along the Rhine and Danube. River fleets supported frontier defence, transport, scouting, and communication. The navy was not only a force of the open sea. It was also a force of rivers, estuaries, coasts, and military corridors. Its duties were many: patrol, convoy, transport, campaign support, anti-piracy work, intelligence, blockade, supply, and imperial communication. It moved [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-did-son-of-god-mean-in-a-world-already-ruled-by-emperors-claiming-divine-sonship/), officials, soldiers, animals, grain, equipment, messages, and sometimes whole armies. It helped make the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) function as a connected system. Trade benefited from that security. Once piracy was suppressed and sea lanes were safer, maritime commerce could expand. Grain from Egypt and North Africa, goods from the East, military supplies, and ordinary cargo all moved through a world protected by Roman naval dominance. The later weakening of that dominance mattered. The loss of control at sea was not the only reason the western empire declined, but it was a serious factor. An empire built around water could not remain secure if ships, routes, and coasts became vulnerable again. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)’s old principle still captures the logic of Roman power: > “The master of the sea must inevitably be master of the empire.” Rome’s own history repeatedly confirmed it. From Carthage to Actium, from piracy to grain routes, from imperial fleets to late Roman vulnerability, the sea was never secondary. (“The Roman Navy: Ships, Men & Warfare 350 BC–AD 475” by Michael Pitassi) ![Fresco Detail of two Triremes](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Fresco-Detail-of-two-Triremes--1--1.jpg) Fresco Detail of two Triremes. Credits: Tyler Bell, CC BY 2.0 ### The Forgotten Force Behind Roman Power The Roman navy is forgotten partly because its success often looked like normality. The legions fought visible wars on land. The navy made sure armies could cross, supplies could arrive, islands could be held, pirates could be checked, and provinces could remain connected. Its work was not always glamorous. It was technical, exhausting, dangerous, and repetitive. Sailors rowed, repaired, loaded, unloaded, patrolled, and waited. Marines fought on decks and shores. Officers watched winds, coasts, harbours, and enemies. Shipwrights and supply officers kept the system alive. But empires are not held together only by glory. They are held together by logistics. Rome’s rise cannot be told without the navy. Before the First Punic War, Rome had already begun to face the sea. Against Carthage, it learned to fight for maritime power. Against Hannibal, it prevented enemy victory from becoming a connected Mediterranean strategy. In the East, it helped Rome enter the world of Hellenistic naval powers and gradually dominate it. Under Augustus, it became permanent, organized, and imperial. The navy allowed Rome to think beyond the horizon. Islands could be occupied. Armies could be moved. Grain could reach the capital. Pirates could be suppressed. Rivers could be patrolled. Provinces could be linked. The Mediterranean could become not a barrier, but a Roman highway. That is why the Roman navy deserves more than a few lines in the shadow of the legions. Rome’s soldiers conquered land, but ships helped make conquest durable. The sea carried power, food, news, soldiers, wealth, and fear. The Roman Empire was built on roads, but it also floated. ### Valens: The Emperor Rome Remembered Through Disaster URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/valens-the-emperor-rome-remembered-through-disaster/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T20:27:12.000Z Valens ruled the eastern half of the Roman Empire at a moment when power had become divided, religion had become political, and the frontiers demanded constant attention. Yet his name is still usually drawn toward one event: Adrianople, the battle in A.D. 378 where he disappeared in one of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)’s most devastating defeats. That ending shaped everything that came after. For later writers, especially Nicene Christian authors, Valens became the emperor whose religious errors and harsh policies ended in divine [punishmen](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/)t. But Valens was more than the man who died at Adrianople. His reign reveals a difficult eastern [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/), a ruler overshadowed by his brother, a [Christian](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-actually-feed-christians-to-the-lions/) world divided by doctrine, a state trying to discipline bishops and monks, and a government desperate for order, manpower, and control. His failure was real. So was the harshness of some of his policies. But the memory of Valens was built by enemies who had the advantage of his disastrous death ### A Brother’s Empire, an Unequal Throne Valens came to power because of his brother. After Jovian died in A.D. 364, Valentinian I was proclaimed emperor and soon chose Valens to share the government with him. Valens was not made a subordinate [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/), but an [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), a full [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/). Even so, the balance between the brothers was never equal. Valentinian remained the stronger personality, the more forceful[ soldier](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-soldiers-shield-that-never-returned-home/) , and the ruler whose authority shaped the imperial partnership. This comparison followed Valens throughout his reign. Valentinian ruled the West and was remembered, despite his severity in other matters, as a ruler who kept some distance from religious disputes. [Ammianus Marcellinus](https://romanempiretimes.com/ammian-or-ammianus-marcellinus-from-a-roman-soldier-to-one-of-the-best-historians-of-all-time/), who did not spare Valentinian’s faults, still described him favourably in matters of worship. He did not force his subjects into one form of religion, nor did he try to impose his own faith through intimidating decrees. When bishops tried to draw him into doctrinal quarrels, he reportedly answered that he was only a layman and that priests should handle priestly affairs. Valens ruled in a different environment. [The East](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-the-eastern-roman-empire-did-not-collapse/) was far more deeply entangled in Christian doctrinal conflict. Nicene and Homoian Christians competed for churches, bishops, imperial favour, and public legitimacy. Ecclesiastical disputes were not private theological debates. They could affect [cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), crowds, courts, and imperial order. An emperor in the East could not easily remain detached. This difference helped form the later contrast between the brothers. Valentinian could be praised as moderate partly because his western situation made restraint easier. Valens, ruling the East, became involved in disputes that were sharper and more dangerous. Later church historians then interpreted his actions through their own doctrinal loyalties. Valentinian became the ruler who did not interfere. Valens became the ruler who oppressed the true Christians. ![ Scenes from the lives of the imperial brothers Valentinianus and Valens. The former slaps a “pagan” priest who has sprinkled him with holy water, while the latter has hung his rival Prokopios from two treetops. On the right is Bishop Ulfilas (Wulfila) working on his Bible translation (Codex Argenteus). In the foreground is the martyr's symbol, the screw press.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Valentinian-I-and-Valens-1.jpg) Scenes from the lives of the imperial brothers Valentinianus and Valens. The former slaps a “pagan” priest who has sprinkled him with holy water, while the latter has hung his rival Prokopios from two treetops. On the right is Bishop Ulfilas (Wulfila) working on his Bible translation (Codex Argenteus). In the foreground is the martyr's symbol, the screw press. Public domain. That image was not invented from nothing, but it was shaped by hostile memory. Valens supported Homoian Christianity, and that support placed him on the wrong side of the later Nicene tradition. But his policy may not have been driven by deep theological obsession. Homoian communities were already dominant in many eastern regions when he became [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/niche-perfumes-in-ancient-rome-how-did-emperors-smell-like/). Preserving their position may have seemed to him a way to preserve public order. The methods he used were severe, but also traditional. Exile, confiscation, and military pressure had long belonged to the Roman state’s arsenal. Earlier emperors had expelled religious groups, philosophers, astrologers, Christians, and troublesome bishops when they were considered threats to civic peace. [Constantine the Great ](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-truly-great-was-emperor-constantine-the-great/)and Constantius II had already used exile as a tool in Christian disputes. Valens inherited those methods and applied them in a more bitterly divided East. For the imperial government, the issue could be described as order. For Nicene bishops and churches, it was persecution. Both perspectives matter. A bishop removed from his church was not experiencing “administration” in any neutral sense. His life, authority, and community were being attacked. Yet the emperor’s logic was not necessarily that of a simple persecutor hunting enemies of faith. He was acting like a Roman ruler who believed peace could be imposed from above. Valens did not always use coercion. After the revolt of Procopius had ended, he allowed Athanasius to remain in Alexandria. In Antioch, Nicenes could be left alone when they did not appear dangerous. Some accounts even show Valens ordering exile in anger and then recalling the command. Before the Gothic war in 378, Jerome and Rufinus mention a recall of Nicene exiles. This may have been a practical attempt to restore unity before war, or a response to public pressure against his policies. The case of Basil of Caesarea shows how complicated Valens’ religious policy could be. Basil was a Nicene bishop, and Valens supported the Homoian side. Yet their relationship was not one of uninterrupted persecution. Basil was a powerful regional figure, useful in local affairs and influential in Cappadocia. ![Semyon Spiridonov Semen Spiridonov Kholmogorets. Basil the Great. 1674 ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Semyon-Spiridonov-Semen-Spiridonov-Kholmogorets.-Basil-the-Great.-1674--1.jpg) Semyon Spiridonov Semen Spiridonov Kholmogorets. Basil the Great. 1674\. Public domain. Valens even made donations of imperial estates to Basil’s church for charitable purposes. Doctrinal enemies could still exchange favours when political and social interests required it. Later writers transformed these encounters into scenes of moral drama. Basil appears fearless, spiritually superior, and immovable. Valens appears anxious, clumsy, angry, or humbled by divine intervention. In these stories, the emperor holds earthly power, but the bishop possesses the higher authority. Basil’s parrhesia, his bold freedom of speech before power, becomes the central image. The emperor may command soldiers and sign decrees, but the holy bishop stands above him in spiritual truth. This was how Valens became a persecutor in memory. Gregory of Nazianzus called him > “the emperor fighting against Christ” and > “the tyrant of faith.” Valens could be compared with Xerxes, Herod, Julian, or earlier persecuting [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-shadow-of-the-dagger-assassinations-of-roman-emperors/). The charge worked because it placed him inside an older Christian pattern: the impious ruler who opposes God’s people. The language of blame followed familiar ancient patterns. A bad ruler could be said to have been misled by corrupt advisers, wicked bishops, eunuchs, or [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/). Valens was portrayed as corrupted by Homoian bishops such as Eudoxius of Constantinople and Euzoius of Antioch. His wife Domnica was also blamed in some accounts, almost as another Eve who drew him away from the truth. Such stories were not simply biography. They were ways of explaining how a Christian emperor could become, in Nicene eyes, an enemy of true Christianity. After Valens died, the attacks became stronger. During his lifetime, criticism was more cautious. Once he was gone, and gone in disaster, hostile writers had the ending they needed. Adrianople could be read not only as defeat, but as judgment. The emperor who had exiled bishops and supported the wrong creed had died terribly. The story became almost irresistible: a persecutor met the fate of persecutors. Ambrose linked Valens’ religious error with military disaster, asking, > “How can the Roman state be secure with such custodians?” Theodoret later shaped the [battle](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-battle-of-pharsalus-the-victory-that-changed-rome/) into a drama of ignored warnings. Valens was told that God had turned against him and that the barbarians had been roused because of his blasphemy. When he died, the conclusion was clear: he had paid for his errors. That interpretation sealed his reputation. Yet the larger fourth-century world was full of emperors who pressured dissenters. Constantine, Constantius II, Constans, Julian, Theodosius I, Arcadius, Honorius, and Theodosius II all used coercion in religious affairs in one way or another. Valens was probably not uniquely harsh. He was less successful, less fortunate, and remembered by writers whose version of Christianity became dominant. The result was a reputation almost impossible to undo. Valens was not innocent, but neither was he only the villain of Nicene memory. He was an emperor trying to maintain order in a divided Christian East, using old Roman methods that created new Christian stories of persecution. (“A Misunderstood Emperor? Valens as a Persecuting Ruler in Late Antique Literature.” By Maijastina Kahlos) ### When Monks Became a Problem for the State The harshest evidence against Valens comes from his treatment of monks. Here the problem was not only theology. It was also manpower, taxation, military recruitment, civic duty, and the Roman state’s suspicion of men who withdrew from ordinary obligations. Jerome preserves one of the most striking notices of Valens’ reign. Under the year A.D. 375, he reports that Valens passed a law requiring monks to serve as soldiers, and that those who refused were beaten to death with cudgels. The Latin is severe: > “Valens lege data ut monachi militarent, nolentes fustibus iussit interfici.” In plain terms, monks were ordered into service, and those who refused could be killed with rods. This notice has often been doubted because Jerome is the only independent source for that exact law. Yet the case for rejecting it is not strong enough to dismiss the episode completely. Jerome finished his Chronicle around 380 or 381, only a few years after the events. He had lived in Syria during the relevant period, first in Antioch, then as an ascetic near Chalcis, then again in Antioch before moving to Constantinople. Valens was also often in Antioch and other eastern cities connected with frontier defence. Jerome was not writing from a distant century. ![“Athanaric and Valens on the Danbue”. (Peace agreement between Athanaric and Emperor Valens 369. Woodcut, after a drawing.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/---Athanaric-and-Valens-on-the-Danbue---.--Peace-agreement-between-Athanaric-and-Emperor-Valens-369.-Woodcut--after-a-drawing.-1.jpg) “Athanaric and Valens on the Danube”. (Peace agreement between Athanaric and Emperor Valens 369\. Woodcut, after a drawing. Public domain. The wider evidence also makes the notice plausible. Valens seems to have tried to avoid open persecution early in his reign, but after the death of Athanasius of Alexandria in 373, his government became more violent toward religious resistance. The Alexandrian succession crisis brought imperial intervention, armed force, trials, torture, exile, and punishment. Monks were among those targeted. Some were sent to mines and quarries. Others were exiled. The pressure was not restricted to Egypt; evidence also points to attacks or expulsions in Syria and other eastern regions. Valens’ suspicion of monks fits the broader character of his rule. He and Valentinian were practical emperors. They cared about frontier defence, taxation, curial obligations, and administrative efficiency. Monastic withdrawal challenged that world. To supporters, the monk was a holy man who had left society for God. To the imperial government, he could appear as a man avoiding service, tax obligations, municipal duties, and the normal burdens of [Roman life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/). A law of 373 makes that suspicion visible. It describes some monks as “devotees of idleness” who had abandoned municipal obligations and gone into solitude under the pretext of religion. That phrase is revealing. It does not sound like theological debate. It sounds like administration, irritation, and social control. The monk is not imagined as a spiritual athlete, but as someone who has removed himself from the duties that sustained the city and the empire. This mattered because the Roman state needed bodies. It needed [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/), miners, taxpayers, councillors, and officials. Valens had serious manpower problems in the 370s. He needed recruits for the [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/), and he needed labour for mining after financial strain and coinage reform created pressure on imperial resources. In that context, monks could look like an unused reservoir of men. Sending monks to mines or forcing them into military service was therefore not random cruelty. It was a brutal attempt to convert religious withdrawal into state labour. The punishment matched the charge: men who had fled civic obligation were dragged back into service. The use of cudgels also fits the military logic. Beating with rods was associated with military punishment, especially desertion. If Valens saw monks as men deserting their obligations, Jerome’s notice becomes more credible. The violence was extreme, but it belonged to a Roman world where the state could punish refusal with terrifying force. The conflict reveals a deeper tension inside the Christian empire. Monasticism celebrated withdrawal from the world. The Roman state depended on participation in the world. Ascetics might describe their life as spiritual warfare, but Valens needed actual soldiers. Monks might reject wealth, office, marriage, and public life; the empire needed taxpayers, sons, councillors, and recruits. This does not soften the policy. It makes it clearer. Valens’ treatment of monks was severe, and some of it was violent. But it was not only a matter of Homoian hostility toward Nicene ascetics. It was also a struggle between two visions of duty. One was ascetic and Christian, centred on renunciation. The other was imperial and Roman, centred on service. Nor was Valens alone in distrusting the new monastic movement. The rise of monasticism in the fourth century produced admiration, but also anxiety. Critics could accuse monks of idleness, hypocrisy, refusal to marry, refusal to serve, and social disruption. The monk was becoming a powerful figure in Christian imagination, but not everyone welcomed what that meant for the state. Valens’ policy may even have strengthened what it tried to break. By exiling monks, sending them away, and turning them into confessors, the emperor helped spread their reputation. Violence against ascetics could make them appear as heirs of the martyrs. A policy meant to discipline monasticism could give it greater moral power. This is one of the ironies of Valens’ reign. He tried to force monks back into the machinery of Roman order. Instead, his coercion helped later Christian writers place monks more firmly in the story of holy resistance. The emperor wanted service; the monks became witnesses. (“Valens and the Monks: Cudgeling and Conscription as a Means of Social Control” by Noel Lenski) ### Governing an Empire Under Pressure Valens’ reign was not only a religious story. It was also a reign of revolt, frontier diplomacy, administrative pressure, finance, and military crisis. A fuller view of the emperor begins with the fact that he had to rule as part of an imperial college, not as an isolated monarch. Valentinian’s decision to make Valens Augustus gave his [brother](https://romanempiretimes.com/brothers-divided-the-tragic-tale-of-emperors-caracalla-and-geta/) full imperial rank, but the partnership remained unequal. Valentinian held the stronger position, and the division of territory gave him the larger share. [Coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/), inscriptions, and public messaging promoted concord and brotherly equality, but the political reality showed Valens dependent on Valentinian’s seniority and prestige. ![The Roman emperor Valens pours money into a coffer; an officer is arrested and led to prison. Etching by C. Murer after himself, c. 1600-1614.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/The-Roman-emperor-Valens-pours-money-into-a-coffer--an-officer-is-arrested-and-led-to-prison.-Etching-by-C.-Murer-after-himself--c.-1600-1614.-1.jpg) The Roman emperor Valens pours money into a coffer; an officer is arrested and led to prison. Etching by C. Murer after himself, c. 1600-1614\. Credits: Wellcome Collection, CC BY 4.0 That imbalance mattered during the revolt of Procopius in 365–366\. Procopius was connected to the Constantinian dynasty, and his rebellion exploited precisely the kind of legitimacy Valens lacked. Valens and Valentinian were Pannonian soldiers, elevated after the death of Jovian. They had power, but not the glamour of dynasty. Procopius could trade on that absence. The revolt should not be treated as a comic interlude. It threatened Valens early and exposed the insecurity of his rule. Procopius had limited military backing, but he used dynastic association and cultural prestige to challenge a new emperor whose authority had not yet settled. Valens survived, but the experience helps explain the harder edge of his later government. A ruler nearly overthrown at the beginning of his reign could become more suspicious of disorder. The Gothic frontier also troubled Valens before the great crisis of 376–378\. His first Gothic war was not driven by obvious necessity. Roman claims beyond the Danube were more limited than imperial propaganda suggested, and the eventual peace was a compromise. Valens could not focus indefinitely on the Danube because eastern pressures demanded attention. The Persian frontier was one of those pressures. The treaty of 363, made after Julian’s failed Persian expedition and Jovian’s retreat, left Armenia and Iberia in an ambiguous position. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) and Persia both tried to exploit the settlement. Valens had to manage the eastern frontier carefully, balancing Roman influence, Persian pressure, and the danger of renewed war. Other problems added to the strain. Valens had difficulties with the Maratocupreni, Isaurians, Saracens, and the revolt of Mavia. These were not the famous disasters of his reign, but they show an [eastern empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-the-eastern-roman-empire-did-not-collapse/) that constantly demanded attention. Valens’ government had to respond to local unrest, frontier pressures, and diplomatic crises across a wide territory. Administration and finance formed another major part of his rule. Valens and Valentinian often legislated together on public order, family law, weights and measures, [education](https://romanempiretimes.com/quintilian-a-roman-theory-of-education-that-left-its-mark-from-antiquity-onwards/), entertainments, and corruption. Both emperors were harsh toward dishonest officials. Both were concerned about the decline of the curial class, whose service was essential to local government. Both preferred useful building projects over empty display. Valens also tried to reduce taxation and repair fiscal damage left by Julian’s financial policies. His reforms were not without cost. Early efforts may have contributed to the conditions behind Procopius’ revolt, while coinage reform and financial pressure later produced harsher regulation of mining, confiscations, and the sale of imperial estates. Administrative energy did not always mean administrative success. His religious policy belongs inside this wider concern for order. At first, Valens imitated the tolerance associated with Valentinian. Even the magic trials of the 370s arose from fears of conspiracy rather than a simple attack on pagans. In Christian affairs, his aim appears to have been religious harmony, though enforced by coercive means when he thought necessary. He tolerated Nicenes when they caused little trouble, left Basil alone, and showed restraint in some places. Serious problems arose especially after Athanasius’ death, when arrests, pressure on bishops, and the forced service of monks and ascetics became more prominent. ![Death of Emperor Valens during the battle of Adrianople, 378](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Death-of-Emperor-Valens-during-the-battle-of-Adrianople--378-1.jpg) Death of Emperor Valens during the battle of Adrianople, 378\. Public domain. The same mixture of opportunity and danger appears in the Gothic crisis. When large groups of Goths reached the Danube in 376, Valens had reason to see possible advantage in admitting them. The East needed manpower. If the newcomers could be disarmed, supplied, distributed, and supervised, they might become soldiers, taxpayers, and useful settlers. The plan was not absurd. Roman governments had long used settlement, recruitment, diplomacy, and controlled violence to manage peoples beyond the frontier. The danger lay in implementation. The Goths were numerous, Roman control was weak, and officials on the frontier behaved badly. Hunger, exploitation, [corruption](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/), and humiliation turned admission into rebellion. What had been intended as controlled settlement became a military crisis inside the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/). Valens’ approach to the final campaign was shaped by more than battlefield calculation. Eastern frontier problems delayed him. Gratian’s western support was inadequate or slow. After Valentinian’s death, Valens’ relationship with Gratian carried political tension. Valens could claim seniority as emperor, but Gratian controlled a larger part of the empire. Waiting too long for his nephew risked making Valens look dependent. This helps explain the decision to fight at Adrianople, though it does not excuse it. Valens faced pressure from the Goths, from imperial prestige, and from the uncomfortable politics of assistance. If Gratian arrived and victory followed, who would receive the glory? If Valens waited and seemed hesitant, what would that say about his authority? At Adrianople, all these pressures converged. The result was catastrophe. Yet the battle should not erase the rest of the reign. Valens governed through civil war, religious conflict, frontier diplomacy, administrative reform, fiscal strain, military shortage, and imperial rivalry. He was not a glamorous emperor, but he was not an idle one. His rule was an attempt to keep the eastern Roman state functioning under pressure. That is why his failure matters. It was not the failure of one bad day alone. It was the failure of systems that had become harder to manage: recruitment, settlement, frontier control, religious unity, finance, and shared imperial authority. Adrianople revealed those weaknesses in the most brutal form. (“Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century A.D”, by Robin Seager, (review of Noel Lenski) in The Classical Review.) ### The Emperor Behind the Catastrophe Valens is difficult to rescue from his ending. Adrianople gave his reign a shape that later writers could not resist. The emperor who supported Homoian Christianity and used coercion against Nicene opponents died in a disaster that could be read as divine punishment. The ruler who needed manpower was destroyed by a crisis born from failed recruitment and settlement. The emperor who wanted order became remembered through chaos. ![Lodovico Pogliaghi Battle of Adrianople 378](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Lodovico-Pogliaghi-Battle-of-Adrianople-378-1.jpg) Lodovico Pogliaghi Battle of Adrianople 378\. Public domain. He was not a heroic figure. His policies could be harsh, his temper suspect, his religious choices divisive, and his judgement at Adrianople disastrous. He used exile, confiscation, military force, and forced service. Monks and bishops suffered under his government. The Gothic crisis was mishandled, and the consequences were immense. But the old caricature is too simple. Valens was not merely a foolish emperor who rushed blindly into defeat, nor only the persecutor created by Nicene memory. He was a ruler of the eastern Roman Empire at a time when every instrument of order carried danger. To discipline bishops could create confessors. To force monks into service could turn them into martyrs of ascetic life. To admit Goths could strengthen the army, or create an enemy within the frontier. To wait for Gratian could save an army, or humiliate an emperor. His reign stands at the meeting point of late Roman pressures. Dynastic weakness, religious division, monastic withdrawal, fiscal strain, manpower shortage, eastern diplomacy, Gothic migration, and imperial rivalry all passed through his rule. Adrianople did not create those tensions. It exposed them. Valens lost the battle, and he also lost control of his memory. Theodosius I, who came after him, would be celebrated by Nicene writers despite using coercion of his own. Valens, who backed the wrong Christian side and died in the wrong way, became the warning. His defeat seemed to explain his life. The more troubling truth is that Valens was a Roman emperor using Roman tools in a world those tools no longer controlled easily. His government sought discipline, unity, service, and obedience. What it often produced was resentment, resistance, and stories of persecution. Rome remembered Valens through disaster because disaster made sense of him. Behind that memory stood a more complex ruler: overshadowed by his brother, challenged by rebels, pressured by Persia, entangled with bishops, hostile to monks, tempted by Gothic manpower, and finally destroyed by a crisis he could not master. His reign was not only the road to Adrianople. It was a warning about an empire still powerful, still organized, still ambitious — but increasingly unable to make its own solutions safe. ### Claudian: The Last Great Poet of the Western Roman Court URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/claudian-the-last-great-poet-of-the-western-roman-court/ Last updated: 2026-05-20T19:32:01.000Z In the final years of the fourth century, when the Western Roman court still spoke the language of empire but already felt the pressure of crisis, Claudian gave Rome one of its last great poetic voices. He was not simply a flatterer of power or a convenient source for historians. He was a poet who turned the politics of his age into mythic drama, filling the world of Honorius and the western court with heroes, monsters, cosmic order, and the fear that Rome’s ancient harmony might not hold forever. ### An Alexandrian Poet in Latin Rome Claudius Claudianus, known simply as Claudian, stands near the end of one of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)’s longest literary traditions: the use of poetry to praise power, shape public memory, and turn political events into something larger than ordinary history. He wrote in the years around A.D. 395 to 404, when the Western [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/) still possessed [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), courts, ceremonies, aristocrats, [armies](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-gaius-marius-changed-rome-armies-forever/), and the immense prestige of Roman tradition, but was already living under pressure. Very little is known about Claudian’s early life, but the evidence points strongly to Alexandria in Egypt as his place of origin. That alone makes his career remarkable. Alexandria belonged to the [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/)\-speaking intellectual world, yet Claudian became one of the most accomplished [Latin](https://romanempiretimes.com/contrary-to-what-you-think-not-all-romans-spoke-latin-heres-what-they-actually-spoke/) [poets](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/) of late antiquity. His success reveals a late Roman culture in which [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) education could still move across languages, regions, and traditions. If he was indeed Alexandrian, then his poetry shows how deeply the Latin literary canon could be mastered outside the old Latin-speaking heartlands of the West. He seems to have arrived in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) shortly before 395\. His earliest major Latin poem for a Roman audience celebrated the consulship of the brothers Probinus and Olybrius, members of the great Anician family. From there, he moved into the world of the western court, where his poetry became attached to the political needs, ceremonies, fears, and ambitions of the age of Honorius. Claudian was honoured in his own lifetime with unusual distinction. A statue was erected for him in the Forum of [Trajan,](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/) and its inscription praised him not as a mere court servant, but as a poet of exceptional glory. The [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) couplet on the monument offered one of the highest compliments possible in the ancient literary world: > “In one man, the mind of Virgil and the Muse of Homer.” ![A possible representation of the statue of Claudian in Trajan's Forum. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Claudian-s-statue-in-the-forum-1.jpg) A possible representation of the statue of Claudian in Trajan's Forum. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT The praise is extraordinary, and it explains how Claudian could be remembered by those who celebrated him. He was not only a political voice. He was a poet whose art mattered in itself. To read him only as a source for the age of [Stilicho](https://romanempiretimes.com/stilicho-the-general-who-tried-to-hold-the-west-together/), Honorius, Alaric, Rufinus, and Eutropius is to miss much of what makes him important. His poetry does not simply record late Roman politics. It reimagines politics through myth, [spectacle,](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-greek-glory-to-roman-spectacle-the-olympic-games-evolution/) symbolism, and performance. ### Poetry as Performance and Power Claudian wrote for occasions. His major poems celebrated consulships, [marriages](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/), victories, and political enemies brought low. Some praised [emperors ](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-did-son-of-god-mean-in-a-world-already-ruled-by-emperors-claiming-divine-sonship/)or powerful patrons. Others attacked rivals. Their settings were ceremonial and elite. They were written for audiences trained in the classical tradition, people who could recognize the weight of [Virgil](https://romanempiretimes.com/analysis-of-the-world-of-virgil-roman-poet-eclogues-georgics-and-the-aeneid/), Homer, [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/), mythological comparison, epic language, and rhetorical display. Claudian’s poetry works through recognition. His audience did not need simple explanations. They could hear a mythological image and understand its political force. A reference to Achilles, [Bacchus](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/), Python, the Giants, [Mars](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/), Venus, or the underworld was never just decorative. It carried cultural memory with it. Claudian could use that memory to make contemporary politics feel ancient, cosmic, and inevitable. His style belongs fully to late antiquity. It is visual, ornate, elaborate, rich in set scenes, descriptions, speeches, and shimmering images. Older criticism sometimes treated this style as excessive, as if Claudian’s poetry lost narrative force because it loved description too much. But his descriptions are not empty ornaments. They are the way the poem thinks. They gather symbols until the political message becomes visible. A robe, a cave, a garden, a monster, a procession, a god, [a piece of armour](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-soldiers-shield-that-never-returned-home/), or a mythical comparison can carry the meaning of the whole poem. Claudian builds through accumulation. The poem’s power does not always lie in a straightforward plot. It lies in the way images repeat, echo, and bind together into a world. That world is the key to his poetry. ### A Story-World of Order and Chaos Claudian’s political poetry creates a story-world where [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) is more than a state. It becomes the centre of a moral and cosmic order. The universe should be harmonious. Its elements should remain in their proper places. Boundaries should hold. Gods, [cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/),[ emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/niche-perfumes-in-ancient-rome-how-did-emperors-smell-like/), [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/), and seasons all belong to a larger structure of meaning. But that structure is always under threat. Chaos presses against its borders. Evil figures break boundaries. Monsters emerge. Giants rise. Underworld forces move upward. Barbarian enemies become something more than human opponents. Court rivals become figures of corruption and disorder. In Claudian’s imagination, political danger is translated into cosmic disturbance. This is one reason his poetry could be so persuasive in performance. The late western court did not merely face administrative problems. It faced fear: fear of barbarian invasion, court betrayal, eastern rivalry, weak authority, and the possibility that Roman order itself might fail. Claudian gave those fears a mythological shape. He turned anxiety into poetry. The result is not fiction in the simple sense. It is a poetic version of reality. Real people and events remain visible, but they are lifted into a symbolic universe. A minister is not just a minister. A general is not just a general. A barbarian leader is not just a military opponent. Each becomes a figure in a drama about whether the world will remain ordered or fall into chaos. This is why Claudian’s mythological imagination is so important. It is not a retreat from politics. It is politics intensified. ### The Cave of Time and the Poetry of Eternity One of Claudian’s most striking qualities is his ability to create symbolic spaces. These are not merely beautiful passages inserted into political poems. They give the poems a deeper structure. ![A graphic representation of what was happening inside the Cave of Time](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/The-Cave-by-Claudian-1.jpg) A graphic representation of what was happening inside the Cave of Time. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT The Cave of Time is one of the clearest examples. In Claudian’s poetic universe, time itself becomes a place, mysterious and ancient. The cave is described as a kind of mother of the years, one that sends time out and calls it back again: > “who provides and calls back the times from her immense breast.” The image is strange and powerful. Time is not an abstract concept. It becomes a living, cavernous, maternal force. Around the cave, Claudian imagines a serpent encircling it, its tail bent back into its mouth: > “A snake encircles the cave, > which consumes everything with calm authority, > and shines eternal green from its scales, and devours its tail > bent back to its mouth, with silent gliding retracing its beginnings.” This is the *ouroboros*, the serpent of eternity and return. Claudian uses it to make [time](https://romanempiretimes.com/marking-the-hours-the-roman-way-of-measuring-time/) feel cyclic, sacred, and endless. Such imagery gives political celebration a cosmic scale. A consulship is no longer just an office held for a year. It becomes a chosen moment within the great movement of time. This is how Claudian’s poetry works. It takes the temporary and makes it feel eternal. A ceremony becomes part of cosmic order. A political claim becomes woven into the structure of the [universe](https://romanempiretimes.com/heaven-earth-and-the-roman-cosmos/). ### Heroes, Monsters, and Giants Claudian’s universe needs figures who either preserve order or threaten it. His enemies often appear as monsters. His heroes appear as those who restore harmony. This opposition is one of the strongest patterns in his political poetry. In the invectives against Rufinus and Eutropius, political rivalry is transformed into moral and mythic drama. These men are not treated simply as officials or opponents. They are associated with disorder, corruption, inversion, and boundary-breaking. Rufinus, especially, is given the force of a monster. The imagery around him evokes Python, the serpent destroyed by Apollo, as well as the Furies and the underworld. His fall can therefore be imagined not merely as a political death, but as the removal of something unnatural from the world. The barbarian threat is often shaped through the image of giants. This draws on the myth of the *Gigantomachy*, the war in which the Giants challenged the gods. In Claudian’s hands, the image becomes politically charged. The barbarian enemy is not only dangerous because he attacks Roman territory. He is dangerous because he threatens the order of the universe. This is why the giant matters. A giant is excessive. He crosses limits. He belongs to an older, violent, unstable world. He is both familiar and alien, recognizably human in shape but monstrous in scale and nature. Such a figure is ideal for Claudian’s treatment of the enemy. It allows him to magnify political danger while connecting that danger to myths his audience already understood. This does not mean Claudian simply invents fear. He works with anxieties his audience already possessed. Barbarian armies, divided courts, and insecure frontiers were real concerns. Claudian turns them into visible shapes. The monster gives fear a body. The hero gives hope a body too. ### The Hero Who Holds the World Together Claudian’s poetry often moves between danger and restoration. Monsters, giants, corrupt ministers, and barbarian enemies threaten the order of the Roman world; heroic figures are made to restore that order. In the political poems, Stilicho often fills this role. ![principum, heroumque poetae praegloriosissimi, Quae exstant.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Allegorical-title-page-with-Theodosius-I-and-Flavius-__Stilicho-Title-page-for-Claudius-Claudianus--1--1.jpg) Allegorical title page with Theodosius I and Flavius ​​Stilicho Title page for Claudius Claudianus principum, heroumque poetae praegloriosissimi, Quae exstant 1650\. Public domain. Claudian presents him not simply as a general, but as the figure who calms disorder, protects boundaries, and allows Roman harmony to return. The result is not biography in verse, but a poetic image of power: Rome survives because someone is still able to steer it through danger. He is not simply praised as brave. He is made into the one who restores boundaries, calms disorder, and permits harmony to return. Claudian’s language often draws him into heroic and divine associations, but carefully. He is not made emperor. He is made protector, guide, helmsman, and restorer. One of the most revealing images compares him to Tiphys, the helmsman of the Argo. The comparison matters because Tiphys is not the king of the Argonauts. He is the man who knows how to steer. In Claudian’s poetic world, the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) becomes like a ship passing through danger, and the hero is the one with the skill to guide it through. This is more subtle than simple flattery. It allows Claudian to present power as service. The hero is not a usurper. He is the necessary pilot. Through this kind of imagery, Claudian can defend the political arrangement of the western court without saying it bluntly. He also uses images of renewal. The phoenix, paradise, [gold](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-roman-empire-treasure-ever-found/), light, peace, and the Golden Age all appear as part of the language of restored order. The hero does not merely defeat enemies. He makes the world fertile again. [War ](https://romanempiretimes.com/for-rome-no-war-was-worse-than-civil-war/)leads back to ceremony. The sword makes possible the robe. The battlefield makes possible the city. This is Claudian’s political imagination at its richest. He turns the work of power into the restoration of [beauty](https://romanempiretimes.com/beauty-in-ancient-rome/). ### Honorius and the Problem of Youth Claudian’s treatment of Honorius is one of the most delicate parts of his poetry. Honorius had to be praised. He was the legitimate emperor, the son of Theodosius, and the centre of western imperial ceremony. Yet the political reality of the court required something more complex. Honorius was young. He could be celebrated as emperor, but not presented as fully independent. ![Ivory diptych of Consul Anicius Petronius Probus depicting Emperor Honorius, 406, from the Aosta Cathedral, Italy. Aosta, Museo Del Tesoro (Art Museum)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Diptych-of-Probus--1--1.jpg) Ivory diptych of Consul Anicius Petronius Probus depicting Emperor Honorius, 406, from the Aosta Cathedral, Italy. Aosta, Museo Del Tesoro (Art Museum). Public domain. Claudian solves this through myth. Honorius appears splendid, radiant, and promising, but often as a figure not yet fully complete. He is compared with youthful divine or heroic figures whose greatness is still emerging. The result is praise that also explains dependence. In the poem for Honorius’ fourth consulship, the young emperor is associated with Bacchus. The image is flattering, full of ceremony and magnificence. But there is a quiet contrast. Bacchus can drive his own [chariot](https://romanempiretimes.com/fury-on-wheels-the-legendary-chariot-races-of-ancient-rome/); Honorius is carried. Claudian’s phrase > “*sidereum gestaret onus*” – “they carried their heavenly burden” – captures the tension perfectly. Honorius is heavenly, but he is still borne by others. The wedding poems also use a delicate mythological language. Honorius can be linked with Achilles, but not the mature Achilles of Troy. The image points toward the young Achilles on Scyros, before the full revelation of his heroic identity. This is playful and suitable for a marriage poem, but it also preserves a political message. The emperor has promise. He has splendour. He has legitimacy. But he is not yet the figure who acts alone. This is not an attack on Honorius. It is controlled praise. Claudian honours the emperor while leaving space for another guiding figure in the political world of the poem. His skill lies in making that arrangement seem natural. ### The Poet Who Shows the Veil Claudian is especially fascinating because he does not pretend that his poetry is plain truth. He repeatedly presents himself as a poet, performer, singer, and maker of poetic illusion. His prefaces often draw attention to the act of performance itself. In the preface to the poem for Honorius’ sixth consulship, Claudian imagines himself in a dream, standing in the starry height of heaven and bringing his songs before [Jupiter](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/): > “For I seemed to be at the central height of the starry sky, > bringing my songs before the feet of highest Jupiter; > as sleep favours us, the gods applauded my words > and the sacred circle gathered around.” The scene is a heavenly version of his earthly performance. The gods become the audience. The poet is not merely reporting events; he is staging his own poetic authority. Then the boundary between dream, performance, and reality begins to blur. This is part of Claudian’s power. His audience knew they were hearing poetry. They knew panegyric could flatter and distort. Claudian does not hide this completely. Instead, he uses that awareness. He lets the audience see the veil, then draws them through it. The result is a kind of double effect. The audience enjoys the artistry while absorbing the political vision. They recognize the myth, the exaggeration, the performance, and the literary craft. Yet the poem still shapes how events feel. It makes one version of the world memorable. Claudian’s artifice is therefore not a weakness. It is the mechanism of persuasion. ### The Last Vision of Rome in Verse Claudian probably died around A.D. 404\. He did not live to see the execution of Stilicho in 408 or the sack of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) by Alaric in 410\. That makes his poetry feel suspended at a dramatic moment in Roman history. He wrote while the western court could still imagine itself defended, ceremonial, legitimate, and capable of renewal. The disaster that later came had not yet fully arrived, but the anxiety behind it was already present. ![The beginning of the poem “De raptu Proserpinae".](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/the-beginning-of-the-poem----De-raptu-Proserpinae-1.png) The beginning of the poem “De raptu Proserpinae". Credits: University of Glasgow Library, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 His poems are filled with splendour: gods, giants, robes, processions, gardens, caves, golden years, serpents, heroes, and monsters. Yet behind that splendour stands a tense political world. The empire was divided. The young emperor needed guidance. Court rivals competed for influence. Barbarians pressed against Roman order. The old language of Roman greatness still existed, but it had to work harder than ever. Claudian’s achievement was to make that language shine again. He did not simply imitate the classical past. He used it for a late Roman present. He took myth, epic, panegyric, invective, and ceremonial performance and fused them into a poetry capable of speaking to crisis. For historians, he remains indispensable but dangerous. His poetry preserves precious evidence for the age of Honorius and the western court, but it also reshapes that age according to poetic design. To read him only for facts is to miss the artistry. To read him only as art is to miss the politics. Claudian was not the final Latin poet, but he was one of the last great poets of the Western Roman court. He wrote at the edge of a world that still believed Rome could be imagined as eternal. In his verse, political enemies became monsters, imperial ceremonies became cosmic moments, and poetry itself became one of the last grand instruments through which the western empire could see itself as ordered, defended, and still magnificent. (“Claudian The Poet” by Clare Coombe) ### Stilicho: The General Who Tried to Hold the West Together URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/stilicho-the-general-who-tried-to-hold-the-west-together/ Last updated: 2026-05-19T19:34:24.000Z In the last years of the fourth century, the Western Roman Empire still had emperors, armies, courts, senators, laws, and ancient prestige. What it increasingly lacked was stability. At the center of that fragile world stood Flavius Stilicho, a Roman general of mixed Vandal and Roman origin who became the guardian of Honorius and the dominant figure in the West. His career has often been remembered through extremes: either as the last great defender of Rome, or as a dangerously ambitious commander whose policies weakened the empire he claimed to serve. The truth lies in a more difficult place. Stilicho did not rule a healthy state. He tried to hold together a western empire already under immense pressure – and his fall showed how little strength remained once he was gone. ### A Roman General with a Vandal Father Flavius Stilicho was born around A.D. 360, into a Roman world that had already changed profoundly. His father was a Vandal who served as a cavalry officer under the emperor Valens. His mother was Roman. Later suspicion often focused on his father’s origin, but that ancestry should not be misunderstood. Stilicho was not raised as an outsider looking in at [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) from beyond the frontier. He grew up within the structures of the Roman military and imperial court, in an age when men of non-Roman descent could rise high in imperial service. His mixed background mattered, but not in the simple way hostile voices later implied. There was no single “Germanic” identity that bound Vandals, Goths, Franks, Alans, and other peoples together against [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/). A man of Vandal descent did not naturally feel kinship with Gothic warriors on the Danube. The peoples beyond the frontier were divided by language, leadership, custom, and interest. Many served [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/), fought each other, and built careers inside the imperial system. Stilicho’s ancestry would later make him vulnerable to political attack, but it did not make him less Roman in public life. His early career shows how deeply integrated he already was. He entered the army young, as sons of soldiers were expected to do, and rose through the elite corps of the *protectores*, a body associated with men marked out for advancement. By his early twenties, he had probably reached a position close to the imperial general staff. His first known public role came in 383 or 384, when he was sent on an embassy to Persia. The mission mattered because the eastern court needed peace on the Persian frontier while the western usurper Magnus Maximus threatened the stability of the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/empire-size-comparison-how-did-the-roman-empire-compare-to-alexanders-or-the-mongols/). ![Valve from the Dyptich in Monza representing a Late Roman general traditionally identified with Stilicho](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Stilicho--1--1.jpg) Valve from the Dyptych in Monza representing a Late Roman general traditionally identified with Stilicho. Public domain. Stilicho did not lead that embassy, but his participation already shows trust. He was young, but not obscure. He belonged to the world of imperial service, diplomacy, and military command. Soon afterward, his career changed completely when he married Serena, the niece and adopted daughter of Theodosius I. Serena was not a minor relation. In practice, she belonged to the emperor’s immediate family, even if the adoption had not been formalized in a way that would complicate imperial succession. The [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/) raises an obvious question. Why would Theodosius allow his adopted daughter to marry a young officer of mixed Vandal and Roman background who had not yet won great military fame? The most likely answer is that Stilicho was already visible at court, educated in the imperial manner, and acceptable to the Theodosian family. Serena herself may have noticed him and supported the match. The important point is that she was not marrying an unformed barbarian soldier. She was marrying a Roman officer whose father’s origin did not prevent him from belonging to the highest circles of power. Theodosius then raised Stilicho’s status quickly. He became *comes sacri stabuli*, count of the sacred stables, and soon afterward *comes domesticorum*, commander of the imperial household guards. These promotions may have reflected ability, but they also solved a political problem: the husband of Serena needed rank appropriate to his new place in the imperial family. From this point, Stilicho was no longer simply a promising officer. He was tied by marriage, office, and personal loyalty to the ruling house. ### The Man Theodosius Trusted Stilicho’s rise unfolded during another period of imperial instability. Magnus Maximus had rebelled in Britain in 383, crossed into Gaul, and overthrown Gratian, who was abandoned by his army and executed at Lyon. Maximus then controlled [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-leave-britain/), Gaul, and Spain, while Valentinian II remained in Italy and Theodosius ruled the East. Theodosius could not immediately respond with force. He had only recently settled the Gothic crisis after Adrianople and was still negotiating with Persia over Armenia. Once peace with Persia had been secured, Theodosius was free to act. In 387, Maximus invaded Italy, forcing Valentinian II to flee to Thessalonica. Theodosius intervened the following year, defeated Maximus at Siscia and Poetovio, and had him executed at Aquileia. Stilicho is not clearly described in the surviving accounts of these campaigns, but his office makes it highly likely that he accompanied Theodosius. His presence in the West is also supported by inscriptions from Rome. This was probably the first stage in his practical military experience at the center of imperial war. ![ Peter J. N. Geiger - Theodosius gives Stillicho his niece (Serena) as his wife](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Theodosius-gives-Stilicho-his-niece-as-a-wife--1--1.jpg) Peter J. N. Geiger - Theodosius gives Stillicho his niece (Serena) as his wife. Public domain. His next major opportunity came in the Balkans. The Gothic settlement of 382 had not solved [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s Gothic problem. After the disaster at Adrianople, the Goths had been settled inside the empire while retaining their own leaders and identity. They had not been destroyed, but they had not been fully absorbed either. This created a dangerous new reality: a large armed people inside the imperial world, tied to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/) by agreement but not completely integrated into Roman society. In 391, Gothic unrest in the Balkans re-emerged. Promotus, the commander in Thrace, was killed in an ambush, and Stilicho seems to have succeeded him as *magister utriusque militiae per Thracias*. The evidence is brief and shaped by praise, but it suggests that Stilicho campaigned effectively against Gothic forces and helped restore order. He did not win a grand annihilating victory, but that should not be seen as failure. Since Adrianople, a prudent Roman commander knew the danger of risking everything in a single open battle. Stilicho appears to have used pressure, manoeuvre, and controlled force rather than reckless confrontation. This is also where Alaric begins to enter the larger story. He may already have been one of several Gothic leaders active in the Balkans, building authority through a combination of [war](https://romanempiretimes.com/for-rome-no-war-was-worse-than-civil-war/), negotiation, and the ability to gather followers. After Stilicho’s operations, Alaric was drawn into Roman service with his own warriors. That arrangement reflected a policy Theodosius used more than once: dangerous Gothic leaders could sometimes be more useful inside the imperial system than outside it. The decisive turning point came in 394, when Theodosius marched west against Arbogast and Eugenius. Arbogast, a Frankish general, had dominated the court of Valentinian II. After Valentinian’s suspicious death in 392, he raised Eugenius to the western throne. Theodosius refused to accept this settlement and prepared for war. Stilicho served as second in command under Timasius, while Theodosius retained overall authority. At the Battle of the Frigidus, the eastern army faced a difficult and dangerous position. Arbogast had deployed well, blocking the exit from the mountain pass and limiting the space in which Theodosius could deploy his troops. On the first day, the Gothic foederati and other auxiliaries suffered severe losses in a frontal assault. This has sometimes been interpreted as a deliberate attempt to weaken the Goths by sacrificing them, but the circumstances suggest something more practical. Theodosius needed space for the rest of his army to emerge and form. The attack was likely forced by necessity, not by a cold plan to destroy Gothic manpower. ![Information panel relating the battle of the Frigidus and the essential role of the wind](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Information-panel-relating-the-battle-of-the-Frigidus-and-the-essential-role-of-the-wind--1--1.jpg) Information panel relating the battle of the Frigidus and the essential role of the wind. Credits: Yves Canaff, CC BY-SA 4.0 The second day brought victory. Some western troops sent to block Theodosius’ retreat defected to him, and a powerful local wind, the Bora, blew dust into the faces of the western army. Eugenius was captured and executed. Arbogast fled and later killed himself. Theodosius had reunited the empire under one ruler. Stilicho’s exact role in the battle cannot be recovered with certainty. The sources focus on Theodosius, the religious meaning later attached to the victory, and the heavy losses among the Goths. Yet Stilicho emerged from the campaign as a trusted military figure, bound to Theodosius by family and service. When Theodosius fell seriously ill shortly afterward, the question of who would guide the young Honorius in the West became urgent. Theodosius had to choose carefully. Honorius was still a child. Recent history had shown what could happen when a young emperor was dominated by a powerful general. Arbogast had controlled Valentinian II and then placed Eugenius on the throne. The guardian of Honorius therefore had to be strong enough to defend the West, but loyal enough not to replace the dynasty. Stilicho, as Serena’s husband and Theodosius’ trusted officer, became the natural choice. ### Guardian of a Fragile West Theodosius died in January 395\. His sons inherited the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/): Arcadius in the East, Honorius in the West. Stilicho now stood beside Honorius as guardian and supreme military figure in the western court. His position was powerful, but far from secure. He had the army and the young [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), but he did not possess deep roots among the western aristocracy, and the eastern court did not welcome his influence. Stilicho claimed authority as *parens principum*, guardian of the imperial children. In the West, this strengthened his position over Honorius. But if applied to both sons of Theodosius, it implied a right to influence Arcadius as well. That immediately created conflict with the ministers who controlled the eastern court, especially Rufinus and later Eutropius. From the beginning, Stilicho’s power in the West was inseparable from tension with [Constantinople](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-the-eastern-roman-empire-did-not-collapse/). His first major test came quickly. In 395, Alaric rose in the Balkans. Stilicho marched with a combined eastern and western army and seemed well placed to deal with him. Then an order came from Arcadius requiring the eastern troops to return to Constantinople. Stilicho obeyed, but the decision destroyed his chance to settle the Gothic problem. Soon afterward Rufinus was murdered by troops, and the politics of the East became even more unstable. ![Allan Stewart. Alaric entering Athens](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Alaric-entering-Athens-1.png) Allan Stewart. Alaric entering Athens. Public domain. Upscale by Roman Empire Times. Alaric then moved into [Greece](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-romans-conquer-greece/). In 397, Stilicho campaigned there and appears to have trapped or at least contained him. Yet once again politics intervened. The eastern court declared Stilicho a public enemy, forcing him to withdraw without finishing the campaign. Alaric retreated to Epirus with the spoils of [Greece ](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-greece-is-restoring-a-roman-monument-to-its-former-glory/)and was later made magister militum per Illyricum by the eastern government. This was a clever but dangerous move. It limited Alaric’s power by giving him an official post in a reduced sphere, but it also turned him into an eastern military officer. If Stilicho attacked him again, he risked war with Arcadius. This was one of the central frustrations of Stilicho’s career. He could see the danger posed by Alaric, but the divided [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/) prevented a clear solution. East and West were still theoretically part of the same Roman world, but their courts often treated each other as rivals. Alaric survived partly because he understood that rivalry and could exploit it. Stilicho’s western strategy became increasingly focused on Italy, southern Gaul, and Africa. Italy mattered because it was the political and symbolic heart of the western regime. Southern Gaul mattered because of its proximity to Italy and its role in the defence of the Alpine approaches. Africa mattered because its grain supply fed Rome and Italy. Britain, Spain, and northern Gaul remained important, but they were farther from the Milanese court and less central to its immediate priorities. This was a logical strategy, but also a dangerous one. It concentrated limited resources around the core of western imperial power. For a time, that helped keep the regime alive. Later, when multiple crises erupted at once, the neglected edges of the West would become impossible to hold. ![An 1894 photogravure of Alaric I taken from a painting by Ludwig Thiersch.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Alaric-the-Goth-1.jpg) An 1894 photogravure of Alaric I taken from a painting by Ludwig Thiersch. Public domain. Upscale by Roman Empire Times. ### Africa, Italy, and the Gothic Threat The first major western crisis after Stilicho’s settlement in power came from Africa. Gildo, the powerful military commander there, shifted his allegiance toward the East. This was not a minor provincial quarrel. Africa was essential to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/)’s grain supply. If Africa was lost or withheld, the political stability of Italy and Rome itself came under threat. Stilicho responded indirectly but effectively. He did not lead the campaign in person. Instead, he sent Mascezel, Gildo’s brother and enemy, with a comparatively small force. Mascezel defeated Gildo’s troops, and Gildo was captured and died soon afterward. Africa returned to western control. This was a vital success. It secured the grain supply, restored the authority of the western regime, and showed that Stilicho could act decisively without always needing to command in person. The victory also strengthened his position politically. The western court needed Africa, and Stilicho had recovered it. Yet his power still rested on compromise. He had to deal with the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/), the army, the church, the court, barbarian federates, and the eastern government. His wife Serena helped stabilize his public image. Her role as a pious [Christian](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/) aristocratic woman tied Stilicho’s household more firmly to the Theodosian order. Stilicho himself might employ pagans, heretics, and barbarian soldiers when useful, but his family projected Christian legitimacy. For several years after Gildo’s defeat, Stilicho consolidated his position. Alaric remained quiet in his eastern post, while Stilicho worked within a West that was still fragile but manageable. Then, in 401, the balance changed. Alaric invaded Italy. This was the moment when Stilicho became the defender of the western heartland. He had to recall troops and move rapidly to meet the threat. Alaric advanced deep into Italy, endangering the prestige and security of Honorius’ regime. Stilicho eventually confronted him at Pollentia in 402\. The battle did not destroy Alaric, but it checked him. His camp, family, and treasure were reportedly captured, which gave Stilicho a strong bargaining position. Later that year, at Verona, Stilicho again forced Alaric into retreat. The fact that Alaric survived has often been used against Stilicho. Why did he not finish him? The more practical answer is that annihilating Alaric may not have been possible, and may not even have been desirable under the circumstances. Stilicho needed manpower. He needed political options. He needed to manage the East as well as defend the West. Alaric, dangerous as he was, could also become useful if employed against eastern Illyricum. Stilicho’s policy was not simply weakness. It was an attempt to turn a persistent enemy into a controllable instrument. This was risky. But the alternative – a total war against Alaric that might fail or consume resources the West could not spare – was risky too. ### Too Many Crises at Once Stilicho reached the height of his prestige after defeating the invasion of Radagaisus in 405–406\. Radagaisus led a large Gothic force into Italy, and the threat was severe enough to cause panic. Stilicho gathered troops, including Huns and other federates, and trapped the invaders near Faesulae. Radagaisus was captured and executed. Thousands of his followers were taken into Roman service, while many others were sold into [slavery](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/). ![The Stilicho Diptych is a consular diptych from around 400, created for Stilicho, magister militum of the Emperor Honorius. The diptych is located in the Treasury of the Cathedral of Monza, to which it was donated by King Berengar I around 900.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Diptych-of-Stilicho--1--1.jpg) The Stilicho Diptych is a consular diptych from around 400, created for Stilicho, magister militum of the Emperor Honorius. The diptych is located in the Treasury of the Cathedral of Monza, to which it was donated by King Berengar I around 900\. Credits: Carlodell, CC BY-SA 4.0 This was one of Stilicho’s greatest military successes. It protected Italy, demonstrated his ability to organize a coalition [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/), and brought new recruits into Roman service. The Senate honoured him, and monuments were erected in his name. At this moment, he seemed almost unassailable. Yet success brought new problems. Many [Roman elites](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) still expected victories over barbarians to end in slaughter or total humiliation of the enemy. Stilicho’s willingness to recruit defeated barbarians into the army was militarily useful, but politically dangerous. It increased dependence on federate troops and deepened suspicion among those who feared the growing role of barbarian soldiers in Roman affairs. After Radagaisus, Stilicho planned an invasion of Illyricum, with Alaric positioned to assist. This was not a reckless fantasy. Illyricum was strategically valuable, and control over it had long been disputed between East and West. Stilicho may have hoped to use Alaric as an official instrument against the East, turning a problem into a weapon. Then disaster struck elsewhere. At the end of 406, Vandals, Alans, and Sueves crossed the Rhine into Gaul. At almost the same time, Constantine III was proclaimed emperor in [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-leave-britain/), crossed into Gaul, and began taking control of western provinces. The planned campaign in Illyricum had to be abandoned. Stilicho now faced crises on several fronts: barbarian invasion in Gaul, usurpation from Britain, Alaric waiting for payment and recognition, and ongoing mistrust between East and West. This was the moment when the western system began to crack. Stilicho had often managed crises one at a time. Africa could be restored. Alaric could be checked. Radagaisus could be defeated. But the Rhine crossing and Constantine’s revolt created a scale of disruption that no single commander could easily master. Gaul, Britain, Spain, Italy, Africa, the eastern court, and Alaric all became linked in one unstable chain. Stilicho tried to respond. Sarus, a Gothic commander in Roman service, struck against Constantine’s forces and won some success, but he could not complete the task. In Spain, relatives of Honorius resisted Constantine but were defeated. Meanwhile Alaric, who had been waiting in Epirus, demanded compensation for the cancelled Illyricum campaign. Stilicho persuaded the Senate to authorize payment, arguing that it was a political necessity. To many senators, this looked humiliating. To Stilicho, it may have seemed the price of preventing another immediate invasion of Italy. His policy was still based on management: buy time, preserve Italy, use Alaric if possible, contain Constantine, and avoid open war with the East until the situation became clearer. But the room for manoeuvre was disappearing. ### The Fall of Stilicho In 408, the death of Arcadius changed everything. His son Theodosius II was still a child. Stilicho and Honorius disagreed over what should happen next. Stilicho seems to have argued that he should go east to manage affairs in Constantinople, while Honorius should remain in the West. This played directly into the fears of his enemies. If Stilicho had long claimed a role as guardian of both imperial sons, the death of Arcadius gave that claim new urgency – and made it seem more dangerous. ![Stilicho's Sepulchre sits to the side of the central nave and is a sarcophagus from the 4th Century. The Eagle and figure towards the top of thise side shown depict John the Evangelist.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Stilicho-s-Sepulchre-1.jpg) Stilicho's Sepulchre sits to the side of the central nave and is a sarcophagus from the 4th Century. The Eagle and figure towards the top of thise side shown depict John the Evangelist. Credits: Slices of Light ✴, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 At court, opposition gathered around Olympius, who convinced Honorius that Stilicho was plotting against him. The accusations appear to have centered on the idea that Stilicho wanted to place his own son Eucherius on the throne, or at least use the crisis to seize control. The evidence for such a plan is weak. Later investigations failed to produce firm proof that Stilicho had aimed at the throne. But in a frightened court, proof was not always necessary. Honorius went to Pavia, where troops were assembled. There, a mutiny broke out. Stilicho’s supporters were killed. The purge spread quickly. Stilicho, who still had loyal forces available, did not launch a civil war. He took refuge in a church at Ravenna, but when he was promised that the imperial order concerned only arrest, he came out. The promise did not save him. Honorius ordered his execution, and Stilicho was killed in August 408. His son Eucherius was also killed. His daughter Thermantia, who had married Honorius after the death of her sister Maria, was dismissed from court. Serena, Stilicho’s widow, would later be executed in Rome during the crisis caused by Alaric. The family that had once stood at the heart of the Theodosian order was destroyed. The consequences were immediate and disastrous. The new regime hunted Stilicho’s supporters, trying to prove treason. It also unleashed anti-barbarian violence. Roman troops turned on the families of federate soldiers living in Italian cities. Many were killed or enslaved. The federate troops themselves, who had served Stilicho personally, now had every reason to abandon the imperial government. Many went over to Alaric. This was the final irony of Stilicho’s fall. His enemies had accused him of being too close to barbarians, yet by killing him and attacking federate families, they pushed thousands of trained warriors directly into Alaric’s camp. The western government removed the man who had contained Alaric and then strengthened Alaric’s army. Rome was first besieged by Alaric in 408\. It would be sacked in 410. ### Was Stilicho Rome’s Last Defender? Stilicho should not be turned into a flawless savior. He made risky choices. His policy toward Alaric was dangerous, and his failure to destroy or permanently neutralize him left the West exposed. His focus on Italy, Africa, and southern Gaul was understandable, but it left other regions more vulnerable. His dominance of the western court created resentment, and his reliance on federate troops deepened suspicion among Roman elites. His claim to influence both East and West made political conflict with Constantinople almost inevitable. ![Lodovico Pogliaghi - Death of Stilicho, Ravenna, 408](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Lodovico-Pogliaghi-Death-of-Stilicho-Ravenna-408--1--1.jpg) Lodovico Pogliaghi - Death of Stilicho, Ravenna, 408\. Public domain Yet the opposite image – Stilicho as a disloyal barbarian schemer who betrayed Rome – is even less convincing. He spent his career defending the Theodosian regime, protecting Honorius, restoring Africa, defeating Alaric in Italy, destroying Radagaisus’ invasion, and trying to manage problems that were already larger than the resources of the western state. His Vandal ancestry does not explain his policies, and the evidence does not show that he was secretly working for Rome’s enemies. His real tragedy was that he served an empire whose political system could no longer bear the weight placed upon it. The West needed a commander of his ability, but feared the power such a commander required. It needed barbarian soldiers, but distrusted the men who recruited and managed them. It needed cooperation with the East, but was trapped in rivalry with it. It needed to defeat Alaric, but also needed to use him. It needed to defend Italy, but could not afford to abandon Gaul, Britain, Spain, or Africa. Stilicho’s career was therefore not the story of one man saving or ruining Rome by himself. It was the story of a commander trying to hold together a western empire already close to breaking. For thirteen years, he managed to contain one crisis after another. He did not solve them all, and perhaps no one could have. But after his death, the balance collapsed with terrifying speed. Alaric gained strength, Rome was besieged, and two years later the city was sacked for the first time in eight centuries. ("Stilicho. The Vandal Who Saved Rome" by Ian Hughes) Stilicho’s importance lies there. He was not the last Roman in some romantic sense, nor simply the Vandal who saved Rome. He was a Roman general of mixed ancestry, a son-in-law of Theodosius, guardian of Honorius, rival of eastern ministers, enemy and occasional would-be employer of Alaric, and the one figure who, for a time, made the western state still look governable. His fall exposed how fragile that state had become. Once he was gone, the West discovered that removing a powerful general was much easier than replacing what he had held together. ### Why the Eastern Roman Empire Did Not Collapse URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/why-the-eastern-roman-empire-did-not-collapse/ Last updated: 2026-05-12T16:55:26.000Z When the Eastern Roman Empire entered the seventh century, it was still the heir to one of the great political orders of the ancient world. Within a few decades, that inheritance had been broken apart by war, conquest, and the loss of some of its richest provinces. What remained was a reduced and deeply pressured state that, by any ordinary expectation, should not have lasted. Yet it did. The real story of this period lies not only in what the empire lost, but in how it managed to endure after so much had already fallen away. ### A State on the Edge of Survival By the middle decades of the seventh century, the Eastern Roman Empire seemed to have entered the kind of crisis from which states do not normally recover. Provinces that had long sustained imperial government and military power were gone or slipping away, war had drained resources on a vast scale, and the political geography of the eastern Mediterranean had been transformed with astonishing speed. From the outside, it is easy to see only contraction, defeat, and exhaustion. Yet the most important fact about this period is not that the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-roman-empire-a-brief-history/) suffered such immense losses, but that it survived them at all. That survival is what makes the period so important. The central question is not simply why the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/) became smaller, poorer, and more vulnerable, but why those developments did not destroy it. The state that emerged from the seventh century was no longer the same eastern [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) that had dominated the late antique Mediterranean. It had lost territory, revenue, and much of the older balance on which its power had rested. But it had not ceased to function as a Roman state. It remained politically coherent, militarily active, and ideologically self-confident enough to endure in a world that had changed around it. This means the period cannot be reduced to a simple story of collapse. Older ways of describing these centuries as a dark age of decline do not explain enough. There was loss, certainly, and on a scale that should not be softened. But there was also reorganization, adaptation, and the construction of a new imperial order under far harsher conditions. The [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/empire-size-comparison-how-did-the-roman-empire-compare-to-alexanders-or-the-mongols/) did not survive by preserving the old world intact. It survived by changing. What followed was not the continuation of the late Roman world in its earlier form, but the emergence of a more compact, more defensive, and more regional imperial structure. ![An allegory of a "wounded but not dead" Roman Empire](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/a-wounded-roman-empire-1.jpg) An allegory of a "wounded but not dead" Roman Empire. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT No single explanation is enough to account for that outcome. Military resistance mattered, but armies alone cannot explain why the state held together. Fiscal capacity mattered, but taxation and resources cannot be separated from the institutions that collected them or the communities that sustained them. Geography mattered, but no landscape defends itself without political organization. Ideology mattered too: the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/) was not merely a tax machine or a military system, but a Roman and Christian polity whose rulers and subjects still believed in the legitimacy and necessity of imperial order. Survival rested not on one miracle factor, but on the interaction of many. That is why the history of the seventh century has to be read on several levels at once. It was a military crisis, but also a political one. It was an economic crisis, but also a social and administrative one. It tested emperors, armies, and frontier systems, but also provincial society, local elites, and the empire’s own ability to preserve cohesion under strain. States do not endure because they are abstractly strong. They endure when enough of their structures remain functional, enough of their people remain invested in them, and enough adaptability survives to turn emergency into a new form of stability. The Eastern Roman [Empire ](https://romanempiretimes.com/empire-size-comparison-how-did-the-roman-empire-compare-to-alexanders-or-the-mongols/)entered this period with real advantages, but also with deep vulnerabilities. It was still the heir to the late Roman world, still rich in political tradition, administrative practice, and imperial prestige. Yet those strengths had already been strained by generations of war and competition before the great shocks of the seventh century fully unfolded. What followed did not strike a settled and untroubled state. It struck one already under pressure, and forced it into a more radical transformation than anything it had faced for centuries. That is what gives the period its distinctive place in Roman history. The empire did not simply outlast a run of defeats. It passed through a crisis severe enough to destroy the older order and yet remained alive on the other side of it. The eastern Roman state that continued after these decades was diminished, altered, and hardened, but it was still Roman. Its survival was neither automatic nor accidental. It was the result of a difficult, uneven, and profound remaking of empire. ### Belief, Identity, and the Meaning of Crisis The surviving empire held together not only through [armies](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/), taxation, and administration, but also through the ways in which people understood what was happening around them. Defeat, invasion, displacement, famine, [plague](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-plague-of-justinian-when-death-came-to-constantinople/), and political violence were not treated as random blows. They were interpreted through a moral and religious language that gave suffering meaning and placed it inside a larger order. Sin, [punishment](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/), divine favor, repentance, prophecy, sacred intercession, and providence were not marginal features of the culture. They formed part of the ordinary framework through which many eastern Romans understood history, authority, and survival. Under such conditions, endurance depended not only on keeping [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/) in the field, but on preserving a moral world in which [survival](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-romans-manual-for-survival/) could still be imagined as purposeful rather than futile. This did not create harmony. Religious controversy remained sharp, and doctrinal conflict could deepen political tension instead of easing it. Debates over imperial religious policy mattered because they shaped how rulers were judged and how communities located themselves in relation to the state. Yet the long-term effect within the surviving empire was not the permanent fragmentation of belief into mutually hostile camps. The Christian Roman identity of the state remained strong enough to help preserve cohesion. Imperial legitimacy became still more tightly bound to its religious role, and the continued existence of the empire could be understood as part of a larger sacred order. That did not erase disagreement, but it did help sustain a political framework inside which disagreement could continue without destroying the state itself. ![The Battle of the Pons Milvius (312 A.D.) placed Constantine against his rival, marking the defeat of Maxentius (shown as he is about to drown in the river Tiber) and the victory of Christianity over the pagan world.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/The-Battle-of-the-Pons-Milvius--1--1.jpg) The Battle of the Pons Milvius (312 A.D.) placed Constantine against his rival, marking the defeat of Maxentius (shown as he is about to drown in the river Tiber) and the victory of Christianity over the pagan world. Credits: FaceMePLS, CC BY 2.0 The empire’s enemies were also understood within this changing moral and intellectual world. For a long time, the invaders were not yet consistently grasped as representatives of a fully articulated rival religion in the later sense. They often appeared first as violent, godless enemies, as destroyers from outside the civilized Roman order. Only gradually did a clearer and more systematic understanding of Islam develop within the empire. That gradual change matters because it shows that the categories through which eastern Romans understood conflict were themselves evolving. The empire had to learn the nature of the world it was now living in, and that learning formed part of its adaptation. The same is true of miracle, relic, saintly intervention, sacred protection, and prophetic warning. These were not decorative pieties sitting above the real business of state. They belonged to the logic through which many people understood causation itself. At the same time, this was not a world without pragmatism. Men who believed deeply in divine judgment could still act with strategic intelligence, administrative realism, and personal ambition. The society that survived was not irrational. It was a society whose practical actions were embedded in a symbolic and moral universe different from the one assumed by modern secular habits of thought. To understand why the empire endured, that universe has to be taken seriously. ### Identity, Division, and Solidarity The empire that survived was never socially or culturally uniform. It was divided by [language](https://romanempiretimes.com/contrary-to-what-you-think-not-all-romans-spoke-latin-heres-what-they-actually-spoke/), region, doctrine, [status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/), and locality. Those divisions did not disappear under pressure. If anything, crisis often made them more visible. Yet the state did not dissolve into separate political worlds. That is one of the central facts that any explanation has to confront. The surviving Roman order became narrower and more concentrated, but it remained held together by forms of identity and solidarity that were strong enough to preserve an imperial political structure. Roman identity did not vanish when so many older provinces were lost. It was reworked inside a smaller, harsher, and more defensive world. The reduced empire could no longer rely on the broad Mediterranean balance of the late antique state, but it could still define itself as Roman, Christian, and legitimate. Those identifications mattered not merely as formal claims, but as part of the social glue that linked rulers, soldiers, clerics, provincial [elites](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/), and subjects to a shared political order. Constantinople and Anatolia became more central than before, and that altered the social and political balance of the empire. The capital became more dominant, but provincial society did not become passive. Instead, a more strongly rooted imperial core emerged in which local and imperial identities became more tightly connected. ![A possible representation of Eastern Roman Constantinople](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Constantinople-1.jpg) A possible representation of Eastern Roman Constantinople. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT The growing importance of Anatolian elites belongs here. These were not simply local men obeying distant orders. Their position, wealth, and authority were increasingly tied to the survival of the imperial structure. They had reasons to support the state because their own futures were bound to it. Their role helps explain why the empire’s core did not break into disconnected regional societies once the old Mediterranean order had been shattered. What survived was not a shell of imperial authority floating above society, but a political order that still possessed social roots in the provinces that mattered most. The army was part of this as well. Soldiers were not a separate caste detached from [society](https://romanempiretimes.com/inside-roman-society-how-ordinary-life-shaped-an-extraordinary-empire-part-2/). As the empire changed, the military increasingly reflected the same provincial world from which it was drawn. That may have narrowed the gap between soldiers and local populations more than is often assumed. If so, the durability of the army cannot be explained only by command and pay. It also depended on the fact that the army remained anchored in the social fabric of the surviving empire. This mattered because provincial resistance, military cohesion, and local endurance were not separate stories. They were interlinked. None of this made the empire peaceful or fair. It remained deeply unequal, full of hierarchy, coercion, and social strain. But under the pressures of repeated invasion and contraction, what mattered was not the absence of division. It was the persistence of enough solidarity across those divisions that the state could continue to command obedience, collect resources, and sustain resistance. The empire’s social order remained fractured, yet still governable. That proved to be enough. ### Elites, Interests, and Power The role of elites was decisive. The empire endured because enough members of the military, administrative, ecclesiastical, and provincial elite continued to see their future within the future of the state. Their loyalty did not rest on idealism alone. It rested on office, title, land, command, salary, privilege, and the expectation that the imperial order would continue to protect those things. As long as the state could still reward service, recognize authority, distribute rank, and preserve elite interests, its survival remained bound up with the survival of the people who ran it. This helps explain why the empire did not disintegrate into provincial separatism after its worst losses. Rebellions in places such as Africa and Italy did occur, but they reflected local fear, military insecurity, fiscal pressure, and religious conflict rather than a coherent desire to abandon the imperial world altogether. Even opposition was often expressed within a recognizably Roman political horizon. Men rebelled against rulers, policies, and immediate conditions; they did not necessarily reject the imperial order itself. The state remained the framework inside which political conflict was still understood. That continuity mattered enormously. The relationship between provincial elites and Constantinople was therefore crucial. The court and patriarchate at the capital became stronger centers of prestige and identity, but they did not obliterate local power. Provincial elites remained tied to the center through office, recognition, patronage, and legitimacy. This made it possible for the state to rule at a distance without being equally strong in every place. It also shows why force alone cannot explain endurance. The state undoubtedly relied on coercion. Provincial elites could compel populations to remain on the land, deliver resources, and meet military and fiscal demands. But coercion was backed by legitimacy. These men possessed an accepted place inside the empire’s moral and political order. They were not merely armed predators. They were imperial figures, however locally grounded. ![Constantine I's vision of the cross. A painting made between 1520 and 1524 by assistants of the Italian renaissance artist Raphael.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/the-vision-of-the-cross--1--1.jpg) Constantine I's vision of the cross. A painting made between 1520 and 1524 by assistants of the Italian renaissance artist Raphael. Public domain This combination of coercion and legitimacy helped preserve taxation, manpower, rural order, and military logistics at the moment when the empire seemed most exposed. It reveals something fundamental about the eastern Roman state: its hierarchy, harsh though it was, remained politically productive. The empire did not survive by solving its inequalities. It survived because its inequalities remained integrated into a functioning political order that still made claims people recognized as binding, even if they resented them. ### Regional Variation and Resistance The reduced empire was not one evenly functioning body. Some regions were more exposed, some more fertile, some more defensible, and some more deeply tied to the capital than others. This unevenness is not a minor detail. It helps explain why survival did not depend on one perfectly balanced system operating identically everywhere. What mattered was whether enough of the remaining regions stayed viable enough, strong enough, or defensible enough to keep the state alive. Anatolia was the decisive case. In contrast to Syria and later Africa, the imperial government managed to develop strategies that helped it cling to this core territory. Arab armies could raid, devastate, overwinter for a time, and aim at exhausting Roman morale and resources. But they could not establish permanent control beyond the Taurus and Anti-Taurus line. Distance, mountains, supply, climate, and the survival of Roman strongpoints all worked against lasting occupation. Anatolia became the region where the state proved that it could absorb repeated pressure without breaking. Resistance there depended on several interacting factors. Open [battle](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-battle-of-pharsalus-the-victory-that-changed-rome/) was often avoided unless the conditions were favorable, which helped preserve Roman forces. Major fortresses and defensive lines retained importance. Provincial elites remained invested in the state. Rural production and tax collection continued. Local populations could be compelled or persuaded to remain within the imperial system. This was not a heroic frontier in a romantic sense. It was a region in which political, military, social, and logistical resilience reinforced one another. Anatolia survived not because it was untouched, but because it remained governable under pressure. Other regions mattered differently. Sicily remained valuable as a grain source. North Africa still had significance into the later seventh century before its final loss. Parts of Italy and the Balkans demanded continued attention. Yet the logic of endurance lay above all in the creation of a viable Anatolian-Aegean core tied tightly to Constantinople. That was the space within which the empire could survive repeated attacks and eventually become a more stable medieval state. ### Environment, Agriculture, and Material Survival Environmental factors widen the explanation without replacing politics,[ society](https://romanempiretimes.com/inside-roman-society-how-ordinary-life-shaped-an-extraordinary-empire-part-1/), and belief. Climate, rainfall, land use, and agrarian regimes all mattered, but none of them can serve as a single master cause. The point is not that climate saved the empire or doomed its enemies. The point is that the ecological and agrarian conditions of the surviving territories remained compatible enough with continued production that the state could still be sustained. The surviving empire after the mid-seventh century was essentially an Anatolian-Aegean-Sicilian one, with North Africa still contributing for a time before its loss. Within that world, Asia Minor and Sicily seem especially important in terms of imperial income. Anatolia’s economy, based on cereal production, pastoralism, and regionally varied land use, was not as rich as the old eastern provinces that had been lost. ![This reconstruction evokes the agrarian world of Anatolia, whose fields, labor, and local resilience helped support the reduced Eastern Roman Empire in the centuries of crisis and recovery.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/This-reconstruction-evokes-the-agrarian-world-of-Anatolia--whose-fields--labor--and-local-resilience-helped-support-the-reduced-Eastern-Roman-Empire-in-the-centuries-of-crisis-and-recovery_png-1.jpg) This reconstruction evokes the agrarian world of Anatolia, whose fields, labor, and local resilience helped support the reduced Eastern Roman Empire in the centuries of crisis and recovery. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT But it was viable. It could still support taxation, armies, and local society. That mattered far more than grandeur. The empire no longer needed the abundance of the earlier late Roman world in order to continue. It needed enough material continuity to remain governable, and Anatolia provided it. The countryside therefore lies near the center of the explanation. Armies had to be fed, horses maintained, [roads](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/) kept usable, fortresses supplied, and revenues extracted. None of this could be achieved by symbolism or legitimacy alone. The reduced empire still had a functioning agrarian base, and that base could be organized, taxed, and defended. This is one of the clearest material reasons why the state survived. It became poorer and narrower, but not empty. The problems of the caliphate matter here too. Arab and then Umayyad power was immense, but not limitless. Internal conflict and competing fronts created periods of breathing space for the Romans. These interruptions mattered greatly, especially when the empire most needed time. Yet breathing space by itself explains little. It mattered only because the eastern Roman state was still organized enough to use it. A completely broken polity would not have recovered simply because its enemy paused. The eastern empire remained alive enough to take advantage of respite because its underlying structures had not collapsed beyond repair. ### Organization, Administration, and State Cohesion The final part of the explanation lies in organization. The empire endured because its institutions and infrastructure continued to work. The military road system, the logistics of recruitment and supply, tax collection, grain management, exchange, and administrative command all remained functioning under extreme pressure. That in itself is remarkable. The empire had lost most of its revenues and many of its richest provinces, yet it still had to maintain substantial armies and a working administration. The fact that it could do so points to the depth of its organizational resilience. Infrastructure was not only roads, warehouses, and fortifications. It was also people. Institutions function because men operate inside them according to habits, expectations, rules, and interests. The empire survived not because it possessed a perfect abstract system, but because enough officials, commanders, tax collectors, notables, and clerics kept that system working in practice. Administrative endurance was therefore a social achievement as much as a formal one. The state remained alive because enough people still acted as Romans inside Roman institutions. Evidence from seals and [coinage](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) illustrates the seriousness of the imperial response. Gold continued to be minted in notable purity and quantity. Taxes continued to be levied. Offices connected with customs, warehousing, and exchange were adapted to emergency conditions and later rationalized. These are not signs of a state drifting helplessly toward extinction. They are signs of a government still capable of improvisation, coordination, and administrative intelligence under severe constraint. Constantinople remained essential. The capital concentrated court, hierarchy, patriarchate, and fiscal command. It became the strongest focal point of imperial identity and continuity. Yet it was not a self-sufficient island of power. It could only play that role because the reduced empire behind it still worked. Taxes reached it, grain reached it, armies defended it, and elites oriented themselves toward it. The city survived because the state survived, and the state survived because the city held together its political and ideological core. ![A possible representation of the life of Constantinople, where goods, officials, soldiers, and citizens all formed part of the capital’s central role in sustaining the Eastern Roman Empire](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/A-busy-stree-of-Constaninople--the-capital-of-the-Eatern-Roman-Empire-1.jpg) A possible representation of the life of Constantinople, where goods, officials, soldiers, and citizens all formed part of the capital’s central role in sustaining the Eastern Roman Empire. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Military adaptation completed the picture. The caliphate was stronger than the reduced empire in many respects, but it could not bring the Roman state to final destruction. The eastern Romans no longer aimed at preserving the old Mediterranean order in full. They aimed at preserving a defensible core, a working army, and a viable political center. They avoided destruction by remaining organized enough to deny their enemies a conclusive victory. That, more than any single dramatic battle or one-off reform, is what survival meant. ### Why the Empire Endured The empire survived because catastrophe did not destroy the structures that mattered most. It lost provinces, wealth, much of the old urban Mediterranean world, and the security of the late Roman order. But it retained a capital, a governing elite, a Christian Roman identity, a viable agrarian core, a military system, and an administrative framework capable of connecting these things. None of them remained intact in the old late Roman sense. All were transformed. Yet enough endured to keep the empire from crossing the line into extinction. Its survival was therefore neither a miracle in the simplest sense nor a story of straightforward decline. It was the result of the interaction of belief, elite interest, provincial resistance, environmental viability, and organizational continuity. No single factor explains the outcome. The empire endured because enough of these factors remained workable at the same time in a shrunken but still coherent political world. The state that emerged from this crisis was no longer the late Roman empire of Justinian’s age. It was more compact, more defensive, more heavily tied to Constantinople and Anatolia, and more deeply shaped by the demands of survival. Yet it was still Roman — politically, institutionally, and ideologically. Continuity did not lie in preserving the old Mediterranean order intact. It lay in preserving enough state, enough society, and enough legitimacy that Roman rule could continue in a changed world. The eastern Roman Empire endured because its people, institutions, provinces, and elites retained just enough capacity, just enough investment, and just enough cohesion to prevent disaster from becoming final. Out of severe loss came a different kind of empire — smaller, harder, and transformed, but still alive. *(“The Empire that would not die. The Paradox of Eastern Roman Survival, 640–740” by John Haldon- Based on the Carl Newell Jackson Lectures)* --- The empire that came through this crisis was not the same empire that had entered it. It was smaller, harder, and more tightly bound to Constantinople and Anatolia, shaped less by Mediterranean dominance than by the demands of survival. But it was still Roman. That continuity was not the result of luck alone, nor of military resistance alone. It rested on the fact that enough of the structures that mattered — belief, elite interest, provincial resilience, agrarian production, and administrative order — remained strong enough to keep disaster from becoming final. ### The Battle of Pharsalus: The Victory That Changed Rome URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-battle-of-pharsalus-the-victory-that-changed-rome/ Last updated: 2026-05-10T20:24:13.000Z In 48 B.C., on the plains of Thessaly, Rome’s civil war reached the moment from which there was no real return. At Pharsalus, Julius Caesar faced Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus in the battle that would decide not only which commander survived, but which vision of Roman power would endure. What followed was more than a battlefield defeat. Pompey’s army broke, his cause collapsed, and the Republic moved one decisive step closer to its end. ### Before Pharsalus (Palaepharsalus): How Caesar and Pompey Reached the Final Clash By the time [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) and [Pompey ](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/)faced one another on the plains of Thessaly in 48 B.C., the battle had already been a long time in the making. Pharsalus was not the sudden meeting of two equally placed rivals. It was the result of years of political breakdown, mutual distrust, calculated risk, and a campaign in which both men repeatedly tried to force the war onto terms favorable to themselves. When the battle finally came, [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/) was not the obvious favorite. He had already suffered a major reverse, had been pushed deep into hostile territory, and was confronting an opponent whose[ army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) was larger, better supplied, and joined at last by the eastern forces Pompey had long been assembling. The roots of the conflict lay in the collapse of the alliance that had once linked Caesar, Pompey, and [Crassus](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/). Crassus’ death after Carrhae in 53 B.C. removed the third man who had balanced the relationship. Pompey was the immediate beneficiary. With Caesar still in Gaul, Pompey tightened his hold over Roman politics and rose to a position of exceptional authority in Rome. Caesar, meanwhile, had done what once seemed unlikely and conquered [Gaul](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/), gaining not only military glory but also the loyalty of experienced [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-enigmatic-disappearance-of-the-9th-roman-legion/). That left the Republic with two towering figures and no stable arrangement capable of containing them both. The crisis became acute when Caesar’s Gallic command approached its end. He needed protection, continued standing, and ideally another major command. Pompey had every reason to deny him that future. At that point the political dispute became deadly. Caesar could not safely return as a private citizen. Pompey, for his part, seems to have been content to let the confrontation sharpen until Caesar could be presented as the threat to the Republic. The [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/)’s final decree against Caesar, and Caesar’s decision to cross the Rubicon in 49 B.C., made [civil war](https://romanempiretimes.com/for-rome-no-war-was-worse-than-civil-war/) a fact. Yet even then, the war did not begin with a huge set-piece battle. It began with movement, pressure, and positioning. ![Pharsalus Roman mausoleum of Julii at Glanum, north face (1st century BCE)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Pharsalus-Roman-mausoleum-of-Julii-at-Glanum--north-face--1st-century-BCE---1--1.jpg) Pharsalus Roman mausoleum of Julii at Glanum, north face (1st century BCE). Credits: Mary Harrsch, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Caesar moved quickly through Italy. Pompey did not try to defend [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/) in a decisive stand. Instead, he withdrew southward and then crossed the Adriatic to [Greece](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-greece-is-restoring-a-roman-monument-to-its-former-glory/). That retreat has often been made to look like panic, but the larger pattern suggests calculation. Rome itself was not the true prize. Pompey’s strength lay in time, geography, and resources. If he could avoid being crushed early, he could draw on the manpower, [money](https://romanempiretimes.com/credit-loans-and-risk-how-ancient-rome-handled-money-without-a-central-bank/), fleets, and client kings of the eastern Mediterranean. Caesar, by contrast, needed speed. He needed to prevent Pompey from turning a political crisis into a vast imperial war. Caesar seized [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-in-the-empire-last-act-the-western-court-from-455-to-476/), but that did not end the struggle. It only widened it. The next phase of the war spread across the western Mediterranean. Caesar moved to secure Sardinia and Sicily, partly to protect Italy and partly to keep Pompey from using those islands to tighten a naval grip on the peninsula. Sardinia fell easily, and Sicily followed when [Cato](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-younger-the-last-roman-of-the-republic/) withdrew without a major fight. North Africa proved more difficult. There the Caesarian advance initially looked promising, but Curio’s campaign ended in disaster at the Bagradas River, where [Numidian](https://romanempiretimes.com/numidia-rome-african-frontier-and-the-soldiers-who-changed-an-empire/) intervention smashed the Caesarian army. Africa remained firmly in enemy hands. That defeat did not yet decide the war, but it showed that Caesar’s enemies still had strong ground beyond Greece itself. At the same time, another setback struck in Illyria. Caesar had forces there, and in theory they offered a bridgehead on the eastern side of the Adriatic. Pompey moved decisively to eliminate that threat. The Pompeian fleet controlled the sea, Caesarian naval forces were defeated, and Caesar’s men in the region were trapped and forced into surrender. This mattered more than it is often allowed to matter. It shut Caesar out of the eastern side of the Adriatic and made any direct move against Pompey much harder. By late 49 B.C., Pompey was not merely in retreat. He was establishing the position from which he wanted to fight the decisive stage of the war. Caesar then turned west against Pompey’s Spanish commanders. This was a necessary move. So long as Pompeian Spain remained intact, Caesar’s own western power base in Gaul was exposed. The Spanish campaign ended successfully for Caesar, but it also cost time — and time was the resource Pompey needed most. While Caesar fought in the west, Pompey continued to build strength in the east. By the opening of 48 B.C., the war was moving toward a confrontation in Greece, where Pompey believed he would finally be able to fight on the scale and under the conditions he wanted. Caesar still tried to prevent that. In a bold winter move, he crossed the Adriatic in January 48 B.C. before Pompey’s preparations were complete. It was a gamble in the purest Caesarian style. He landed in Epirus and tried to bring Pompey to battle before the eastern forces could fully unite. But Pompey refused to give him the kind of quick decision he wanted. The Pompeian fleet cut Caesar off from Italy, his reinforcements were delayed, and both sides maneuvered across a difficult theatre where supply mattered as much as open combat. Eventually [Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/) crossed with additional troops, and the war narrowed toward Dyrrhachium. Dyrrhachium was one of the strangest and most important phases of the whole campaign. Caesar, reversing the normal logic of siege warfare, tried to bottle up Pompey’s larger army with an immense system of fortifications around the bay. Pompey responded by building fortifications of his own. ![The Battle of Pharsalus and the Death of Pompey ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/The-Battle-of-Pharsalus-and-the-Death-of-Pompey---1--1.jpg) The Battle of Pharsalus and the Death of Pompey. Public domain What followed was less a clean battle than a grinding contest of engineering, attrition, shortages, skirmishes, and tactical improvisation. Both armies suffered. Caesar’s men lacked secure supply lines and faced hunger. Pompey had the advantage of sea access but not unlimited freedom. Water became a problem, pack animals died, and the whole operation became a prolonged struggle in which neither side could easily force the other to collapse. Caesar then tried to break the deadlock by seizing Dyrrhachium itself, apparently hoping for surprise and support from sympathizers inside the city. That failed. Pompey, meanwhile, eventually found a weakness in Caesar’s lines and broke through to the south, improving his access to the sea and worsening Caesar’s position. Caesar had one chance left to reverse the situation quickly. He launched a major counterattack against a newly forming Pompeian base, hoping to destroy it before it could be consolidated. For a moment, the attack seemed to work. But it was exactly the sort of bold move that left him exposed if it failed to achieve immediate decision. Pompey reacted fast, struck back with superior numbers, and turned Caesar’s attack into a rout. Dyrrhachium was the greatest battlefield reverse of Caesar’s career up to that point. His army was not destroyed, but it was badly shaken, and the myth of Caesarian invincibility briefly cracked. Pompey had done what he had wanted for a long time: he had beaten Caesar in open campaigning and shown that the rebel general could be checked. Yet Pompey did not finish the war there. As at other moments in his career, he failed to turn a major success into total destruction of the opposing force. Caesar was allowed to withdraw inland, regroup, and march toward Macedonia and Thessaly, where he still hoped to prevent Pompey from combining fully with Metellus Scipio. That brought the campaign into its last pre-Pharsalan stage. While Caesar withdrew and recovered, the hidden movement of Metellus Scipio’s army became crucial. One of the difficulties in reconstructing this phase is that the surviving narrative is dominated by Caesar and Pompey, while Metellus Scipio often stands just beyond the center of the stage. Yet his army mattered enormously. Caesar had earlier sent forces to slow him, and although Metellus seems to have beaten Caesarian detachments in Thessaly, he was delayed. After Dyrrhachium, however, the pressure increased. If Pompey and Metellus united completely while Caesar remained weakened, the odds against Caesar would become overwhelming. This is what makes the march into Thessaly so important. Caesar was no longer seeking a clean, confident victory from a position of strength. He was trying to keep the war alive on terms that still gave him some chance of success. Pompey, by contrast, was moving toward the type of confrontation he had long expected: a battle after his eastern preparations had matured, after Caesar had been worn down, and after the two Pompeian armies had finally come together. The two sides converged. Domitius avoided being trapped and brought Caesarian forces together. Metellus marched to Larissa and joined Pompey. Caesar then moved toward the plain of Pharsalus and offered battle. So before the battle itself began, the larger picture looked grim for Caesar. He had started the war with speed and aggression, but he had failed to keep Pompey from turning it into a vast Mediterranean conflict. He had won in Italy and Spain, but he had lost in Africa and Illyria. He had crossed into Greece boldly, only to be checked and then beaten at Dyrrhachium. He had not prevented the union of Pompey and Metellus Scipio. By the time the armies drew up near Pharsalus, Pompey’s army nearly outnumbered Caesar’s by two to one. On paper, this was the moment the war should have ended in Pompey’s favor. That it did not is precisely what gives the battle its place in Roman history. ### The Two Armies at Pharsalus After eighteen months of maneuver, retreat, pursuit, and failed attempts to force a final decision, Caesar and Pompey at last committed themselves to battle on 9 August 48 B.C. Before the fighting itself, however, the first thing that mattered was the imbalance between the two armies. On paper, Caesar was badly outnumbered. ![Pharsalus, Battle of (48 BC)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Th----tre_des_guerres_-_btv1b8490356z--1--1.jpg) Pharsalus, Battle of (48 BC). Public domain The surviving ancient evidence is not perfectly consistent on the exact totals, but it leaves no doubt about the larger picture. Caesar himself gives his own infantry in the battle line as about 22,000 men, while Pompey’s army is usually placed at around 45,000, with a cavalry arm that overwhelmed Caesar’s. [Appian](https://romanempiretimes.com/appian-of-alexandria-the-greek-historian-who-explained-romes-empire/), while noting how widely the ancient figures varied, still preserves the same essential conclusion: > “Pompeius had more than double that number, of whom about 7,000 were cavalry.” That is the point that matters most. Pompey had achieved what he had wanted for months — a battle fought only after his eastern reinforcements had joined him, and with clear numerical superiority on his side. Numbers alone, however, do not tell the whole story. The two armies also differed in composition. Caesar’s force was more compact and more heavily dependent on his veteran legionaries, though it also included cavalry from Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul and some light-armed [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) troops. Pompey’s army was broader and more imperial in character, drawing support from across the Roman world, from Greece and Asia Minor to Syria, Phoenicia, and Crete, with allied kings and princes contributing forces of their own. What mattered most on the battlefield was not simply that Pompey had more men, but that he had more of the kinds of troops Caesar could least afford to ignore. A substantial portion of Pompey’s army consisted of cavalry, archers, and slingers. That meant his advantage was not only one of mass, but also of reach and mobility. His strongest tactical assets lay on the wings and at a distance. Caesar, by contrast, had far fewer horsemen and could not hope to win a battle of maneuver on equal terms. That imbalance shaped the logic of the battle before it even began. Pompey’s best chance lay in using his superior cavalry and missile troops to break Caesar’s line apart before the infantry struggle became decisive. Caesar’s best hope was exactly the opposite. He needed to reduce the battle to close fighting, where experience, cohesion, and discipline could matter more than numbers. If Pompey wanted a victory won by range, speed, and pressure on the flanks, Caesar needed a battle fought face to face. ### The Field and the Deployment of the Two Armies Once the armies finally stood opposite one another in Thessaly, the battle was shaped not only by numbers, but by how each commander arranged his men and by the ground on which they had to fight. Caesar gives a first-hand description of both deployments, and from it a broad picture emerges. Pompey placed his strongest legions across the line, with himself on the left, Metellus Scipio in the center, and other [veteran](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) units, including the legions once handed over by Caesar, in key positions. His right flank was protected by difficult ground near the river, and for that reason he concentrated his great cavalry force, together with his archers and slingers, on the opposite wing. Caesar, by contrast, kept to his usual habit of placing the Tenth Legion on the right. His weakened Ninth was reinforced by the Eighth on the left, while Antony commanded the left wing, [Sulla](https://romanempiretimes.com/sulla-rome-reluctant-tyrant/) the right, and Domitius the center. Caesar himself took position opposite Pompey. ![A possible representation of a moment of The battle of Pharsalus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/The-battle-of-Pharsalus-1.jpg) A possible representation of a moment of The battle of Pharsalus. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT The basic contrast is clear enough. Pompey used his numbers to create a broad and confident front, but his real striking power lay on one wing. The river made his right secure, though also less flexible, so the weight of cavalry and missile troops was shifted to the left, where he hoped to overwhelm Caesar’s exposed flank. Caesar’s own arrangement answered that danger as best it could. His strongest forces were concentrated where he expected the decision to come, while his weaker legions were placed where the terrain offered some protection. From the outset, then, the battlefield itself pushed the action toward one side. Neither commander had much reason to seek a decisive struggle by the river. The real crisis would develop where Pompey’s left met Caesar’s right. The most vivid surviving description of the field and the opening deployment comes from Appian: > “Leaving 4,000 of his Italian troops to guard his camp, Pompeius drew up the remainder between the city of Pharsalus and the River Enipeus opposite the place where Caesar was marshalling his forces. Each of them ranged his Italians in front, divided into three lines with a moderate space between them, and placed his cavalry on the wings of each division. Archers and slingers were mingled among all. Thus were the Italian troops disposed, on which each commander placed his chief reliance. The allied forces were marshalled by themselves rather for show than for use. > > There was much jargon and confusion of tongues among Pompeius’ auxiliaries. Pompeius stationed the Macedonians, Peloponnesians, Boeotians, and Athenians near the Italian legions, as he approved of their good order and quiet behaviour. The rest, as Caesar had anticipated, he ordered to lie in wait by tribes outside of the line of battle, and when the engagement should become close to surround the enemy, to pursue, to do what damage they could, and to plunder Caesar’s camp, which was without defences. This account is especially valuable because it captures more than placement alone. It also conveys the mixed character of Pompey’s army — Roman at the core, but surrounded by a mass of auxiliaries from across the wider empire. It suggests order, but also noise and unevenness. The Italian troops remained the backbone of both armies. The allied contingents, for all their numbers, were secondary, held partly in reserve and expected to exploit success rather than decide the battle head-on. That distinction matters, because it reminds us that the battle would still be settled chiefly by Roman infantry, even if cavalry and missile troops played a decisive part in shaping it. Yet there is an immediate difficulty. Even the ancient sources do not fully agree on the field itself. Caesar never names either Pharsalus or Palaepharsalus directly in his own account, speaking only of the battle fought in Thessaly. Elsewhere, the tradition divides. The Alexandrine War uses the form Palaepharsalus, and Frontinus is explicit in calling it Old Pharsalus. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/), however, repeatedly uses Pharsalus. That disagreement matters because the exact location affects how the terrain is understood, and especially how the river figured in the deployment. Without a site that commands general agreement, the topography of the battlefield has to be reconstructed from competing texts rather than fixed securely on the ground. There are also important differences between Caesar’s version and the fuller narrative preserved by Appian. Caesar places Pompey’s cavalry, archers, and slingers heavily on the left wing, with the river securing the right. Appian’s wording gives a broader impression, with cavalry on both wings and missile troops more dispersed. That may reflect a different underlying source, or a different way of visualizing the field, especially in relation to the Enipeus. Modern discussion has therefore often turned on whether the battle was fought north or south of the river, because that question affects how far the watercourse constrained movement and whether Pompey truly intended his left wing to do the decisive work from the beginning. Even with those uncertainties, the larger point stands. The battle was not laid out symmetrically. Pompey intended to use the ground and his superiority in cavalry to strike where Caesar was most vulnerable. Caesar recognized that danger and arranged his line accordingly, putting his best troops where he believed the decision would fall. The ground, the river, and the distribution of cavalry and missile troops all combined to push the coming struggle toward Pompey’s left and Caesar’s right. Once the armies moved, that was where the battle’s fate would be tested first. ### Caesar’s Fourth Line and the Battle’s Collapse By the time the armies had drawn up and the first shock of battle was absorbed, the real crisis of the day was already clear. Pompey had arranged his line so that the decisive action would fall on his left, where his great superiority in cavalry, archers, and slingers could be brought to bear against Caesar’s right. Caesar knew this before the fighting began, and it was that expectation which led him to make the one tactical adjustment for which Pharsalus is remembered. Caesar’s answer was the hidden fourth line. Instead of relying only on the conventional three lines of legionaries, he quietly pulled selected cohorts out of his third line and stationed them behind his right wing, where they would be ready to intervene if Pompey’s cavalry attack came in the way everyone expected. He later described the moment with unusual clarity: > “At the same time, having noticed the arrangements mentioned above, fearing lest his right wing should be surrounded by the multitude of cavalry, he hastily withdrew individual cohorts from the third line and out of these constructed a fourth line, stationing it opposite the cavalry, explaining what his object was and reminding them that the day’s victory depended on the valour of these cohorts.” That decision shows that the battle was not won by accident alone, nor by blind courage alone. Caesar had correctly identified where the danger lay and had prepared a reserve for precisely that point. The battle would still have to be fought, but he had already taken one step to ensure that Pompey’s greatest advantage did not become fatal. ![Image from page 246 of Ridpath's Universal history, Flight of Pompey from Pharsalia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Flight-of-Pompey-from-Pharsalus--1--1.jpg) Image from page 246 of Ridpath's Universal history, Flight of Pompey from Pharsalia. Public domain The opening stage of the action seems to have followed Pompey’s plan closely. Pompey remained cautious even after accepting battle. He wanted Caesar to advance first, tire his men in the approach, commit them fully to the infantry struggle, and only then unleash the cavalry attack that would roll up Caesar’s right and turn the entire field. The early fighting did not immediately break either line. Pompey’s front held. Caesar’s attack did not smash through at once. Both men appear to have been waiting for what they knew was coming next: the cavalry assault on Caesar’s right. One vivid detail survives from the opening clash. A centurion of the Tenth Legion, Gaius Crastinus, charged forward after declaring to Caesar, > “Today, General, I will give you occasion to thank me alive or dead.” He led the first rush and died in the fighting soon afterward, struck through the face. The story was remembered because it captured the mood of the opening attack — fierce, personal, and immediate — but it did not decide the battle. The true decision still lay elsewhere. Pompey then committed the blow on which the whole day depended. His cavalry, supported by archers and slingers, moved heavily against Caesar’s right. Caesar’s own horsemen, vastly outnumbered, were unable to hold. They gave ground, just as both commanders had expected. On a normal reading of the battle, this was the moment when Caesar’s position was most exposed. His own cavalry was hopelessly outnumbered, and once it gave ground, Pompey’s mounted force should have been able to turn inward against Caesar’s right and begin rolling up his line. For a brief moment, that outcome was dangerously close. At that instant, Caesar released the fourth line. This was the turning point of Pharsalus. The concealed cohorts surged forward, not as cavalry, but as picked infantry trained and positioned for exactly this emergency. Instead of receiving the cavalry passively, they attacked it at close range. [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/) preserves the most striking version of Caesar’s instruction: > “When Caesar perceived this movement, he placed 3,000 of his bravest foot-soldiers in ambush and ordered them, when they should see the enemy trying to flank him, to rise, dart forward, and thrust their spears directly in the faces of the men because, as they were fresh and inexperienced and still in the bloom of youth, they would not endure injury to their faces.” Whether every detail of that instruction is exact or not, the result is plain enough. Pompey’s cavalry, which should have swept Caesar’s flank off the field, recoiled instead. The attack that was meant to decide the battle collapsed into confusion. Once the cavalry gave way, the archers and slingers behind them were exposed. They could not stand alone against a sudden infantry charge, and the entire Pompeian left began to break apart. Caesar had not merely blocked the danger. He had turned it into the means of victory. ![ Jacopo Tintoretto : The Return of Pompeius after the Battle of Pharsalus ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Jacopo-Tintoretto--The-Return-of-Pompeius-after-the-Battle-of-Pharsalus----1--1-1.jpg) Jacopo Tintoretto : The Return of Pompeius after the Battle of Pharsalus. Credits: Dguendel, CC BY 3.0 That is the crucial sequence of the battle. Pompey’s strongest arm failed not because cavalry ceased to matter, but because Caesar had anticipated its use and countered it at the exact point where the field was most vulnerable. Once Pompey’s left was thrown back, the balance changed everywhere else. Caesar was then able to commit the third line he had kept in reserve. The Pompeian left gave way first, but its collapse made the rest of the line increasingly untenable. What had begun as a carefully prepared battle of attrition now turned into a retreat. Pompey himself seems to have lost his grip on the battle at that moment. The collapse of the left destroyed the logic of his whole deployment. His army had not been annihilated in a single head-on collision, but its best chance had failed, and the defeat spread from the wing inward. The battlefield no longer belonged to the larger army. It belonged to the commander who had survived the critical moment and seized it. Even then, however, Pharsalus was not quite the clean ending later memory sometimes imagines. A substantial number of Pompey’s men retreated toward their fortified camp, and Caesar still had to complete the victory. Around midday, after the field itself had been won, his men attacked the camp. Caesar’s own account describes a hard defense on the ramparts, with auxiliaries and garrison troops resisting fiercely before the position finally gave way. Yet even this final assault did not deliver the one prize Caesar most needed. Pompey escaped: > “When our men were now circulating within the rampart, Pompeius, procuring a horse and tearing off his insignia as Imperator, flung himself out of the camp by the decuman gate and, putting spurs to his horse, hurried straight off to Larisa.” That image gives the battle its proper shape. Caesar had won his greatest victory to date, but he had not destroyed the war in a single stroke. Pompey’s army had been beaten, his left shattered, his camp stormed, and his prestige broken. Yet Pompey himself escaped, and with him escaped the possibility of an immediate end. The casualty figures reinforce the same point. Caesar gives extremely low losses for his own side and very high losses for Pompey’s. Other ancient evidence, especially that associated with Asinius Pollio, offers a lower figure for the Pompeian dead — around 6,000 rather than the much larger totals later tradition liked to repeat. Pharsalus was decisive without being annihilating. Only part of Pompey’s army had been heavily destroyed. Much of the rest, along with most of the leading commanders, got away in good order. That is why Pharsalus changed [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) without ending everything at once. It shattered the myth of Pompey’s invincibility and transformed Caesar from hunted rebel into master of the battlefield. But it did not end resistance, and it did not close the civil war in a single afternoon. What it did was far more important in the long run: it broke the one man who could still plausibly stand against Caesar as an equal. After Pharsalus, Pompey could still flee, regroup, and hope. He could no longer command the Roman world in the same way. The battle had done what years of political struggle and months of campaigning had not — it had made Caesar the dominant figure in the Republic, even if the Republic itself was not yet finished. (“The battle of Pharsalus 48BC. Caesar, Pompey and their final clash in the third Roman civil war” by Gareth C. Sampson) ### The Mechanics of Civilization: Machines in the Greco-Roman World URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-mechanics-of-civilization-machines-in-the-greco-roman-world-empire/ Last updated: 2026-05-07T09:29:37.000Z The Greco-Roman world is often remembered for its armies, monuments, literature, and law, but it was also a civilization of machines. From cranes that raised stone high above a building site to pumps that moved water, presses that extracted oil and wine, mills driven by flowing streams, and artillery that multiplied force beyond the strength of the human arm, mechanical thinking shaped daily life in ways that were both practical and surprisingly sophisticated. These devices did not form a separate world of technical curiosities. They belonged to the ordinary business of building, feeding, healing, transporting, measuring, entertaining, and defending an empire. ### What a Machine Was in Antiquity In the Greco-Roman world, a machine was any device that made work easier, stronger, more regular, or more precise. Some machines multiplied force, allowing people to lift, press, or move far more than muscle alone could manage. Others redirected force, so that a difficult action became easier to perform. Others turned repeated movements into a continuous process, and in some cases into something approaching automation. Ancient mechanical thought recognized a group of simple machines that stood at the root of more complex devices: the wheel and axle, lever, pulley, winch, wedge, screw, inclined plane, and gear wheel. Most were known very early. The screw and gear wheel, however, belonged to a later phase of development associated especially with the Hellenistic world. More advanced machines were created by combining these principles and refining them through additions such as cams, cranks, and rack-and-pinion systems. The power behind these machines could come from many sources. Human effort remained fundamental, and animals supplied traction for larger tasks. But machines could also be driven by water, wind, and heat. In practice, Greek and Roman machines were used chiefly in construction, mining, water-lifting, warfare, and the processing of agricultural produce. Their role in manufacturing was more limited, though not absent. The loom, for example, mechanized complex weaving operations, and by the Roman and late Roman periods water power was being applied to a wider range of productive tasks than was once thought. ![Ancient Roman loom replica](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/ancient-roman-loom-replica--1--1.jpg) Ancient Roman loom replica. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 The evidence is uneven. Machines were often made of mixed materials such as wood, rope, sinew, and metal, and these rarely survive together. In many cases only fragments remain, or else masonry that once anchored a mechanism. Technical images can be misleading, and written descriptions are incomplete. Many works on mechanics have been lost altogether, while others survive only in later translations, especially into Arabic. Even so, enough survives to reveal a long and sophisticated mechanical tradition. A major turning point came in the early Hellenistic period, especially at Alexandria. The Museum, founded around 305 B.C., gathered scholars working in mathematics, [engineering](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-engineering-the-backbone-of-an-empire/), and natural science under royal patronage. In that environment, mechanical theory and practice advanced quickly. Thinkers associated with this world explored the lever, circular motion, pneumatics, pumps, artillery, automata, and gearing. Archimedes, Ctesibius, Philo of Byzantium, Apollonius of Perge, [Vitruvius](https://romanempiretimes.com/vitruvius-the-roman-who-shaped-modern-architecture/), Hero, and later Pappus stand among the key names tied to the surviving tradition. What emerges is not a handful of isolated curiosities, but an evolving body of practical and theoretical knowledge. ### The Principles Behind Ancient Machines The central idea behind many machines was mechanical advantage. A small force could be turned into a larger one, but only by applying it over a greater distance. In theory, the gain in force matched the increase in distance; in practice, friction reduced efficiency. Machines could also be used the other way around, trading force for speed. The inclined plane was the simplest case. A heavy load was easier to drag or roll up a slope than to lift vertically. Before cranes became common, this was the main way of raising architectural blocks to height. The lever was equally basic. By arranging the fulcrum so that the effort acted at a greater distance than the load, force could be multiplied. Levers appeared in construction, balances, forceps, and many ordinary tools. ![A possible representation of the use of an inclined plane in construction. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/inclined-plane-1.jpg) A possible representation of the use of an inclined plane in construction. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT The pulley did not automatically increase force, but it changed direction, allowing workers to pull downward rather than upward. Once pulleys were combined, they could produce major gains in lifting power. The winch and capstan translated effort into circular motion, increasing force through the relation between lever arm and drum. These machines were important in transport, lifting, medicine, and construction. Gearing was one of the great Hellenistic advances. By linking wheels of different sizes, engineers could multiply force, increase speed, reverse direction, or shift movement from one plane to another. Much of the practical power of mills, clocks, and later devices depended on this. Most working gears were wooden, but fine instruments used bronze gears with carefully cut teeth, as in the Antikythera Mechanism. The screw added another vital principle, translating the inclined plane into rotary pressure. It was especially useful in presses and precision instruments. The same world that built large lifting machines also understood how to create controlled, delicate movement. ### Cranes and the Transformation of Building The earliest complex machines in the Greco-Roman world were cranes. These combined pulleys with windlasses and, in stronger forms, compound pulleys and geared systems. In larger versions, men walking inside treadwheels could provide the power. Before cranes, heavy blocks had to be moved up earthen ramps. The introduction of cranes changed architecture profoundly. It removed the need to build and then dismantle huge ramps during construction, and it allowed heavy materials to be lifted more flexibly and more often. The earliest Greek cranes are suggested by lifting holes and metal lifting devices that begin to appear in the late sixth century B.C. Their simplest form may have used a single upright pole with a pulley at the top, stabilized by stays. More secure designs used two poles in an inverted V, while later frames with three or four uprights offered much greater control. Even before compound pulleys, early cranes could achieve useful lifting power through a single pulley combined with a windlass or capstan. Later improvements made them much stronger. Ancient tradition often credited Archimedes with extraordinary feats of lifting and hauling, including the launching of a massive ship. The details are difficult to reconstruct, but the broader point is clear: by the Hellenistic period, engineers were experimenting with increasingly powerful systems of pulleys, gears, and screws. ![Model of a Roman winch crane in the American Center of Oriental Research in Amman, Jordan.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Model-of-a-Roman-winch-crane-in-the-American-Center-of-Oriental-Research-in-Amman--Jordan_jpg-1.jpg) Model of a Roman winch crane in the American Center of Oriental Research in Amman, Jordan. Credits: Michael Gunther, CC BY-SA 4.0 A related machine was the pile driver, which used pulleys to raise a heavy weight and then release it suddenly onto a timber pile. This was crucial in wet foundations and bridge building. Machines of this kind show that ancient lifting technology was not just about placing stone. It was about controlling force, direction, and impact in a wide variety of settings. ### Medicine and the Mechanical Body Ancient mechanics was not confined to building sites and battlefields. It also entered medicine. One important witness is Oribasius, a fourth-century Greek medical writer and court physician to the emperor Julian, whose compilations preserve much earlier material. He describes several traction machines for resetting broken limbs, some going back to the fifth century B.C. ![Luxation table of Oribasius. A specialized device designed for reducing dislocated joints, particularly in the spine and extremities, using mechanical traction. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Luxation-table-of-Oribasius--1.jpg) Luxation table of Oribasius. A specialized device designed for reducing dislocated joints, particularly in the spine and extremities, using mechanical traction. Credits: Wellcome Collection, CC BY 4.0\. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times The earliest of these was the bench associated with Hippocrates, essentially a rack with simple winches at either end. Later versions used handspikes, screws, pulleys, or geared winches to increase control and force. Some were more portable, others more compact. In one device associated with [Galen](https://romanempiretimes.com/galen-of-pergamon-rome-most-famous-physician-galenus/), ropes were arranged around pulleys and windlass axles to apply carefully balanced traction. These machines show that the same mechanical principles used to lift stone or haul ships could be applied to the injured body. The goal here was controlled extension rather than construction or war. Yet the kinship of principle remained obvious, and later torture devices would draw on the same logic. ### Artillery and the Engineering of War The ordinary bow had clear limits. Its power depended on human strength, and its range was restricted by the draw length of the archer’s arms. If armies wanted much greater force, they needed machines. That was the path that led to artillery. A key moment came at Syracuse in 399 B.C., when Dionysius assembled craftsmen from across the Mediterranean to prepare for war against [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spartan-who-saved-carthage-and-broke-a-roman-invasion/). The earliest artillery weapon was probably the *gastraphetes*, or belly-shooter, a large crossbow-like device braced against the user’s body and spanned by leaning it against the ground or a wall. Larger versions soon followed, mounted on stands and drawn back with windlasses. The real breakthrough came with torsion artillery. Instead of a single bow, these machines used two arms inserted into tightly twisted bundles of sinew or hair. The resulting catapults could be made much more powerful than ordinary bows. Some were optimized for bolts, others for stones. Engineers at Alexandria developed mathematical rules for the proportions of these machines, tying the size of the springs to the projectile they were meant to fire. This was systematic applied research in a military setting. More elaborate devices followed, including repeating catapults that fed bolts automatically from a magazine and synchronized the loading, spanning, and firing cycle through gears and linked motion. Not all such inventions were widely adopted, but they show remarkable ambition. Later refinements made catapults lighter, smaller, and more mobile, and Roman armies used artillery extensively in siege warfare and in the field. One important late type was the onager, a one-armed stone-thrower that hurled its shot from a sling. Simpler than the older two-armed stone-throwers, it became more prominent in late antiquity and survived into the medieval period. Taken together, ancient artillery demonstrates how far Greek and Roman mechanics could go when backed by organized experimentation, mathematical design, and military demand. ### Water-Lifting and the Control of Supply Water-lifting was another major field of mechanical development. The simplest device was the shaduf, a counterweighted lever with a bucket on one end. It did not multiply force, but it made the action of raising water less exhausting by allowing the user to pull downward. Windlasses and pulleys also served to raise water from depth, though only in small quantities. ![A possible representation of the use of a shaduf for water-lifting](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/shaduf--2--1.jpg) A possible representation of the use of a shaduf for water-lifting. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT The Hellenistic period brought a new generation of rotary water-lifting machines. Compartmented wheels, rim wheels, bucket chains, the *saqiya*, and the *noria* all allowed more continuous operation. Some were powered by human tread, others by animals through gearing, and some by water itself. These machines spread widely, above all in Egypt but also across much of the Roman world, including Italy, North Africa, [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-life-really-like-in-roman-britain/), and probably Spain. Design changes helped broaden their use. Wooden buckets could be replaced by terracotta pots, making some devices cheaper and better suited to regions where wood was scarce. State policy may also have played a role. In late Roman Egypt, tax relief on irrigated land may have encouraged investment in irrigation machinery. Two especially famous devices were the water-lifting screw and the force pump. The screw, traditionally linked to Archimedes, could raise large volumes of water through a limited height and was important in irrigation and mine drainage. The force pump, associated with Ctesibius, was much more complex. In bronze form it used paired pistons and one-way valves to force water upward through a delivery pipe. It was used in firefighting, public display, and perhaps mine work. In the first century A.D., it was redesigned in wood, making it cheaper and more common on farms and villas, where it served chiefly to draw water from wells. The chain pump, especially suited to ships, used disks attached to a chain or rope moving through a tube to lift bilge [water](https://romanempiretimes.com/romans-consumed-250-gallons-of-water-per-person-daily-why-is-this-important-for-modern-cities/). It handled silty water well and functioned even in unstable conditions at sea. These devices made possible more ambitious irrigation, more effective drainage, and better control over water in agriculture, shipping, mining, and urban life. ### Mills and the Expansion of Water Power The rotary hand quern was an early improvement in grinding technology. The animal mill expanded that principle by harnessing traction. But the water-mill was the real breakthrough. By using flowing water to automate rotary motion, it became one of the earliest successful applications of natural power to regular productive labor. Current evidence suggests that both vertical and horizontal water-mills were invented in the mid-third century B.C. By the first century A.D., water-mills were widespread across the Roman world, and by the late second century several vertical-wheel types were in use. Vertical mills required right-angled gearing to transfer motion from the wheel axle to the millstone spindle. Horizontal mills avoided this by directing water straight onto a horizontal wheel attached directly to the spindle. This made them particularly useful where water flow was small or slow. Some of the earliest surviving horizontal mills already show sophisticated turbine-like designs, suggesting a long prior history of experimentation. Whatever the type, ancient millstones required careful adjustment, and engineers developed mechanisms to regulate the gap between the stones and control the fineness of the flour. ![Model of the water mills at Barbegal in Musée de l'Arles antique](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Model-of-the-water-mills-at-Barbegal-in-Mus--e-de-l-Arles-antique--1--1.jpg) Model of the water mills at Barbegal in Musée de l'Arles antique. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 The surviving evidence for mills usually comes not from the machines themselves but from their channels, wheel-pits, and structural remains. In some regions, especially north of the Alps, timber engineering played a larger role than once assumed. The floating mill, mounted on a boat so that the wheel rose and fell with river level, was another ingenious response to local conditions. Whether or not the later tradition connecting it to Belisarius is exact, the design clearly spread in late antiquity. Milling was not a marginal use of machinery. It was one of the clearest demonstrations that the Greco-Roman world could apply sustained outside power to a basic and necessary form of production. ### Machines Beyond the Mill Water power was also used for much more than grinding grain. It could be applied to sawmills, pestles, ore stamps, fulling, bellows, and dough-mixing. A relief from Pammukale in Turkey is especially important because it shows a water-powered stone saw using a crank and connecting rod to transform rotary motion into reciprocal motion. That is a major piece of evidence for advanced mechanical conversion. Roman dough-kneaders are another revealing example. These consisted of a cylindrical tub with a rotating spindle carrying paddles that worked dough against fixed rods in the side. The spindle could be turned by a person or an animal, and Vitruvius also refers to water-powered dough mixing. These machines show that the same basic principles used in mills could be adapted to other forms of food production. ![Horse- or mule-driven ancient roman dough making machine (Kneader) at Caseggiato dei Molini in Ostia Antica. Not to be confused with the flour mills nearby.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Dough-making-machine-at-ostia-antica--1--1.jpg) Horse- or mule-driven ancient roman dough making machine (Kneader) at Caseggiato dei Molini in Ostia Antica. Not to be confused with the flour mills nearby. Credits: Chris 73, CC BY-SA 3.0 ### Measuring, Pressing, and Performing The Greco-Roman machine was not limited to labor and war. It also entered measurement, agriculture, music, and entertainment. The *hodometer*, described by Vitruvius and Hero, used gears connected to a wagon axle so that a stone dropped into a container after a fixed distance. A similar principle was applied to ships through a paddle wheel moving in the water. Whether or not these were used in practice on a large scale, they show a striking effort to turn motion into measured quantity. Presses for [oil ](https://romanempiretimes.com/olive-oil-in-the-roman-empire-how-the-romans-discovered-the-liquid-gold/)and [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/) were another major category. The earliest forms used weighted lever beams. Later versions introduced windlasses, screws, and wedges to increase pressure or reduce space requirements. The direct screw press was especially compact and useful in urban settings. The wedge press seems to have been particularly important to perfume makers, who needed fine-quality oil. Mechanics also shaped public entertainment. The *hydraulis*, the earliest known keyboard instrument, used water pressure to maintain a steady air supply to organ pipes controlled by keys. More elaborate devices automated musical performance. Theaters used cranes and winches to produce the famous *deus ex machina* effect. Circuses used mechanisms to release starting gates simultaneously, probably with spring-like force derived from twisted rope or sinew. Amphitheaters used lifts to bring animals and scenery suddenly into the arena. Even the revolving platforms found on [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-caligula-really-declare-war-on-neptune/)’s barges suggest a taste for engineered spectacle and controlled motion in elite display. ### Machines and the Ancient Economy For a long time, ancient machines were underestimated. Older views claimed that [slavery](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) made mechanical innovation unnecessary, or that religious attitudes discouraged the exploitation of natural power. Those arguments have become difficult to sustain. Mechanical devices were not marginal curiosities, and automata were not merely toys. They helped develop and demonstrate important principles such as feedback control, programmed sequence, and self-propelled motion. Royal patronage mattered enormously. Syracuse under Dionysius and Alexandria under the Ptolemies were especially important settings for invention. In the Roman world, too, there was at least an expectation that emperors might reward useful ingenuity. How widespread were machines? For some categories, the answer is clear. Cranes became common across the [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/), Hellenistic, and Roman worlds. Oil and wine presses were abundant. Water-mills and millstones appear in substantial numbers. In some fields, ancient machine use may have been more widespread than in western Europe for many centuries afterward. Greek and[ Roman societies](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/) did not merely preserve a few simple devices inherited from the ancient Near East. They developed complex machines, adapted them to different uses, and spread them geographically and socially, sometimes by redesigning them in cheaper materials. That has important consequences for how ancient technology is understood. The old contrast between supposedly stagnant antiquity and a dynamic medieval world now looks too simple. In some areas, such as artillery and pressing, Roman machine use may even have surpassed that of the early Middle Ages. In others, such as the diversification of water power, the gap is much smaller than once imagined. The machine was not marginal to Greco-Roman civilization. It belonged to a larger world of work, experiment, production, measurement, medicine, and spectacle. What emerges from this mechanical landscape is not a stagnant world content with inherited tools, but one that understood how to combine force, motion, and design with remarkable intelligence. Greek and Roman engineers did not invent machinery in a single burst, nor did they apply it everywhere equally. But across centuries they developed, refined, and spread a wide range of devices that made labor more efficient, extended the reach of human effort, and opened new possibilities in war, agriculture, construction, and production. The ancient machine was never peripheral to civilization. It was one of the instruments through which civilization worked. *(“Machines in Greek and Roman technology” by Andrew I. Wilson. In The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World)* ### Rome in the Empire’s Last Act: The Western Court from 455 to 476 URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/rome-in-the-empire-last-act-the-western-court-from-455-to-476/ Last updated: 2026-07-28T17:08:00.000Z Between 455 and 476, the western Roman Empire did not vanish in a single dramatic moment. It passed instead through two decades of coups, sieges, failed restorations, and rapidly changing emperors, while Rome remained at the center of the struggle. The old capital was still a place of immense symbolic weight, still capable of hosting imperial rule in all its ceremony and display, yet it had also become a city exposed to the full violence of a court that could no longer secure the empire it claimed to govern. ### Rome in the Last Western Crisis The western [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/) entered its final and most unstable phase in 454, when Valentinian III killed Aetius, the general who had dominated imperial military affairs for decades. The consequences followed with brutal speed. Within months Valentinian himself was dead, [Petronius Maximus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-emperor-who-ruled-rome-for-77-days/) had taken the throne, and in 455 [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) was sacked by the Vandals. From then on, western [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) rose and fell in rapid succession, and [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/) stood behind much of what is known about their reigns. These years were not simply the fading aftermath of a dying court. The imperial office still mattered, and [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/for-rome-no-war-was-worse-than-civil-war/) still mattered with it. The city remained a place where imperial power could be displayed, negotiated, and contested. It was not merely a refuge left behind by contraction and loss. It continued to be chosen because it still carried immense symbolic authority, because it still possessed the ceremonial and architectural setting needed for the display of majesty, and because it remained one of the main political centres of the western [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/). That pattern becomes clearer once the rulers of these last decades are viewed individually rather than treated as a single blur of weak emperors. Petronius Maximus spent his short reign entirely in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/). Libius Severus, though raised at Ravenna, is then attested only at Rome. Olybrius also ended his brief reign there. Avitus came to Rome soon after his elevation and remained based there until revolt forced him out. Anthemius spent the whole of his reign in the city. Glycerius moved there soon after his accession, and Julius Nepos also came to Rome and remained there until he fled ahead of Orestes. Only [Majorian ](https://romanempiretimes.com/majorian-a-different-kind-of-emperor-with-a-plan/)and [Romulus Augustulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-augustulus-the-boy-who-became-rome-last-emperor/) are not known to have visited [Rome ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-defeat-rome-never-forgot-teutoburg-forest-9-ce/)at all. Rome was still being treated not as a monument to a vanished past, but as the proper setting from which imperial authority could be shown. ![Gold Solidus of Majorian](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Gold-Solidus-of-Majorian--1--1.jpg) Gold Solidus of Majorian. Credits: Public domain Yet the [emperors ](https://romanempiretimes.com/niche-perfumes-in-ancient-rome-how-did-emperors-smell-like/)who ruled between 455 and 476 were far from identical. Some came from senatorial backgrounds, others from the [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/), others from the eastern court, and the last was a child placed on the throne by his father. That variety matters, but so does the deeper continuity beneath it. Military strength remained the decisive force in western politics. Even when senators appeared on the throne, their rule was often fragile and heavily dependent on generals. The repeated return to Rome did not amount to a senatorial recovery of power. The city could still host imperial rule, but it did not control the forces that made and unmade emperors. Petronius Maximus shows how unstable the throne had become. A senator of high rank and long experience, he tried to secure power through money, coercion, and marriage politics, forcing Licinia Eudoxia to marry him and trying to bind his son Palladius to the imperial family. The whole arrangement collapsed almost immediately. As the Vandals approached, he attempted to flee and was killed before the sack of the city began. With the imperial [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) then carried off to Africa, the remaining western dynasty could no longer be used so easily to support the next regime. The military emperors reveal the same instability in a different form. Avitus was both senator and general, but came to power as a military ruler in the aftermath of the Vandal sack. He entered Rome with recognition and at least some dynastic possibilities of his own, yet his position soon collapsed under pressure from Ricimer and Majorian. Majorian, unlike most of the rulers of the period, is not known to have visited Rome at all. He remained instead a campaigning emperor, moving through Ravenna, Gaul, Arles, and Spain, trying to act as a ruler who still commanded armies in person. Even so, Rome remained part of the political horizon of his reign, since one source places him on his return to attend to matters essential to the empire and to the dignity of Rome when Ricimer had him killed. The strongest possibility for renewal came with Anthemius. He arrived from the east with military prestige, imperial connections through his wife Euphemia, and sons who offered the prospect of succession. More than any western emperor after 455, he looked capable of founding a durable new ruling house. He then spent the whole of his reign in Rome. That fact is important. It shows that the city was still entirely viable as an imperial residence, and that ruling from Rome could still appear natural rather than extraordinary. But his reign also revealed the dangers of that choice. Once relations with Ricimer broke down, the conflict was not pushed to the margins of the empire. It unfolded in and around Rome itself. In 472 the city was besieged for months, fell to Ricimer’s forces, and Anthemius was killed soon afterward. The same pattern continued after him. Olybrius, despite his aristocratic standing and dynastic value, survived only a few months. Glycerius was raised through military backing and moved quickly from Ravenna to Rome. Julius Nepos also came to Rome and remained there until the advance of Orestes forced him to flee. Even repeated failure did not break the city’s pull. Again and again, rulers or the men who made them still turned toward Rome. An emperor in residence could still offer Rome visibility, ceremony, and political access. The city could still host embassies, accessions, consular celebrations, and the daily theatre of imperial presence. Its elites could still hope to benefit from proximity to the court. But the balance was not favourable. Rome paid heavily for remaining at the centre of western politics. Imperial residence exposed the city directly to the great crises of the age: sack, siege, unrest, factional violence, and the destructive pressure of repeated struggles for the throne. The presence of emperors did not restore the old security of the imperial capital. It made Rome more vulnerable to the violence that now surrounded the western court. One of the clearest signs of shifting power lies in public benefaction. In these final decades, [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/69-ce-the-year-of-the-four-emperors/) left surprisingly little visible mark on the city when compared with powerful generals. Men such as Ricimer and Valila appear more clearly in acts of patronage and ecclesiastical giving than the emperors themselves. Authority was still being displayed in Rome, but increasingly the men most able to display it were commanders rather than rulers. The city still had emperors, yet more and more the effective weight of power had passed into other hands. ![Ricimer: ring with intaglio](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Ricimer-ring-with-intaglio--1--1.jpg) Ricimer: ring with intaglio. Public domain The years 455–476 were therefore not simply the final chapter of a shrinking empire. They were the last decades in which Rome remained intensely important – as residence, as symbol, as political arena, and as prize. Emperors continued to choose it because it still carried the full weight of imperial memory and legitimacy. But by remaining at the centre, Rome also endured the full violence of the struggle for the western throne. *(Meaghan McEvoy, “Shadow Emperors and the Choice of Rome (455–476 AD).”)* ### Africa, Not Rome, Was the Key to Survival The struggle for the western empire in its final decades was not fought only through accessions, court intrigue, and the rapid turnover of emperors. Beneath all of that lay a harder reality. The western state could still produce capable rulers, still field armies, and still attempt recovery. What it could no longer do was easily replace what had already been lost. The decisive loss was North Africa. That was why the most serious western emperors of the age turned toward the Vandal kingdom. Control of Africa meant far more than prestige. It meant revenue, supply, and the resources needed to rebuild wider imperial power. As long as [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spartan-who-saved-carthage-and-broke-a-roman-invasion/) and the wealthy African provinces remained outside western control, recovery elsewhere rested on a weak foundation. Trouble in Gaul could be managed for a time, especially with eastern help, but Gaul was not the true key to restoration. Africa was. This gives a sharper meaning to the reign of Majorian. His rule was not simply another brief episode in the parade of failing emperors. He pulled much of the surviving western empire back together and then committed himself to the one strategy that offered a real chance of renewal: the reconquest of North Africa. The expedition was not a sideshow, but the central gamble of his reign. When it failed in Spain in 461, he was removed and executed, and Ricimer’s control over Italy became effectively unchallenged. The same strategic logic returned under Anthemius. His regime also turned toward Africa, and the great joint expedition of 468 represented the last large-scale attempt to restore the west on a durable basis. Its failure mattered far beyond the battlefield. It was not just another defeat to add to a growing list. It marked the collapse of the final serious effort to recover the financial and military base on which a revived western [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/empire-size-comparison-how-did-the-roman-empire-compare-to-alexanders-or-the-mongols/) might have stood. After that, the political story continued, but on much narrower terms. Emperors could still be raised, recognized, betrayed, and replaced, yet the resources required for real restoration were slipping out of reach. From that point, the sequence of collapse accelerated. Anthemius, who had come west with eastern backing and stronger credentials than most of the emperors around him, ended not in recovery but in civil war. Ricimer broke with him, besieged Rome for months, and had him killed in July 472\. Even before Anthemius died, Ricimer had already promoted Olybrius as a replacement. ![Joseph-Noël Sylvestre: Sac de Rome. Visigoths sack Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Visigoths-sack-Rome--1--1.jpg) Joseph-Noël Sylvestre: Sac de Rome. Visigoths sack Rome. Public domain But Olybrius survived only a short time, dying in November of the same year, just after Ricimer himself. The west was still producing emperors, but now at a pace that made the office look increasingly fragile and disposable. Ricimer’s death did not restore stability. Power briefly passed to his Burgundian ally Gundobad, who elevated Glycerius in 473\. Yet the scale of what remained under western imperial control had become painfully small. Italy still mattered, but outside it the position was deteriorating fast. While emperors were being raised and removed in Italy, the Visigoths, Burgundians, and Vandals were extending their own realms. The contest for the western throne had become, in effect, a murderous struggle over a shrinking core. The next move came from Dalmatia. Julius Nepos, heir to the power once built there by [Marcellinus](https://romanempiretimes.com/ammian-or-ammianus-marcellinus-from-a-roman-soldier-to-one-of-the-best-historians-of-all-time/) and backed by the eastern court, landed near Rome in 474, removed Glycerius without a fight, and took the western throne. His accession showed that the imperial title still carried weight and that Constantinople had not yet abandoned all interest in the west. But it also showed how narrow the margin had become. Nepos never won over the army of Italy, and the man he appointed to restore order, Orestes, turned against him instead. In August 475 Nepos fled back across the Adriatic to Dalmatia, leaving the west exposed once again. Orestes then placed his own son Romulus on the throne. The choice itself was revealing. By this stage, the western imperial office could still be used, but more and more as a tool in the hands of military strongmen. Romulus was little more than a figure placed at the centre of a collapsing system by the real power behind him. Less than a year later, Orestes and his brother were dead, and Romulus Augustulus was deposed. The imperial vestments were sent to Constantinople, along with the message that the west no longer required a separate emperor. At almost the same moment, the Visigothic kingdom tightened its hold over the Iberian peninsula and absorbed the rest of Provence, underlining how much political substance had already passed away from the Italian court. Seen in that light, 476 works better as the end of a process than as a single dramatic collapse. The western throne did not suddenly lose meaning in that year. It had already been weakened by the failure to recover Africa, by the inability of successive emperors to master their generals, and by the expansion of successor kingdoms across the provinces. What disappeared in 476 was not a still-powerful imperial system, but the last western emperor in Italy. The court still generated plans, campaigns, and ambitious regimes, but after the failure to recover Africa those efforts had less and less with which to work. Rome could still supply legitimacy, ceremony, and political theatre. It could not by itself restore the fiscal and military strength the west had lost. That is why the emperors of these years still mattered, but why, in the end, they could no longer save the empire. *(Peter Heather, “The fall of the Roman Empire. A new history”)* --- The last western emperors still ruled in the shadow of Rome’s greatness, and that shadow was not empty. It could still lend dignity, legitimacy, and political force to those who occupied the throne. But symbol and ceremony were no longer enough. Once Africa was lost and every major attempt at recovery failed, the west could still stage empire without being able to restore it. That is what gives these final decades their tragic character: Rome remained the center of imperial meaning long after it had ceased to guarantee imperial survival. ### The Kalends of May: How Rome Opened a Sacred Month of Fire, Growth, and Old Gods URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-kalends-of-may-how-rome-opened-a-sacred-month-of-fire-growth-and-old-gods/ Last updated: 2026-05-01T20:42:13.000Z In Rome, the Kalends of May marked more than the first day of a new month. They opened a stretch of sacred time shaped by [old gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/), ritual attention, and the uneasy balance between renewal and restraint. Flowers, garlands, and the joyful energy of spring belonged to the season, but so did sacrifice, purification, and a sense that May carried a religious weight of its own. ### Flowers, Fertility, and the Sacred Month of May Some of the earliest traditions later associated with May Day can be traced back to the Roman *Floralia*, the festival of *Flora*, goddess of flowers. Celebrated from 28 April to 3 May, it marked the season with offerings, decoration, and public festivity. Milk and [honey](https://romanempiretimes.com/mad-honey-warfare-how-king-mithridates-poisoned-pompeys-legions/) were presented to the goddess, while people and public spaces were adorned with flowers. Romans wore floral wreaths and blossoms in their hair, and the period was filled with dancing, [games](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-greek-glory-to-roman-spectacle-the-olympic-games-evolution/), and a joyful welcome to the arrival of spring. Yet May in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) was not only cheerful and festive. Alongside its association with flowers, fertility, and seasonal renewal, the month also carried a more solemn character. May was linked with *Maia*, and it was regarded as a time of purification and religious observance connected with the [dead](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/). The first of May in particular was treated as a sacred day in the [temples](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/). So although the season encouraged celebration, the month itself was not thought suitable for everything. Roman custom considered May unlucky for [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/), and formal wedding ceremonies were generally avoided during it. (“Contemporary consumption rituals. A research anthology. Edited by: Cele C. Otnes, Tina M. Lowrey) ### Ovid and the Ritual Opening of a New Month The opening of May in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) was not simply the turning of a calendar page. It was also a moment that invited explanation. As [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/) puts it, > “You ask whence I suppose the name of the month of May to be derived.” From the beginning, then, May appears not as an empty stretch of time, but as a month whose sacred meaning had to be understood. In the world of the *Fasti*, a new month begins through ritual attention, learned inquiry, and religious ceremony. ![Giovanni Battista Tiepolo: The Empire of Flora. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Giovanni-Battista-Tiepolo-The-Empire-of-Flora---1--1.jpg) Giovanni Battista Tiepolo: The Empire of Flora. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. Public domain The poet does not treat religious observance as distant antiquarian material, but as something that unfolds in the present tense, almost as if the reader were being guided into the rite itself. The effect is that the beginning of a month feels active and ceremonial. A sacred day arrives not in silence, but with formulas, invocations, and instructions that create the sense of a community gathering for worship. This is one of the most useful ways to think about the Kalends of May. In Ovid’s religious calendar, the first day of a month can be marked by solemn address, by heightened speech, and by ritual framing that turns time itself into an event. The audience is not merely told that a new month has begun. It is drawn into the atmosphere of observance. That makes the Kalends more than a date. They become an opening in which language, ritual, and public attention work together. What matters here is not only the specific rite attached to a day, but the Roman habit of treating sacred time as something that had to be properly entered. Ovid’s poem repeatedly shows that rites are introduced, explained, and imaginatively staged. This gives the calendar a living texture. A month such as May does not begin as an abstract unit. It begins under the sign of ritual action and religious meaning, with the poet acting almost like a ceremonial guide. That perspective is especially valuable for the Kalends of May because it reminds us that Romans did not separate calendar and cult. The first of the month could be a moment of invocation, explanation, and reverence, and Ovid’s method helps recover that feeling. The sacred month begins not only with a name, but with a form of attention. *(“Ritual Directions in Ovid’s Fasti: Dramatic Hymns and Didactic Poetry” by John F. Miller)* ### Why the Month Was Called May Ancient Romans did not agree on a single explanation for the name of May, and that uncertainty is part of what makes the month interesting. Antiquarian tradition preserved several attempts to explain it, but one of the strongest linked the month to *Maia*. In that tradition, May took its name from the goddess, and the month’s place in the Roman year was understood through her divine identity rather than through a purely numerical or seasonal logic. Roman scholars treated the naming of months very seriously. The question was not trivial. To ask why May was called May was to ask what force, person, or memory stood behind the structure of sacred time. Some explanations connected the month to the *maiores*, the [elders](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-elderly-in-ancient-rome-voices-of-respect-and-fear/); others gave priority to *Maia*. ![Hobbe Smith: Floralia, 1898. Painting. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Hobbe-Smith--1862---1942--Floralia--1898.-Painting.-1.jpg) Hobbe Smith: Floralia, 1898\. Painting. Public domain What emerges is not confusion so much as a layered Roman habit of explanation, in which myth, cult, ancestry, and learned tradition all competed to define the calendar. The important point is that the month opened under a name already charged with religious meaning. The first day of May did not arrive as a neutral date. It belonged to a month whose identity had to be explained, and one powerful explanation placed Maia at its center. That makes the Kalends of May feel more than administrative. They mark the entrance into a month whose name itself invited reflection on divine origins. The Romans were not merely observing May; they were also interpreting it. They inherited explanations, debated them, and passed them along through antiquarian writing. The month of May therefore stood at the meeting point of ritual time and learned tradition. *(“Ennius’s Fasti in Fulvius’s Temple: Greek Rationality and Roman Tradition” by Jörg Rüpke)* ### Early Calendar Thinking and the Place of Maia A more speculative antiquarian line of thought connects the Roman calendar to older ritual patterns and to broader attempts to explain how months acquired their symbolic character. In this material, Maia again appears as an important figure, and May is treated as a month that could preserve traces of very early religious and calendrical ideas. Rather than focusing narrowly on one rite, this approach tries to place the month within a larger structure of Roman sacred time. What is useful here is the insistence that month-names were not empty labels. They were understood as carrying memory, cult, and sometimes even traces of older ritual systems. In that context, Maia is not just an etymological explanation but part of a wider attempt to understand how the Roman year was once imagined. May becomes a month whose significance may reach back beyond later literary ordering into deeper patterns of Roman religious thought. The Kalends of May opened a month the Romans did not treat lightly. Whether through formal antiquarian discussion or broader speculation about the old calendar, May appears as a month tied to sacred identity, not merely to seasonal convenience. So even where certainty is limited, the larger impression remains strong. The first of May belonged to a month whose name, place, and ritual associations invited explanation. That alone tells us something important about Roman religion: [time](https://romanempiretimes.com/shadows-not-numbers-the-roman-and-greek-experience-of-time/) was never only counted, but also interpreted. *(“The Case for Vergil’s Venerable Pig” by Van L. Johnson)* ### A Month of Flowers – and a Month of Caution Early May in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) was not simply bright with flowers and springtime festivity. It also opened into a month marked by solemnity, purification, and a certain unease. The Kalends of May carried important religious observances: the temple of *Bona Dea* was dedicated on that day, and the *Flamen Volcanalis* offered sacrifice to *Maia*, a detail that fits well with the ancient tradition linking the month’s name to the goddess. ![Lawrence Alma-Tadema - Spring](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/05/Lawrence_Alma-Tadema_-_Spring--1--1.jpg) Lawrence Alma-Tadema - Spring. Public domain Ovid also notes that on May 1 an altar and small images of the *Lares Praestites*, the guardian spirits of the [city](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), were set up. The first of May, then, was not just the opening of a month but a sacred threshold, marked by cult and protective ritual. May also had a more complicated religious tone than its flowers might suggest. Alongside seasonal renewal came rites of cleansing and expiation, including the [*Lemuria*](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-lemuria-to-halloween-romes-ancient-festival-of-spirits/), the *Argei*, and the purification of the fields at the month’s end. Renewal and fertility were certainly part of the month, but so were ritual caution and the need to address forces that might threaten the household, the city, or the crops. That mixed atmosphere helps explain one of the more striking Roman ideas about May: despite the season’s beauty, the month was widely thought unlucky for marriage. An old line preserved by later tradition says: > “mense Maio malae nubunt,” meaning “girls marry badly in the month of May.” The saying is blunt, but revealing. Even in a month associated with growth and divine presence, Romans could still sense danger or impropriety in beginning a marriage then. May was sacred, but not necessarily easy. That gives the Kalends of May some of their real interest. The day stood at the entrance to a month that Romans did not treat lightly. It could be touched by flowers, garlands, and the joy of the season, but it also belonged to a cycle of rites meant to protect, purify, and remember. In [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/), the first of May did not open onto spring alone. It opened onto a sacred month in which beauty and caution lived side by side. *("The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic" by W. Warde Fowler)* --- That is what makes the Kalends of May so revealing. They show a Roman world in which time itself was sacred, and where even the beginning of a beautiful spring month could not be separated from ritual duty, divine presence, and inherited caution. May began with flowers, but in Rome it also began with memory, ceremony, and the quiet seriousness of a month that was never taken lightly. ### For Rome, No War Was Worse Than Civil War URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/for-rome-no-war-was-worse-than-civil-war/ Last updated: 2026-04-29T17:47:11.000Z For the Romans, civil war was never just another form of conflict. Foreign enemies could be hated, feared, and fought, but they still stood outside the body of Rome. Civil war was different. It meant Roman turning against Roman, armies carrying the state’s own power back against itself, and victories that felt dangerously close to ruin. Again and again, Roman writers describe these struggles not simply as political crises, but as moments when the order holding their world together seemed to break from within. ### The Horror of Romans Killing Romans For the Romans, civil war was terrifying because it did not simply bring violence into the state — it divided the state against itself. The crucial fact was not where the fighting took place, but who stood on either side. When Roman citizens fought Roman citizens, the political community had already been broken. That is why the Roman language of civil war gave such weight to the word *civilis*. What mattered most was that the conflict was between fellow citizens. War was only the final stage of a deeper rupture, the moment when division inside the body politic turned openly lethal. This is one reason [Sallust](https://romanempiretimes.com/sallust-details-on-the-historian-of-roman-elite-and-the-republic-decline/)’s account of Catiline matters so much. He presents the affair not merely as a conspiracy but as something far darker and more dangerous, a confrontation that had already crossed into civil war. The fighting at Pistoria was not a skirmish against outsiders or rebels from beyond the frontier. It was Romans killing Romans. And Sallust closes his narrative not with a triumphant recovery of order, but with one of the bleakest scenes in Roman historiography: > “Many, too, who had gone from the camp to visit the field or to pillage, on turning over the bodies of the slain enemies found now a friend, now a guest, or a kinsman; some also recognized their personal enemies.” That is the Roman nightmare in its purest form. The enemy on the battlefield is not foreign. He is someone already bound into one’s own social world. ![A possible representation of a Roman battlefield after civil conflict, with Romans recognizing the dead](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/A-Roman-battlefield-after-civil-conflict--with-Romans-recognizing-the-dead.-1.png) A possible representation of a Roman battlefield after civil conflict, with Romans recognizing the dead. Credits Roman Empire Times, Gemini The horror lies precisely there. Civil war did not simply mean death. It meant that the usual distinctions between private and public life had collapsed. Friendship, kinship, hospitality, and enmity all reappeared among the dead. The battlefield did not separate Romans from outsiders. It revealed that the violence had already entered the network of Roman relationships themselves. Even victory offered no clean release, since grief and triumph were forced to exist together. That is also why Sallust’s language is so important. He does not sharply separate riot, discord, sedition, and civil war into neat categories with fixed meanings. Instead, all of them belong to a wider process in which the political body splits into opposing camps. Civil war appears not as an accidental interruption of [Roman life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/), but as the culminating expression of tensions that had long been building. Once the struggle for liberty, glory, and domination had become unrestrained, war followed naturally. It was the last stage of a contest already alive within the city. This gives Sallust’s history its particular darkness. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s internal conflicts are not treated as isolated disasters caused by a few villains. They are shown as symptoms of something lodged deep in Roman public life. The struggle between rival claims — between those seeking domination and those resisting it in the name of liberty — made the Republic perpetually unstable. The danger of civil war was never wholly absent. It could be contained, delayed, or redirected, but not permanently removed. That idea appears with special force in the way Sallust looks backward across Roman history. He traces the roots of civil conflict far into the past, long before Catiline. In one of his starkest formulations, the challenge to aristocratic arrogance became > “the beginning of a struggle which threw everything, human and divine into confusion and rose to such a pitch of frenzy that civil discord ended in war and the devastation of Italy.” Civil war, then, was not merely one event among others. It was the point at which political competition, social resentment, and the hunger for mastery turned against the community itself. What makes this especially chilling is that both sides could speak the language of legitimacy. One might invoke the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/), another the people, another liberty. Slogans could be noble, but the passions beneath them were harder and more dangerous. A man could claim to fight for freedom while seeking only his own advancement. Civil war thus became not only a military disaster but also a crisis of language, in which public words were repeatedly used to conceal private ambition. ![Statue of Sallust at Exterior of the Austrian Parliament Building](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/Statue-of-Sallust-at-Exterior-of-the-Austrian-Parliament-Building--1--1.jpg) Statue of Sallust at Exterior of the Austrian Parliament Building. Credits:Yair Haklai, CC BY-SA 4.0 And yet Sallust does not flatten everything into a simple denunciation of all political action. What matters is not that Romans competed, but that the competition could no longer be held within limits. Liberty, glory, and domination all remained live forces in Roman life. The problem came when the struggle between them ceased to be political rivalry and became armed division. At that point, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) was no longer confronting an external threat. It was confronting itself. That is what made civil war worse than any foreign conflict. A foreign enemy could endanger Roman lives, property, and territory. Civil war endangered the meaning of citizenship itself. It turned fellow Romans into enemies and left behind battlefields where the dead could no longer be cleanly separated into “us” and “them.” In Sallust’s vision, this was not just a tragedy of war. It was the revelation that the deepest threat to Rome might come not from beyond its borders, but from within its own citizen body. *("Sallust as a Historian of Civil War" by Pedro López Barja de Quiroga)* ### No Glory Could Come from Civil War Lucan (a Roman poet of the first century AD, writing under Nero, and his Civil War — better known as the *Pharsalia* — became one of the most powerful literary visions of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) turned against itself. Rather than celebrating conquest or imperial greatness, he wrote about civil war as moral collapse, wasted power, and a catastrophe from which no true glory could emerge) presents civil war as something more than political conflict. In his poem, it is a crime against Rome itself. This is not the sort of war that can bring honor, triumph, or expansion. It does not drive outward against foreign peoples. It turns inward, against the same hands, blood, and city that once built Roman power. That is why the poem opens with such force: > “Wars worse than civil on Thessalian plains, and crime made law we sing.” From the first line, the struggle is marked not simply as destructive, but as morally warped — a war in which the normal order of things has been overturned. What horrifies Lucan most is that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/)’s greatness has not disappeared, but been misdirected. The strength that once conquered the world is still there, yet it is now used against Rome itself. He writes of > “a powerful people turned their own right hands against themselves.” That image captures the whole tragedy. The problem is not weakness. It is self-destruction. Roman power has become its own enemy. ![Lucan, Pharsalia, Book 6 verses 368-410, in ms. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus Palatinus ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/Lucan-s-Pharsalia--1--1.jpg) Lucan, Pharsalia, Book 6 verses 368-410, in ms. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus Palatinus. Public domain The poem returns again and again to this sense of waste. Lucan imagines what those same armies might have done had they marched against Parthians, Scythians, or peoples beyond the Rhine. Instead, all that force is consumed in internal slaughter. Civil war, in this vision, is not only bloodshed. It is squandered greatness. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) still has the energy to fight, but no longer the unity to direct that energy toward anything worthy of victory. Lucan also strips civil war of the glory normally attached to Roman warfare. Foreign war could still be framed as conquest, courage, and public achievement. Civil war allows none of that. Its victories are contaminated from the start. A triumph over fellow citizens is no true triumph at all. Even success carries the taste of ruin, because the winner has prevailed only by tearing the Roman world apart. That is why the poem feels so relentless: it denies the reader the usual satisfactions of Roman military writing. Just as importantly, Lucan makes civil war feel unnatural. The conflict is filled with broken boundaries — between kin and enemy, law and crime, state and violence. Again and again, the poem suggests that civil war is not simply war within the state, but a kind of desecration. It violates the very order [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-defeat-rome-never-forgot-teutoburg-forest-9-ce/) depended on. The struggle between [Caesar ](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/)and [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/) is therefore not presented as an ordinary contest for power. It becomes the spectacle of a civilization using its own sword on itself. Lucan does not merely describe civil war as dangerous. He presents it as a form of collective self-harm. In Sallust, civil war emerges from tensions inside the body politic. In Lucan, that body is already tearing itself open. Rome is no longer just divided. It is consuming its own strength, staining its own victory, and proving that no foreign enemy could have done to it what it was prepared to do to itself. ### Civil War Needed Enemies Roman civil war could not remain only a struggle between rival citizens. To be fought to the end, it needed enemies who could be treated as something less than fellow Romans. One way of doing that was through language. Labels mattered, because they helped turn political opponents into figures who could be killed, mutilated, displayed, or stripped of legal protection. The line between civil war and foreign war might remain visible in theory, but in practice Roman leaders kept searching for words that would make violence against fellow citizens feel more permissible. A revealing example appears in [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)’s famous claim that a pirate was not a proper public enemy in the ordinary sense, but > “the common foe of all the world” (*communis hostis omnium*). A pirate stood outside the normal rules that governed warfare. Such a figure did not deserve the protections owed to a lawful enemy. That distinction mattered because language of this kind could later be pushed into civil conflict. Opponents inside [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) might be branded not simply as rivals, but as something closer to outlaws, brigands, or public pests — enemies who no longer counted as citizens in the full sense. That process reached one of its ugliest forms in the proscriptions. Here civil war moved beyond the battlefield and entered the city itself. Violence became selective, personal, and public. Individuals were named, hunted, and killed; their property was seized; their deaths were displayed as warnings. Cicero’s murder is the most famous case. His severed head and hands were placed on the Rostra, the very place where Romans had once gathered to hear him speak. ![Pavel Svedomsky. Fulvia, Mark Antony's wife, sticking pins into the severed head of Cicero, after Antony ordered his killing](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/Fulvia--Mark-Antony-s-wife--sticking-pins-into-the-severed-head-of-Cicero--after-Antony-ordered-his-killing--1--1.jpg) Pavel Svedomsky. Fulvia, Mark Antony's wife, sticking pins into the severed head of Cicero, after Antony ordered his killing. Public domain Florus captures the shock of the scene: > “the citizens could not restrain their tears when they saw the severed head of Cicero on those very Rostra which he had made his own, and men rushed to gaze upon him as once they were wont to crowd to listen to him.” This was more than execution. It was spectacle, humiliation, and proof of control. The body of a Roman statesman became a message to Rome itself. In such moments, civil war did not merely kill. It staged power. A severed head on display announced that the victim was truly dead, that resistance had failed, and that those now in command could define who counted as an enemy of the state. Violence and legitimacy worked together. Those who prevailed were praised as patriots and saviors; those who lost could be described as public enemies and traitors. [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) puts the logic with brutal clarity: > “those who were successful were considered shrewd and patriotic, while the defeated were called enemies of their country and accursed.” In civil war, victory gave men the power not only to win, but to name. The same logic appears again after Perusia, though in a different register. Here the violence became broader and more indiscriminate. The sources disagree on the scale, but even the milder traditions do not clear the victor of harshness. Some report that leading men were killed; others preserve the darker story that hundreds of senators and knights were slaughtered at the altar of the deified Julius. However one judges the precise details, the important point is that Perusia entered Roman memory as a place where civil war had crossed into something close to massacre. Seneca later compressed that memory into a chilling phrase: > “after the altars of Perusia and the proscriptions.” The pairing is telling. Perusia and the proscriptions stood together as symbols of a period when civil war was fought through terror as much as through battle. This helps explain why Roman civil war was not confined to famous pitched battles like Pharsalus or Philippi. It was also fought through denunciations, declarations of outlawry, confiscations, executions, and public exhibitions of the dead. It reached into houses, towns, and forums. It exposed civilians to intimidation, robbery, and sudden ruin. In that sense, civil war created a climate in which everyone had to think not only about armies in the field, but about what might happen if the wrong faction gained the upper hand. What emerges is a colder truth about Roman civil war. It did not simply unleash violence; it reorganized it. Men were not killed at random, nor only in battle. They were selected, labeled, hunted, and displayed. Personal grudges, political calculation, and material greed all fed into the process. Civil war became especially dangerous because it could turn old resentments into lethal acts under the cover of public necessity. The enemy had to be created before he could be destroyed, and once created, he could be treated as though he no longer belonged to Rome at all. *("The logic of violence in Roman civil war Author(s)" by Carsten H. Lange)* ### Civil War Broke More Than the State For the Romans, civil war did not stop at armies, camps, and battlefields. It reached further, into the bonds that made collective life possible. That is why Roman writing so often treats civil war as more than a military struggle. It appears as a breakdown of the social bond itself — not only a fight for power, but a collapse in the ties that held citizens, families, and communities together. ![A revolt of the praetorian guards. Drawn by H. Leutemann ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/a-revolt-of-the-praetorian-guards-Drawn-by-H.-Leutemann--1--1.jpg) A revolt of the praetorian guards. Drawn by H. Leutemann. Public domain Part of the difficulty lay in naming it. To call a conflict a civil war was never innocent. Different labels could diminish, justify, or sharpen what was happening. Riot, conspiracy, revolt, sedition, uprising — each term tried to place limits around disorder and to decide who possessed legitimacy. But Roman literature repeatedly pushes beyond such neat categories. Civil war becomes the name for a wider kind of internal rupture, one that exceeds formal politics and spreads into every sphere of life. That wider reach helps explain why the Romans imagined civil war through the language of discord. The conflict was not confined to the state in the narrow sense. It spilled into the family, into relations between men and [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/), into questions of loyalty, kinship, and belonging. Once internal violence began, it threatened to unsettle all the ordinary distinctions by which people understood the world. The problem was no longer only who governed Rome, but whether Rome could still hold itself together at all. This is also why civil war remained so hard to contain in Roman thought. It was feared not simply because it killed, but because it blurred lines that ought to have remained firm: friend and enemy, citizen and foe, public quarrel and private hatred. The more Roman writers returned to it, the more civil war seemed less like a single event and more like a recurring possibility built into political life itself. That is part of what made it so terrifying. Foreign war could threaten Rome from outside. Civil war suggested that the deepest danger had always been closer to home. In that sense, Roman civil war was never only about generals and [armies](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/). It was about what happens when a society begins to come apart from within — when the language of citizenship no longer secures trust, when public conflict invades private life, and when the very bonds that make a people a people begin to fray. That was the larger disaster Roman writers kept circling around. Civil war was feared because it did not merely wound the state. It exposed how much else could break with it. *(“Civil war and the collapse of the social bond. The Roman Tradition at the Heart of the Modern” by Michele Lawrie & Barbara Vinken)* --- For the Romans, civil war was the most frightening kind of conflict because it destroyed the very distinctions that made political life possible. It turned citizens into enemies, emptied victory of its glory, gave violence a language of legitimacy, and threatened bonds that reached far beyond the battlefield. Foreign war might bring danger and loss, but civil war suggested something worse: that Rome’s greatest enemy might be Rome itself. ### Romulus Augustulus: The Boy Who Became Rome’s Last Emperor URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-augustulus-the-boy-who-became-rome-last-emperor/ Last updated: 2026-05-06T16:42:55.000Z By the time Romulus Augustulus appeared on the imperial throne, the Western Roman Empire was already little more than a shell of what it had once been. He was young, obscure, and never meant to become a figure of lasting fame, yet history fixed on him because his brief reign came to stand at the edge of something enormous. When he was deposed in 476, it was not simply a boy-emperor who disappeared from power, but the last Western ruler whom later generations would remember as the final Roman emperor. ### A Boy Emperor at the End of the West Romulus, later nicknamed Augustulus, “the little Augustus,” is usually remembered as the last emperor of the Western [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/). He was the son of Orestes, a general who had once served Attila the Hun as a secretary and had also taken part in embassies to Constantinople. In 475, the western emperor Julius Nepos appointed Orestes commander-in-chief in Gaul. But discontent within the multi-ethnic [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) under his authority soon changed everything. When the [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/)’ demands for land were refused, Orestes turned against Nepos and marched on Ravenna. Nepos fled by sea to Salona, and on 31 October Orestes placed his own young son, Romulus Augustus, on the throne in his place. Romulus was probably only around ten to fourteen years old when he became [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/). The surviving sources agree that he did not rule in any meaningful sense himself. Real power remained in the hands of his father, and the arrangement followed a familiar late Roman pattern in which a child-emperor stood in front while a powerful general governed behind him. Earlier in the fifth century, the western [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/) had already seen similar pairings, such as Honorius with Stilicho and Valentinian III with Aetius. But Romulus’ position was weaker from the beginning. Unlike those earlier emperors, he had no dynastic connection that could strengthen his legitimacy, either to earlier western rulers or to the emperor in the east. At the same time, Julius Nepos was still alive and still claiming the western throne from Dalmatia, which made Romulus appear less like a true successor and more like a usurper. Nepos also had a family connection to the eastern emperor Zeno, and there is no sign that Zeno ever accepted Romulus as the legitimate western [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/). ![engraving in medallion of Julius Nepos, last emperor of the western Roman empire 474-475](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/engraving-in-medallion-of-Julius-Nepos--last-emperor-of-the-western-Roman-empire-474-475--1--1.jpg) Engraving in medallion of Julius Nepos, last emperor of the western Roman empire 474-475\. Public domain The regime lasted only ten months. In late August 476, the barbarian general Odovacer killed Orestes and seized control in Italy. Romulus himself was deposed, but because of his youth and, according to the tradition, his good looks, he was spared. He was sent to live in Campania at the *castellum Lucullanum* and given a yearly allowance of six thousand solidi. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Roman Obsession With Reputation URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-obsession-with-reputation/ Last updated: 2026-04-24T22:23:09.000Z In ancient Rome, a person’s reputation was never just a matter of image. It shaped how others judged his worth, how far his voice carried, how much honor he could claim, and how easily he could be shamed. A good name opened doors, protected status, and gave weight to ambition; a damaged one could linger like a stain. In a society as competitive and watchful as Rome, people did not simply live their lives; they lived under the eyes of others. ### Why Reputation Was Never Just Surface in Rome Reputation in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) was not a decorative extra attached to [public life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/). It was bound up with the question of what a person was, and what remained of him when everything else was stripped away. Roman writing returns again and again to the fear that wealth, office, and success might vanish, while something more exposed and more essential still had to be defended. In that world, a good name was not a polite social asset. It was tied to standing, self-respect, public worth, and the fragile sense that one’s life still held shape under pressure. That is one reason Roman life cannot be understood only through institutions, [laws](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/), and offices. Romans often explained action through passions: fear, desire, shame, envy, lust, ambition, arrogance. What later ages might separate into politics, economics, and psychology, Roman thought more readily joined together through emotion. A man pursued office because he could not bear to be outdone. He entered rivalry because praise mattered. He feared humiliation because public disgrace did not merely wound the feelings; it diminished the person in the eyes of others and, in a culture built on recognition, that was dangerous. The old story of Brutus at Delphi captures something of this sensibility. He carries a rod of gold hidden inside a plain stick, > “an image, obliquely, of his own spirit.” The image is telling. What mattered most was not always what lay openly on display, but the inner force that had to be protected from mockery, domination, and destruction. Roman life placed immense value on visible standing, yet it also imagined a hidden core that could be broken if a man lost the power to command respect. ![Brutus, along with the sons of the Roman king, inquired about the succession to the throne at Delphi. The oracle replied that whoever first kissed the mother would rule. Brutus understood that Mother Earth was meant, threw himself to the ground, and kissed her.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/brutus-at-delphi--1--1.jpg) Brutus, along with the sons of the Roman king, inquired about the succession to the throne at Delphi. The oracle replied that whoever first kissed the mother would rule. Brutus understood that Mother Earth was meant, threw himself to the ground, and kissed her. Public domain This did not mean Romans were inward in a modern, confessional way. Their emotional life was often read through signs, gestures, postures, and public forms. The body, in this world, mattered because it carried the strain of reputation. A lowered gaze, a bowed head, a blush, an outstretched hand, even the way one stood one’s ground; these were not trivial details. They could reveal whether someone still possessed the self-command and presence on which honor rested. The body became one of the last places where dignity could be defended when words failed. That helps explain why Roman moral language is so saturated with emotion. These emotions were not treated as irrational eruptions opposed to thought. They were motors of action. The desire for praise, the fear of shame, the hunger for distinction, the bitterness of insult, the need to repay a favor, the refusal to forget an injury; these formed part of the logic by which Roman society moved. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) puts it plainly: > “With what earnestness they pursue their rivalries! How fierce their contests! What exultation they feel when they win, and what shame when they are beaten! How they dislike reproach! How they yearn for praise!” Even more revealingly, he says this of boys. The emotions of honor were not confined to high office. They were woven into Roman social life from the start. Nor did they belong only to the [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). Rank shaped the forms honor could take, but not the force of the feeling itself. The poor, the dependent, the [enslaved](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-zoninus-collar-the-iron-collar-that-spoke-for-the-silenced/), [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/), [children](https://romanempiretimes.com/to-adopt-or-not-to-adopt-rome-took-a-clear-position/); all could feel humiliation, pride, contempt, injury, and the desperate need to preserve some form of standing. Poverty might reduce a person’s recognized status, but it did not erase the need for self-respect. If anything, it could sharpen it. The desire not to be treated as nothing, not to be openly scorned, not to lose face before others, reached far beyond the [senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) house. This is one of the reasons Roman reputation mattered so much. It sat at the meeting point of [status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/) and feeling. Public honors, offices, crowns, statues, ancestral names, and visible esteem all belonged to the outward structure of Roman rank. But behind them stood something harder to define and no less powerful: the emotional life attached to recognition. A Roman did not want only to possess honor in the form of rank. He wanted to be seen, acknowledged, deferred to, remembered, and protected from contempt. When those forms weakened, the emotions did not disappear. They often became fiercer. A society can lose the language that once gave honor a stable shape and still remain deeply vulnerable to shame and insult. Indeed, those emotions may become more volatile when they can no longer be clearly expressed. ![Guillaume Lethière - Brutus Condemning His Sons to Death ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/Brutus-Condemning-His-Sons-to-Death--1--2-1.jpg) Guillaume Lethière - Brutus Condemning His Sons to Death. Public domain That is part of what gives Roman moral writing its unusual intensity. It is not merely lecturing about good and bad behavior. It is returning, obsessively, to a set of wounds and anxieties that lay close to the surface of Roman life. So the Roman obsession with reputation was never simply vanity. It was a way of defending the self in a world where standing had to be seen, acknowledged, and constantly renewed. To lose reputation was not just to suffer embarrassment. It was to risk becoming smaller in the eyes of others, and therefore in one’s own. In that fear, Roman honor reveals itself not as a superficial code, but as one of the deepest emotional structures of Roman society. ### Shame Had to Be Seen In [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/), reputation did not live only in what people said about a person. It lived in what could be seen. Shame was not imagined as a purely inward feeling hidden in the mind. It was expected to appear on the body; in posture, voice, gesture, expression, and bearing. A damaged reputation did not remain abstract. It pressed itself onto the face and into the limbs. This helps explain why Roman discussions of honor and disgrace are so often concerned with visibility. To have a sense of shame meant more than quietly knowing one had done wrong. It meant being willing to stand under judgment, to be exposed to the eyes of others, and to feel that exposure. Roman moral life was inseparable from witness. A person’s standing was tested not in isolation, but before an audience. One of the clearest ancient formulations comes from [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/), writing about the stage. Actors, he says, can imitate bashfulness by lowering the head, softening the voice, and fixing the eyes on the ground, but one thing they cannot reproduce at will is the blush. > “They cannot, however, muster a blush... It is a law unto itself.” That detail matters. The blush becomes the sign of a body that still responds to judgment, a body that cannot entirely shield itself from shame. In Roman terms, this was not weakness in the modern sense. It was evidence that a person remained morally alive. That is why shame could be valued even while it hurt. The person who felt no shame was dangerous, because nothing in him recoiled from reproach. The person capable of shame still recognized limits, debts, obligations, and the eyes of others. Roman thought could therefore treat shame not simply as a wound, but as one of the conditions of social life. It restrained aggression, checked arrogance, and bound people to one another through the fear of deserving contempt. As one striking maxim puts it, > “The highest praise that one can give a man is that he is capable of doing harm but chooses not to.” In other words, self-restraint mattered most when a person had the power to violate and did not. This is also why Roman shame was never a calm or comfortable emotion. It was poised, tense, and unstable. The honorable person was not imagined as inwardly serene. Shame involved discomfort, pressure, and self-scrutiny. It belonged to a life lived in relation to others, where one could never fully forget how one appeared. ![Cicero accuses Catiline (probably on the right in green) of conspiracy.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/Cicero-denouncing-Catiline--1--1.jpg) Cicero accuses Catiline (probably on the right in green) of conspiracy. Image by John Leech, from: **The Comic History of Rome* by Gilbert Abbott A Beckett. Public domain A Roman with *pudor* was not free from painful feeling; rather, that feeling was part of the price of being bound by obligations and by the need to remain worthy of recognition. To have a sense of shame is, as it were, a servitude. Yet this same structure made shame dangerous. What could preserve social order could also poison a life. Once shame ceased to guide and began to overwhelm, it could become destructive. Roman texts return often to that darker possibility: the person who loses poise, who cannot recover from humiliation, who feels insufficiency not as a passing wound but as something permanent. In that condition, shame no longer holds a person upright. It drives him downward. This is where Roman thought becomes especially severe. Defeat and disgrace were not treated as light matters that time would naturally soften. Humiliation could harden. The contrast is memorable: valor is fleeting and fragile, but dishonor can feel fixed, frozen, almost unending. Victory is fleeting, but losing is forever. That is not simply rhetoric. It expresses a world in which public failure could become a lasting form of existence, something carried in the memory of others and in one’s own damaged sense of self. Seen in that light, the Roman obsession with reputation was not only about ambition or vanity. It was also about the fear of visible shame. A person needed esteem because life under contempt was hard to bear. To be known, judged, and measured by others was unavoidable. The deeper question was whether one could still hold one’s shape under that pressure — whether the face, the voice, and the body could still bear witness to dignity when reputation trembled. In Rome, shame was painful because it was public, and public because it was written on the body. *(“Roman honor. The fire in the bones” by Carlin A. Barton)* ### Reputation Lived in Public Opinion In the late Roman Republic, reputation did not float in the air as something vague and ungraspable. Romans had several ways of talking about what we would call public opinion, above all *fama*, *existimatio*, and *iudicium*. The very richness of this vocabulary shows how much depended on what other people thought. ![Cicero Denounces Catiline by Cesare Maccari](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/Cicero-Denounces-Catiline-in-the-Roman-Senate-by-Cesare-Maccari-1.jpg) **Cicero Denounces Catiline* by Cesare Maccari. Public domain A politician’s standing was never secure simply because he had held office or belonged to a good family. Prestige had to be maintained, and public opinion was one of the chief forces that could strengthen it or destroy it. That mattered because Roman political life was built on competition. Elections brought access to office, [wealth](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/), influence, and military command, but success did not end the struggle. Even after reaching the highest magistracies, a senator still had to protect his standing. Reputation remained exposed. One bad verdict, one unlucky rumor, one visible breach with public expectations could undo years of accumulated prestige. The career of Hortensius shows just how precarious this could be. He was one of the most admired orators of his age and had reached the consulship, yet late in life, after defending his nephew on a charge of electoral corruption, he faced public outrage. The acquittal was widely felt to be intolerable. The reaction was immediate: cries and shouts broke out at once, and the next day, in the theater, Hortensius was hissed and abused for the first time in his life. His reputation suffered because public opinion had turned against him. Roman prestige was public, and public displeasure could strike fast. That helps explain why [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/stoic-in-the-sauna-why-a-baiae-bathhouse-linked-to-cicero-is-deliciously-ironic/) could define glory as a combination of *frequens fama* and praise. Glory was not simply inner merit waiting to be recognized. It depended on circulation, repetition, and approval. A Roman politician lived inside the opinions of others. Courts, assemblies, streets, [theaters](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-epic-roman-theater-of-philadelphia-amman/), and [dinner tables](https://romanempiretimes.com/convivium-how-the-romans-turned-dinner-into-a-display-of-power/) all helped shape what was being said about him. In that sense, reputation was never a private possession. It existed only so long as other people continued to acknowledge it. The courts made this especially clear. Roman rhetorical handbooks taught orators how to attack a rival’s character by linking him with every vice that could be made to stick, whether or not it had anything to do with the actual case. Reputation often entered the courtroom before evidence did. And yet this dependence on public standing was so obvious that, when an accused man already enjoyed a good name, one possible strategy was to insist that the facts alone should speak, and not *fama*. That very move reveals how powerful reputation had become. A politician was often judged long before the verdict. This was one reason candidates lived in a state of nervous vigilance. A rumor, an unfortunate remark, a murmur among voters could change everything. Cicero evokes the anxious look of a candidate trembling at every whisper that might alter opinion. Roman electoral politics was not simply a contest of programs or alliances. It was a contest of impressions, and those impressions were unstable. Among the key words Romans used for this world was *existimatio*, the impression a politician made on others and the opinion they held of him. It was the reputation attached to a man by the eyes and voices around him. Wealth and ancestry mattered, but they were not enough by themselves. ![A possible representation of a public shaming scene in ancient Rome.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/public-shaming-in-Rome-1.jpg) A possible representation of a public shaming scene in Ancient Rome. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT A Roman’s *existimatio* depended on what people were saying. It could belong not only to individuals but also to [cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), social orders, and law courts. What mattered was not simply being important, but being thought important in the right way. Alongside this stood *fama*, another crucial term. It could mean reputation, but also report, talk, rumor, or collective opinion formed around notable actions. It might elevate a man or darken him. Even when the distinction between *fama* and *existimatio* blurred in practice, both belonged to the same political world: one in which a public man was always being interpreted, discussed, and redefined by others. Another important word was *iudicium*, judgment. This term could be especially useful when a politician wanted to dignify the opinions that supported him. Cicero was capable of speaking dismissively about popular feeling, yet when the crowd agreed with him, public opinion suddenly became sound judgment. In one speech he points to three places where the will and opinion of the Roman people could supposedly be most clearly known: > “the *contiones*, the *comitia*, and the meetings at the games and at the [gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/).” That formulation is revealing not because it truly captured all Roman public opinion, but because it tried to define which expressions of opinion counted and which did not. The inconsistency is striking. At times applause was treated as cheap and demagogic; at other times, when it favored the right cause, it became the voice of the whole people. Cicero could describe supportive acclamations as > “an incredible unanimous will of the whole Roman people.” Diversity of voices was then compressed into one collective judgment. Public opinion mattered, but its meaning was constantly fought over. Roman politicians did not simply respond to opinion; they tried to frame it, elevate some parts of it, and discredit the rest. This can be seen in Cicero’s own anxieties. He could mock another man for fearing hisses at the [games](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/), yet few things troubled him more in private than these very public signals of approval or rejection. His letters show how attentively he watched such reactions. Even a philosopher’s pose could not protect a Roman statesman from the sting of open disfavor before a crowd. Not everyone treated public opinion with Cicero’s mixture of contempt and dependence. Caelius gives a different picture, and in many ways a more practical one. For him, public opinion was not an embarrassing force to be brushed aside, but a normal and decisive element of politics. He collected it, compared it, and treated it as actionable intelligence. ![Rumors and public judgement in the Forum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/rumors-and-public-judgement-1.jpg) Rumors and public judgement in the Forum. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Facts alone were not enough. He wanted to know what had happened, what people thought of it, and what expectations or rumors it had stirred up. In that approach, reputation becomes something almost measurable: a field of reactions to be tracked, interpreted, and used. That also meant listening widely. Political information included conversations, hearsay, shifting expectations, and reports from different circles. Caelius’ letters move constantly through rumors, predictions, and the opinions of others. Sometimes he names his source; sometimes he simply reports what “is said.” Even when apparently nothing major had happened, there was still a great deal to say, because Roman politics was not made only of events. It was made of interpretations. This is one of the clearest signs of how deeply reputation structured Roman life. Information itself became a commodity. It could be exchanged, analyzed, and acted upon. What was Caesar thinking? What did Pompey intend? How were people reacting? What was being whispered? In a political world so sensitive to standing, access to such knowledge could shape a career. The successful Roman politician did not merely act. He watched, listened, interpreted, and adjusted. In that sense, reputation in Rome was never passive. It was not something a man simply had. It was something being formed around him every day — in rumor, in applause, in hissing, in verdicts, in gossip, in theater crowds, in electoral whispers, and in the nervous calculations of those who knew that public judgment could change in an instant. *(“Public opinion and politics in the late Roman republic” by Christina Rosillo-Lopez)* --- For the Romans, reputation was never something light or ornamental. It shaped political careers, social standing, and the way a person moved through the world under the eyes of others. Praise could elevate, hissing could humiliate, rumor could damage, and public judgment could cling with startling force. In that constant exposure lay one of the deepest tensions of Roman life: to be visible was necessary, but visibility also made a person vulnerable. A Roman’s good name was therefore never secure. It had to be guarded, renewed, and defended again and again. ### What Romans Thought Made a Man Weak URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-thought-made-a-man-weak/ Last updated: 2026-04-22T20:14:04.000Z To the Romans, weakness in a man was never just a matter of the body. A man could be strong in build and still be judged weak in character, habits, voice, desires, or conduct. Again and again, Roman writers returned to the same fear: that comfort, softness, excess, and lack of self-command could quietly undo the kind of discipline on which both manhood and power were supposed to rest. In their eyes, weakness was not simply a condition. It was a warning sign; one that touched the body, the household, and the state alike. ### Softness and the Roman Idea of Weakness For Roman writers, weakness in a man was often expressed through the language of softness. The adjective *mollis* and its related forms did not point to one single flaw, but to a whole range of qualities that could make a man seem unmanly. At its most basic level, the word could refer to literal softness – a body that was tender rather than firm. But when applied to men, the term quickly moved beyond the physical. It became a moral and gendered judgment. A soft man was not simply gentle. He was imagined as lacking firmness, discipline, and the hard edges that Roman culture associated with true masculinity. This is one reason the word carried such force. Roman usage linked softness closely with femininity. When men were described through this language, they were being assigned traits considered [woman](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/)\-like: delicacy, timidity, self-indulgence, and insufficient self-control. Softness was therefore not a neutral description. It suggested that something in the man’s bearing, appetites, or way of living had slipped away from the masculine ideal and toward a feminized condition. The moral weight of the term is visible in the way Roman authors set it against harder masculine ideals. [Cicero,](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) for example, could write that there should be nothing > “effeminatum aut molle” – “effeminate or soft” – in a man’s behavior. The pairing is revealing. Softness is not treated as a mild personal trait, but as something dangerously close to effeminacy itself. To be *mollis* was already to be drifting away from the masculine firmness [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) admired. ![ So-called Cicero excavated by the Earl of Arundel in Rome between 1613 and 1614. The wart on the right cheek was added during restorations in the 1700s. One of the "Arundel Marbles" photographed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/statue-of-the-So-called-Cicero--1--1.jpg) So-called Cicero excavated by the Earl of Arundel in Rome between 1613 and 1614\. The wart on the right cheek was added during restorations in the 1700s. One of the "Arundel Marbles" photographed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England. Credits: Mary Harrsch, CC BY-SA 4.0 The term could also be used in a more behavioral and moral sense. A soft man might be lazy, inactive, [indulgent](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/), or too devoted to pleasure. *Mollitia* could signify inactivity, sensuality, or luxurious living, and it regularly stood in opposition to harder Roman values. In ancient texts, softness is associated with *luxuria*, delicate living, and the weakening effects of pleasure. Roman weakness was not just bodily frailty, but the condition of a man who had surrendered himself to comfort and appetite. Roman “softness” was not confined to one sexual pattern. It could describe a man who cultivated a feminized style in order to attract women as well as a man who took pleasure in being penetrated. One of the sharpest examples comes from rhetorical writing that describes a man > “incedentem ut feminis placeat femina mollius” – walking more softly, almost like a woman, in order to please women. That image is especially revealing because it shows that softness could itself become an erotic performance. A man might seek female desire not by looking stronger or harder, but by seeming more feminine. Yet the same vocabulary could turn in a different direction. In Phaedrus appears the striking phrase > “tribadas et molles mares” – “tribades and soft males.” Here softness belongs to a more explicitly sexual register and marks men whose masculinity is compromised by the role they are imagined to enjoy. The point is important: Roman moral language was not sorting men simply into modern categories like heterosexual or homosexual. What disturbed Roman writers was the perception that a man’s body, manners, or desires had taken on a feminine cast. Softness could therefore attach itself to different kinds of erotic behavior so long as the man appeared insufficiently masculine. This wider semantic field is especially revealing. Physical softness leads into the broader notion of being “womanish,” and from there into associated meanings such as laziness, self-indulgence, inability to penetrate, and enjoyment of being penetrated. That visual summary is useful because it shows that these were not separate insults floating in isolation. They formed a connected structure. In Roman terms, softness was a gateway concept through which bodily weakness, moral weakness, erotic weakness, and feminization all touched one another. *Mollis* was opposed not only to *durus*, hard, but also to *fortis*, strong or brave. That opposition tells us a great deal. A soft man was not merely the opposite of a physically tough one. He stood against one of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s central masculine virtues: firmness joined to courage. Roman texts were setting softness against hardness and strength in ways that make the moral charge unmistakable. To call a man soft was to suggest that he lacked the endurance, severity, and inner steadiness expected of him. This evidence helps explain why “weakness” in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) could gather together so many different fears. A man might be called weak because he was too luxurious, too emotional, too languid, too eager to please, too sensual, or too sexually compromised. Roman moral language did not keep these failings neatly apart. The discourse of softness allowed them to reinforce one another. Luxury suggested weakened self-command. Feminine manner suggested weakened character. Sexual passivity suggested weakened manhood. All of them could be folded into the same vocabulary of *mollitia*. So when Romans asked what made a man weak, one of their most revealing answers was this language of softness. It named not just comfort or delicacy, but a whole condition of compromised masculinity. A soft man was one whose body, habits, desires, or conduct no longer seemed properly his own to command. In Roman eyes, that was not a minor defect of style. It was a sign that the firmness on which manhood itself was supposed to rest had begun to give way. ("The Meanings of Softness:Some Remarks on the Semantics of mollitia" by Graig Williams) ### Dress, Appearance, and the Performance of Manhood In [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/), masculinity was not carried silently inside the body and revealed only in action. It was made visible. Clothing, [grooming](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-ancient-romans-shave-barber-grooming-rituals-in-the-roman-empire/), jewelry, posture, and the disciplined presentation of the self all helped announce what sort of man one was supposed to be. ![A possible representation of a young Roman, at a banquet, wearing jewels and enjoying his wine](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/a-possible-representation-of-a-young-man-enjoying-his-wine-1.jpg) A possible representation of a young Roman, at a banquet, wearing jewels and enjoying his wine. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT Dress formed part of a larger social language through which male influence, rank, sexuality, and masculine credibility were recognized and judged. A man’s exterior was not trivial decoration. It was one of the places where Roman society located his worth. That did not mean there was only one masculinity available to Roman men. The Roman ideal could present itself as singular, stable, and natural, but actual male life was more varied. Masculinity could be measured, claimed, displayed, doubted, and lost. It was precarious, socially evaluated, and deeply bound to power. Roman men did not all inhabit the same masculine role in the same way. Rank, status, age, wealth, and social position all shaped what counted as masculine, and male clothing and ornament helped produce those differences. In that sense, there were many ways of being a man in Roman antiquity, and appearance played a large part in assembling those identities. This is one reason dress mattered so much. Roman clothing did not simply cover the body. It sorted bodies. The form, fabric, and [color](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) of a garment could announce condition, quality, and estate. Romans even conceptualized legal standing through dress: the broad stripe on the tunic, the [gold ring](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-carried-on-their-hands-meant-more-than-we-think/), the unbordered [toga](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-toga-to-today-how-ancient-rome-still-echoes-through-modern-culture/) of adulthood, the [shoeboots](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-used-more-than-stone/) of the senator. Clothing made hierarchy legible. Rank could be seen. [Status](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/) could be seen. The visual world of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) trained people to read these signs quickly, and Roman culture gave visual literacy extraordinary importance. Often, what a man wore was inseparable from what he was understood to be. Yet dress could also blur the very distinctions it was meant to display. Clothing did not merely reveal status; it could manipulate it. Wealthy men could appropriate prestigious signs. [Slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) might be dressed expensively to reflect the magnificence of their owners. Imported garments, luxury fabrics, and refined ornament could complicate the boundaries between respectability, ambition, indulgence, and effeminacy. This made clothing socially volatile. It could clarify hierarchy, but it could also confuse it, exaggerate it, or expose how unstable it really was. That instability helps explain why the normative Roman male ideal in dress was so restrained. Sober appearance carried cultural weight. It marked distance from luxury, vulgar display, and suspicious softness. A strong interest in personal appearance could attract criticism, yet complete neglect of grooming could be condemned as rustic and uncivilized. Roman men were expected to occupy a narrow middle ground: properly maintained, but not over-refined; respectable, but not showy; clean and composed, but not ornamented in ways that invited doubts about their masculinity. In practice, this meant that male self-presentation was always exposed to ideological judgment. Here the line between masculinity and effeminacy became especially tense. Certain forms of male elegance could be interpreted as signs of cultivation, wealth, and urbanity. The same details could also be read as softness. The confusion was not accidental. ![Workers hanging up clothing to dry, wall painting from a fuller's shop (fullonica) at Pompeii](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/fresco-from-Pompeii--1--1.jpg) Workers hanging up clothing to dry, wall painting from a fuller's shop (fullonica) at Pompeii. Public domain Signs of masculinity – wealth, [power](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-aroma-of-rome-perfumes-of-power-pleasure-and-prestige/), privilege, social distinction – could overlap with signs of effeminacy. Clothing and dress performance could therefore negotiate, resist, or unsettle well-established norms rather than merely obey them. Roman appearance was not a simple code with fixed answers. It was a contested field in which masculinity had to be repeatedly made visible and defended. The result was a culture in which manhood had to be worn as much as possessed. Roman society could speak as though masculinity were an essence, but in lived experience it required performance. Clothing, adornment, and bodily presentation did not sit outside male identity. They were among the principal means by which it was recognized, rewarded, or called into question. A Roman man was judged not only by his birth or office, but by whether his appearance made the right claim on the eyes of others. This is why dress belongs so naturally in any discussion of what Romans thought made a man weak. Weakness could be read in clothing that seemed too luxurious, too carefully contrived, too sexually suggestive, too soft, or too eager to borrow the signs of rank and refinement without the restraint expected of a Roman male. Strength, by contrast, depended not only on what a man did, but on whether his exterior successfully projected the authority, measure, and control that Roman masculinity demanded. *("Masculinity and Dress in Roman Antiquity" by Kelly Olson)* ### Reading Weakness on the Body To the Romans, weakness in a man was not hidden somewhere deep inside him. It could be seen. The body was treated as something legible, a surface on which character, self-control, and masculine worth might reveal themselves in small but telling signs. A gesture, a posture, the way a tunic hung on the body, the movement of a hand, the arrangement of the hair, the tone of the voice — all these could be judged morally. That is why what now seems a minor detail could carry real force in Roman thinking. Cicero was said to have looked at [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/)’s carefully arranged hair and his habit of scratching his head with one finger and concluded that such a man did not look capable of overthrowing the Roman constitution. [Sulla](https://romanempiretimes.com/sulla-rome-reluctant-tyrant/)’s reported warning about [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/), > “male praecinctam puerum” — “that ill-girt boy” – belongs to the same world of suspicion. A loose belt, an over-careful toilette, an affected bodily style: these could all be read as signs of softness. This is what makes *mollitia* so important for any article on Roman manhood. It did not point to one narrowly defined fault. In a man, it could suggest sexual passivity, but it could also suggest weakness of will, bodily delicacy, self-indulgence, and failure to embody the hard discipline expected of elite Roman males. A man marked by *mollitia* had not merely picked up a bad habit. He had drifted toward the feminine side of a moral divide that Romans treated with extraordinary seriousness. That helps explain why accusations of effeminacy could seem contradictory and yet remain perfectly coherent within Roman culture. The same man might be mocked as sexually passive and at the same time as sexually voracious. He might be ridiculed as soft yet feared as a seducer. ![ Painting of Caesar in front of Alexander's statue](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/Julius-Caesar-to-the-temple-of-Hercules-Gaditano--1--1.jpg) Painting of Caesar in front of Alexander's statue. Public domain The logic was not confusion. It was that “being like a woman” functioned as a wholly negative category when applied to men. Very different flaws could all be swept into the same feminized register: softness, luxuriousness, passivity, idleness, sensuality, and uncontrolled appetite. This is especially clear in Roman discussions of self-command. Softness did not simply describe a look. It implied an inward failure of mastery. Effeminacy belonged to the wider world of *incontinentia*, lack of self-control. Roman moral language could therefore move easily from soft gestures and careful grooming to singing, dancing, depilation, luxurious living, sexual excess, and moral slackness. The body became a moral text. To look soft was already to invite the suspicion that one’s desires had become ungoverned. That suspicion extended into speech and public behavior. Softness could be heard as well as seen. Roman writers did not attack only soft bodies but also soft eloquence and soft movement. [Quintilian](https://romanempiretimes.com/quintilian-a-roman-theory-of-education-that-left-its-mark-from-antiquity-onwards/) insists that there should be nothing in a man’s gesture that is > “molle quid aut speciale et quasi proprium feminis” — nothing “soft, affected, and, as it were, peculiar to women.” The phrase is revealing. What mattered was not simply [beauty](https://romanempiretimes.com/beauty-in-ancient-rome/) or elegance, but whether bodily expression had crossed into a style that looked marked off as feminine. Once softness entered the walk, the voice, or the posture of a man in public, it threatened the authority that Roman masculinity was supposed to project. This same moral pressure shaped Roman ideals of speech. A man was expected not only to speak effectively, but to speak as a man of proper character. That old definition associated with [Cato](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-younger-the-last-roman-of-the-republic/) – > “vir bonus dicendi peritus”, “a good man skilled in speaking” – captures the point neatly. Public performance was inseparable from moral worth. Speech, gesture, and body all had to align. A man who looked or sounded too soft risked appearing not merely ridiculous, but unfit for the masculine role Roman public life demanded. The example of [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/caesar-comet-how-a-seven-day-star-helped-found-an-empire/) shows how politically charged these judgments could become. His loose belt and evident care for appearance were treated as morally meaningful details. Yet the same signs could be read in opposite ways. What seemed to one observer a mark of dangerous disorder could seem to another a sign of reassuring weakness. Roman readings of the male body were never neutral. They formed part of political struggle. The body could be interpreted as warning, accusation, or weapon. The moral reading of the body also helps explain why Greekness so often enters the picture. Roman writers repeatedly contrasted Roman *virtus* with [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) refinement. [Greeks](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) might lead in literature, philosophy, and cultivated style, but Romans claimed superiority in morals and warfare. In that context, Greek culture could be gendered as soft and feminine. ![A possible representation of the "traditional" military look of the Romans](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/the-powerfull-military-Roman-man-1.jpg) A possible representation of the "traditional" military look of the Romans. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT This was not simply cultural prejudice. It was one way of protecting Roman masculine identity against a sophistication that many elite Romans admired and consumed. Greek culture carried prestige, but it also threatened to unsettle the belief that Roman manhood rested on hardness, discipline, and moral superiority. This also connects *mollitia* with conquest and submission. The Roman insistence that a man must never submit sexually to another man belonged to the same larger ethic that prized domination in war. Sexual passivity and military defeat could be imagined through the same logic. To be penetrated was not treated as a merely private act. It could symbolize loss of mastery, loss of freedom, even enslavement. The proper man ruled, acted, penetrated, and remained unconquered. Yet Roman writing also shows how unstable these categories could be. Men who looked like catamites could be accused of adultery with women. Effeminate appearance did not cancel heterosexual danger; it could sharpen it. This is one reason *mollitia* is so revealing. Roman anxieties were less about fixed sexual identities than about failed masculinity, blurred boundaries, and uncontrolled desire. The soft man could be passive, predatory, adulterous, over-sexed, or all of these at once. What mattered was that he no longer fit the hard outline of Roman manhood. So when Romans thought about what made a man weak, they looked not only at courage or achievement, but at the body itself: how it moved, how it dressed, how it spoke, how it desired, and what it seemed to reveal. Weakness could be read in the smallest signs because the male body was understood as a moral surface. A soft gesture, a loose belt, an over-careful toilette, a languid voice, a suspect elegance; none of these was ever just aesthetic. Each could be taken as evidence that a man’s self-command was slipping, and with it the firmness on which Roman masculinity was supposed to rest. *("Mollitia: Reading the body" by Catharine Edwards. In The Politics of Immorality in ancient Rome)* --- To the Romans, weakness in a man was never a single failing. It could appear in the body, in the voice, in clothing, in appetite, in gesture, in pleasure, and in the surrender of self-command. That is what makes their idea of male weakness so revealing. It was not simply about strength versus frailty, but about the constant fear that manhood could be softened, unmade, or exposed from within. In that anxiety, Roman masculinity shows itself for what it was: not a settled fact, but a demanding ideal that had to be performed, defended, and judged again and again. ### The Roman Fear of Luxury URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-fear-of-luxury/ Last updated: 2026-04-20T18:17:40.000Z The Romans conquered a vast world and filled it with spoils, perfumes, silks, marble, rare foods, and glittering display, yet few things troubled their moral imagination more than luxury. Again and again, Roman writers spoke of comfort, indulgence, and extravagance not as signs of success, but as symptoms of decline. To them, luxury was never just a matter of expensive taste. It threatened discipline, softened character, blurred social boundaries, and raised the unsettling possibility that Rome might be undone not by its enemies, but by its appetites. ### Why Luxury Troubled Rome [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) was a city of sharp inequality. Poverty was widespread, yet it existed alongside extraordinary concentrations of wealth. As the political center of a vast empire, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) drew in senators, [equestrians](https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/), freedmen, and other wealthy residents whose fortunes gave the city enormous purchasing power. Provincial [elites](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/), too, were required to spend at least part of their lives there, bringing still more money into the capital. It was therefore no surprise that[ Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) became the main destination for luxury goods from across the empire and beyond. That wealth was visible everywhere. Public buildings were decorated with imported colored marbles, and elite demand encouraged a taste for rare, exotic, and [expensive goods](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/). Roman writers imagined the city as a place where the profits of conquest were consumed in dazzling form — jewels, silver, ivory, [purple cloth](https://romanempiretimes.com/tyrian-purple-the-royal-dye-of-the-ancient-world-and-the-secrets-of-murex-extraction/), spices, [incense](https://romanempiretimes.com/incense-in-ancient-rome-smoke-ritual-and-power/), fine woods, and [luxury foods](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/). Rome did not merely rule the Mediterranean world; it absorbed its [riches](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/) and displayed them. Yet this abundance created a moral problem. In modern language, luxury is often treated as a positive quality, but Roman moral discourse did not see it that way. Luxury was associated with corruption, weakness, and decline. Ancient writers repeatedly insisted that new wealth, especially the wealth flowing into Rome after eastern conquests and the destruction of [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/), had damaged Roman character. They disagreed over the precise turning point, but they largely agreed on the result: wealth had made Romans softer, greedier, and more vulnerable to moral decay. ![Thomas Couture : The Romans of the Decadence. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/Thomas-Couture-The-Romans-of-the-Decadence--1--1.jpg) Thomas Couture : The Romans of the Decadence. Public domain What mattered was not wealth in itself, but how it was used. Spending on public magnificence could be praised, because it enhanced the city and reflected honorably on the giver. Spending on private indulgence was another matter. Roman thought therefore drew a distinction between *magnificentia* and *luxuria*. This helps explain why Rome developed sumptuary laws intended to restrain private extravagance, especially in the late Republic. These laws focused overwhelmingly on [banquets](https://romanempiretimes.com/convivium-how-the-romans-turned-dinner-into-a-display-of-power/) — limiting guests, food, entertainment, and expense — rather than trying to control every form of elite display. That narrow focus may seem strange at first, since Roman houses could still be furnished with extraordinary luxury. [Villas](https://romanempiretimes.com/villa-jovis-the-secret-lair-for-the-dark-pleasures-of-an-old-emperor/), tables of rare wood, ivory furniture, silver vessels, elaborate décor, and richly adorned dining rooms all remained available to the wealthy. But the banquet was not just another form of consumption. It was one of the clearest arenas in which wealth could be displayed before others. A successful [dinner](https://romanempiretimes.com/dining-with-domitian-and-the-enigma-of-domitian-black-dinner/) could bring admiration, influence, and social prestige. Exotic dishes, rare ingredients, and lavish hospitality could make a host famous. Because banquets were public performances of private wealth, they attracted moral scrutiny more readily than expensive furnishings did. Roman literature reinforced this pattern. [Lavish dining](https://romanempiretimes.com/some-recipes-date-back-to-ancient-rome-french-toast-foie-gras-and-braised-flamingo/) became one of the standard ways of discussing corruption, especially in satire. The extravagant gourmand became a recognizable moral type, opposed to the ideal of frugal simplicity. Writers used food, display, and excess to pass judgment on character, and the literary banquet became a stage on which moral decline could be dramatized. This is one reason why so many famous descriptions of luxury center on meals. At the same time, the concern was not purely moral. Banquets mattered politically. They helped build alliances, win support, increase influence, and display the host’s power over guests and dependants. In that sense, they were dangerous because they allowed wealth to compete directly with lineage, reputation, and moral standing as a route to public power. Restricting luxury at table may therefore have been as much about controlling elite competition as about defending old-fashioned virtue. Even so, the legislation was not very effective. Luxury consumption continued, and the wealthy in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/) did not stop buying rare goods, enlarging houses, decorating villas, or cultivating [expensive tastes](https://romanempiretimes.com/niche-perfumes-in-ancient-rome-how-did-emperors-smell-like/). Over time, some forms of luxury that had once drawn criticism became easier to praise openly. This reveals one of the central tensions in Roman life: luxury was condemned in principle, yet often required in practice. That contradiction lay at the heart of elite existence. In a competitive society, wealth had to be displayed, but never too crudely. A senator needed a house appropriate to his rank. He had to entertain, receive guests, and live in a way that matched his status. But he also had to avoid appearing vulgar, boastful, or excessive. Roman elite culture therefore demanded a delicate balance between austerity and display, restraint and splendor. The ideal was not the absence of luxury, but the right style of luxury. Good taste mattered. Refinement mattered. One had to possess fine things without seeming enslaved to them, and spend generously without appearing ostentatious. Roman consumption thus operated through a coded language, in which the meaning of an object depended not only on what it was, but on how it was chosen, displayed, and acquired. ![Villa Adriana](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/Villa-Adriana--1--1.jpg) Villa Adriana. Credits: Perla Marvorid, CC BY-SA 4.0 That same sensitivity extended to shopping and acquisition. Roman elite behavior was shaped not only by what one consumed, but by the setting and manner in which goods were obtained.[ Food eaten](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-tavern-inn-wine-bar-the-hospitality-business-of-an-ancient-roman-city/) in the wrong place, or bought in the wrong way, could damage status. Ideally, provisions came from one’s estate or through acceptable channels rather than through openly commercial behavior. The process of acquiring goods, like the goods themselves, carried social meaning. So Rome’s fear of luxury was never simply a fear of beautiful things. It was a fear of what private consumption could do to character, hierarchy, and political life. Luxury threatened to turn wealth into social power too openly, to blur distinctions between refinement and vulgarity, and to expose how dependent Roman public life had become on private display. (“Shopping in Ancient Rome. The Retail Trade in the Late Republic and the Principate" by Claire Holleran) ### Why Roman writers condemned luxury Roman writers did not treat luxury as a harmless fondness for beautiful things. They spoke of it as a danger, and often as a danger from within. Again and again, Roman moralising returned to the same pattern: the enemies outside the state might threaten Rome’s frontiers, but luxury, pleasure, and indulgence threatened Rome’s character. In that sense, moral decline could be imagined as an internal war, one fought not against foreign armies but against appetites, habits, and desires that seemed to soften the people who ruled the world. This is one reason Roman attacks on luxury were rarely narrow. They did not isolate expensive houses, lavish dinners, sexual license, and self-indulgence into separate moral categories. They tended to treat them as related symptoms of the same deeper failure: lack of self-control. Luxury and lust repeatedly appear side by side in Roman writing, joined by the belief that a person who could not master one appetite would likely fail to master others. The real problem, then, was not simply wealth or pleasure, but surrender to them. That language was never just personal. Roman moralising was bound up with power. Questions that might now seem political or economic were often cast as moral ones, caused by greed, ambition, weakness, or self-indulgence. Attacks on immorality helped the Roman elite discipline its own members, defend its status, and define who truly belonged within it. Luxury mattered because it exposed tensions at the heart of Roman hierarchy: who deserved wealth, who used it properly, and who could claim to embody Roman virtue. Those anxieties became especially visible in discussions of building. Luxurious houses and villas were not condemned merely because they were expensive. They were troubling because they seemed to overturn proper limits. Roman moralists repeatedly described elite houses as too large, too elaborate, too theatrical, too much like palaces. The rich were accused of reshaping coastlines, extending houses into the sea, creating vast fishponds, and forcing nature itself to yield to display. Such behavior was represented as more than vanity. It was treated as a form of disorder, a confusion of boundaries in which social excess and unnatural excess became mirrors of one another. That is why Roman attacks on luxurious building so often dwell on confusion, inversion, and novelty. Wealth was essential for success in Roman public life, but there was no guarantee that it would remain in the hands of the “right” people. Moralising writers worried that visible excess revealed an improper distribution of wealth and, with it, a deeper disruption of the social order. Extravagant building became one of the clearest signs that hierarchy itself was under strain. A house was never just a [house](https://romanempiretimes.com/insulae-apartment-buildings-ancient-rome-romans/). It was an announcement of power, taste, and rank. If that announcement was too loud, too novel, or too obviously dependent on money rather than inherited standing, it became suspect. Pleasure raised a related but slightly different fear. Buildings at least endured. They could lend distinction to a family and leave behind something visible. Costly pleasures, by contrast, were often represented as pure private waste. Roman moralists returned obsessively to the image of noble fortunes poured away in drinking, feasting, sex, [gambling](https://romanempiretimes.com/fortunes-favors-exploring-the-gambling-culture-of-ancient-rome-romans-gamble/), and self-gratification. ![House of Augustus.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/house-of-Augustus--1--1.jpg) House of Augustus. Credits: Cassius Ahenobarbus, CC BY-SA 3.0 Such pleasures did not build anything, improve anything, or glorify the community. They consumed wealth and left behind only ruin, debt, and shame. In that sense, pleasure frightened Roman writers not simply because it was pleasurable, but because it appeared sterile and self-directed. This distinction helps explain why Roman moralising often tolerated public magnificence more readily than private indulgence. [Money](https://romanempiretimes.com/credit-loans-and-risk-how-ancient-rome-handled-money-without-a-central-bank/) spent on [temples](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/), monuments, spectacles, or other civic forms of display could at least be defended as benefiting the state or the people. Money poured into sensual enjoyment was harder to justify. Roman denunciations of prodigality therefore cast the spendthrift not only as a fool, but as a threat to his family and to Rome’s wider structure of rank and authority. If the upper classes dissolved their fortunes in private pleasure, they also weakened the foundations on which the state rested. Even here, however, the story was not simple. Roman moralists did not condemn all pleasure equally, nor did they imagine that status could exist without display. The wealthy were expected to live in ways appropriate to their rank. Houses, hospitality, and carefully managed expenditure were part of elite life. What they feared was not comfort in itself, but the loss of measure. Pleasure became dangerous when it was tied too openly to money, when expense itself became the measure of delight, and when the desire to outshine one’s peers drove luxury into an endless competition of display. At that point, indulgence ceased to be refinement and became a social contagion. That competitive side of luxury mattered enormously. Roman moralists often portray the luxurious not as people quietly enjoying their wealth, but as people seeking attention through it. Their feasts, houses, furnishings, and pleasures are presented as bids for notoriety, ways of proving superiority over rivals. Luxury therefore belonged not only to appetite, but to status struggle. It was dangerous because it turned wealth into a weapon in elite competition and threatened to make money, rather than character, restraint, or ancestry, the decisive measure of standing. Seen this way, Rome’s fear of luxury was never really about objects alone. It was about what those objects revealed and what they made possible. A marble floor, a fishpond, a jeweled cup, an extravagant dinner, a costly pleasure — each could become evidence that desire was escaping control, that social distinctions were blurring, and that Rome’s leaders were being remade by abundance. Luxury was frightening because it suggested that conquest had not only enriched Rome, but altered it. The empire had brought the world’s riches into the city, and Roman writers could not stop asking what those riches were doing in return. ("The Politics of Immorality in ancient Rome" by Catharine Edwards) ### The Lost Ideal of Roman Frugality Roman writers liked to imagine an earlier Rome shaped by restraint. In that vision, the ancestors lived with sobriety, self-control, and careful management of resources, untouched by the greed and extravagance that later generations would come to condemn. The great turning point, in their telling, came with conquest. As [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) expanded across the Mediterranean and absorbed the wealth of the [East](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/), luxury flowed into the city and frugality began to weaken. What followed, in this moral narrative, was not simply greater prosperity, but corruption: ambition, display, indulgence, and the gradual unraveling of the old discipline that had supposedly made Rome strong. ![A possible representation of an ancient Roman banquet.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/Roman-banquet-1.jpg) A possible representation of an ancient Roman banquet. Credits: Roman Empire Times, ChatGPT That story mattered enormously in Roman culture, but it should not be taken as simple fact. Modern scholarship treats it less as a transparent account of what “really happened” and more as a revealing form of Roman self-description. The idea of an early Rome defined by frugality, followed by a fall into luxury, was itself a historical construction shaped by later anxieties. Roman frugality was not some fixed national essence. It was a changing ideal, invoked at different moments for different purposes, especially when writers wanted to explain social tensions, moral unease, or the unsettling effects of wealth. In that sense, the language of frugality and decline tells us less about a lost golden age than about the fears Romans attached to success itself. (“Roman frugality. Modes of moderation from the Archaic Age to the early empire and beyond” edited by Ingo Gildenhrd and Christiano Viglietti) ### When Romans Thought Luxury Began to Corrupt Them Romans did not treat luxury as a private weakness alone. They saw it as a political danger. Extravagance was thought to weaken character, soften discipline, and expose the state itself to decline. In that sense, luxury was both a symptom of success and a threat created by it: wealth had made Rome powerful, but it also seemed to be making Romans less capable of bearing the burdens that power required. At the heart of this moral imagination stood an ideal of old Rome, summed up in the famous line quoted by [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/): > “moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque” > – “the Roman commonwealth stands firm on ancient customs and on men of valour.” In that vision, Rome’s strength rested not simply on arms or institutions, but on character: austerity, self-restraint, discipline, and fidelity to ancestral ways. Luxury mattered because it seemed to attack that very foundation. Roman writers repeatedly told the story of decline in similar terms, even if they disagreed on when it began. [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) traced the beginnings of luxury to the return of Manlius Vulso’s army from Asia in 187 BC, bringing with it rich furnishings and a new extravagance in banquets. [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/) pointed instead to the influx of Macedonian wealth. [Sallust](https://romanempiretimes.com/sallust-details-on-the-historian-of-roman-elite-and-the-republic-decline/) made the destruction of Carthage decisive, arguing that once Rome no longer faced a great external rival, greed and ambition grew unchecked. As he put it, > “the fear of the enemy preserved the good morals of the state.” So long as Rome had something to fear, discipline held. Once that fear disappeared, the old restraints began to weaken. What unites these accounts is not agreement on chronology, but a shared conviction that conquest had changed Rome itself. Success had filled the city with money, spoils, and imported habits, yet Roman writers often described these gains as morally dangerous. Luxury rarely appears in their accounts as something native. It comes from outside, especially from the East, and enters Rome almost like an invading force. They speak of it in the language of infection, corruption, and assault, as though extravagance were not simply a taste for finer things but an enemy power breaking down the old order from within. ![A possible representation of the interior of a Roman domus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/interior-of-Roman-domus.jpg) A possible representation of the interior of a Roman domus. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Gemini. That imagery reveals how deeply the danger was felt. Luxury did not merely decorate Roman life; it threatened to conquer it. The more Rome expanded, the more its writers worried that the riches of [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) were undoing the very discipline that had made[ empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/) possible in the first place. Prosperity, in this telling, did not simply reward virtue. It tested it, and perhaps destroyed it. At the same time, Roman thought drew an important distinction. Private luxury was condemned because it served personal pleasure alone, while public magnificence could still be praised. Wealth spent on temples, public buildings, ceremonies, and [games](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/) might honor the community; wealth poured into banquets, indulgence, and private display was another matter. Rome could admire splendor in public while denouncing extravagance at home, and this was not seen as a contradiction. The difference lay in whether wealth served the commonwealth or the appetites of the individual. That is why luxury frightened Roman writers so deeply. It was not simply expensive. It was private, weakening, morally corrosive, and often imagined as foreign. It seemed to turn the rewards of victory into the seeds of decline and to expose the unsettling possibility that Rome might not be ruined by its enemies, but by its own success. ("Fighting Hydra-Like Luxury" by Emanuela Zanda) Roman fear of luxury was never just a complaint about rich food, fine houses, or expensive objects. It was a deeper anxiety about what abundance was doing to power, discipline, and identity. Wealth had made Rome great, but Roman writers could not shake the suspicion that it had also made Romans softer, greedier, and less equal to the burdens of empire. In that fear lies one of the central paradoxes of Roman history: the same success that elevated Rome seemed, in the moral imagination of its own elite, to contain the possibility of its undoing. ### 5 Roman Myths People Still Believe Today – and What the Evidence Really Says URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/5-roman-myths-people-still-believe-today-and-what-the-evidence-really-says/ Last updated: 2026-05-06T16:43:25.000Z Ancient Rome survives not only in ruins, inscriptions, and marble, but in stories people still repeat with complete confidence. Some are vivid, convenient, and endlessly entertaining: emperors playing music while their city burned, diners slipping away to vomit between courses, a horse raised to high office, an empire poisoned by its own pipes. Yet the Rome preserved in popular imagination is often not the Rome the evidence reveals. Between myth and history lies a world that is stranger, subtler, and far more interesting than the legends most people think they know. ## Myth: Nero Fiddled While Rome Burned ### Nero and the Myth of the Fiddle The familiar phrase that [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-romes-most-infamous-ruler-part-1/) “fiddled while Rome burned” has become so deeply embedded in modern speech that it now functions almost like a proverb. It appears in popular writing, everyday conversation, and political commentary, usually as shorthand for a ruler who remained detached, useless, or perversely absorbed in trivialities while disaster unfolded around him. But the expression depends first on the meaning of the word “fiddle,” and that creates an immediate historical problem. If the phrase is taken literally, it is plainly anachronistic. The fiddle, in the sense of a violin or a related bowed string instrument, did not exist in [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-rome-most-infamous-ruler-part-2/)’s time. Instruments of that family emerged much later, so the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) could not possibly have “fiddled” in the modern musical sense while [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) was burning. The phrase survives because the word also carries a second meaning: behaving frivolously, wasting time, or making no useful effort. In that looser sense, the image suggests not only music, but uselessness – a man who should have acted, yet merely “fiddled around.” Both meanings have shaped the popular legend. On one level, the phrase conjures the image of [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) calmly entertaining himself while others suffered. On another, it reduces him to a symbol of ineffectual leadership. Yet even this second idea is not straightforwardly supported by the evidence. The force of the saying has kept it alive, but its historical basis is far less secure than its familiarity suggests. To understand how the story formed, it is necessary to look at the musical instruments of Nero’s age. The stringed instruments known in the Roman world were inherited largely from [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) culture, especially from the musical traditions associated with festivals of Apollo and Dionysus. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Galerias Romanas 2026: Will the Roman Galleries Open in Lisbon? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/galerias-romanas-2026-roman-galleries-in-lisbon-portugal-will-they-open/ Last updated: 2026-04-08T17:05:30.000Z Beneath Lisbon lies a secret that is uncovered **only twice a year for only a few days**, making the [Galerias Romanas](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/galerias-romanas/) a fascinating but elusive attraction, giving a unique glimpse into the ancient infrastructure and the Roman history of Lisbon. 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in April 2024\. It was updated in April 2026.* Uncovered in 1771 following Lisbon's devastating earthquake, the true purpose of these underground Roman passages has been subject to varying interpretations. Contemporary consensus leans towards them being a [*cryptoporticus*](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/cryptoporticus/)—a structural innovation of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/) times, used to stabilize and level the ground for significant constructions, particularly in uneven terrains. In the realm of ancient Roman architecture, the term 'cryptoporticus' refers to an enclosed corridor or a shaded passageway. This [architectural](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/architecture/) feature, typically semi-subterranean, acts as a supportive gallery with a vaulted design, allowing light to filter through openings at the top of its arches. ![Panoramic view of the archways inside the Roman Galleries in Lisbon](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/04/ezgif.com-optijpeg--4-.jpg) Panoramic view of the archways inside the Roman Galleries in Lisbon. Credits: George Liapis Situated often on inclined terrains, the cryptoporticus may present one side that is at ground level or partially exposed, serving as a foundation for structures above, such as a forum or a villa. In such cases, it provides a sturdy base (*basis villae*) for the building it supports. These passageways are frequently covered with arches and illuminated by apertures within the vault itself. The concept of a cryptoporticus, as described in the correspondence of the ancient Roman author [Pliny the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/), can also be synonymous with a crypt—a more commonly known term. The cool, partially buried nature of the cryptoporticus made it an ideal space for preserving perishable items. In addition to its practical storage use, the structure offered a flat and slightly elevated platform for whatever edifice rested upon it, integrating utility with architectural sophistication. An intriguing discovery within the galleries further points to their communal use: a limestone block dedicated to Asclepius, the deity of healing, now housed in the National Museum of Archaeology. Inscribed upon it in the first century A.D., this tribute was extended by imperial priests and the Municipality of [Olisipo](https://romanempiretimes.com/felicitas-lulia-olisipo-lisbon-in-the-roman-times/)—ancient Lisbon—a ceremonial gesture typically absent from private domains. ![Entering the archways of the Roman Galleries in Lisbon](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/04/ezgif.com-optijpeg--7-.jpg) Entering the archways of the Roman Galleries in Lisbon. Credits: George Liapis In the early 20th century, these subterranean channels were referred to as the "*Conservas de água da Rua da Prata*" and served as a reservoir. When sealed, they hold about one meter of water from the natural aquifers beneath the city, which must be drained to allow entry. The rare opportunity to explore these [Roman Galleries](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/roman-galleries/) is made possible through the collaboration of various city entities, including the Lisbon City Council, EGEAC, the Museum of Lisbon, the Firefighters Regiment, the City Council Police, the Lisbon Archaeology Center, the City Council Mobility and Transportation Department, Electrical and Mechanical Services, and the Parish Council of Santa Maria Maior. These concerted efforts ensure that visitors can step back in time and witness a marvel of ancient engineering beneath the bustling streets of contemporary Lisbon. ![The ‘hidden’ messenger on the wall of Rua da Prata, alerting visitors about the Roman Galleries, in Lisbon](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/04/ezgif.com-optijpeg--11-.jpg) The ‘hidden’ messenger on the wall of Rua da Prata, alerting visitors about the Roman Galleries, in Lisbon. Credits: George Liapis ### A new entrance to Roman Galleries The Roman Galleries situated on [Rua da Prata](https://www.google.com/maps/dir//roman+galleries/data=!4m6!4m5!1m1!4e2!1m2!1m1!1s0xd1935954f5b713f:0x5a27ff9f6a3eb64c?sa=X&ved=1t:3061&ictx=111&ref=romanempiretimes.com), recognized as a Roman cryptoporticus, present an underground labyrinth that's challenging to visit due to the limited open days each year. The complexity of extracting water and the precarious descent through the stairways, set amidst the iconic **28 Tram** tracks, make access to this historical treasure a delicate endeavor. The Lisbon City Council has actively engaged with this ancient substructure since the late 19th century, dedicating efforts towards its exploration, preservation, and enhancement for public awareness. Recently, an archaeological breakthrough in a nearby building's foundation revealed one of the primary passages, known as the 'gallery of the water springs'. Plans are underway to transform this passage into a new, permanent, secure, and accessible entrance for visitors. ![The entrance of the Roman Galleries in Lisbon, with Tram 28 passing by](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/04/ezgif.com-optijpeg--3--1.jpg) The entrance of the Roman Galleries in Lisbon, with Tram 28 passing by. Credits: George Liapis As Lisbon undergoes urban renewal, these changes present a golden opportunity to elevate the stature of this Roman monument. The Lisbon Archaeological Centre (CAL) is spearheading the 'Roman Cryptoporticus of Lisbon Project' (CRLx), which is focused on the monument's conservation, enhancement, research, promotion, and public enjoyment. The CRLx is a comprehensive, interdisciplinary initiative that incorporates a network of expertise from within and beyond the Lisbon City Council, engaging esteemed institutions and specialists in geology, hydrology, engineering, architecture, urban planning, alongside collaborations with various researchers. This concerted effort aims to weave the ancient past into the fabric of modern-day Lisbon, ensuring that the legacy of the Roman cryptoporticus continues to be a vibrant part of the city's cultural heritage. ![Water flows from below through fissures, inside the Roman Galleries in Lisbon](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/04/ezgif.com-optijpeg--12-.jpg) Water springs from below through fissures, inside the Roman Galleries in Lisbon. Credits: George Liapis ### Future plans for a better, safer and inclusive entrance to the Roman Galleries The Gallerias Romanas in Lisbon are set for an ambitious transformation, to make them an accessible and safe site for the public to visit permanently, since the current entrance is not recommended for people with disabilities or movement difficulties. The project includes the creation of a new entrance and a dedicated interpretation center for this historically rich monument that is typically submerged underwater. This initiative will utilize the lower levels of a building erected in 1913, which had inadvertently caused damage to the monument. What was once a detrimental event to the heritage site is now being turned into an opportunity to enhance access to it. ![Entering the Roman Galleries in Lisbon](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/04/ezgif.com-optijpeg--6-.jpg) The current entrance of the Roman Galleries in Lisbon. Credits: George Liapis ### How to visit the Roman Galleries in 2026 If you are travelling to Lisbon, in April or September, the best way to secure a ticket for the Roman Galleries is via the [Museu de Lisboa link](https://museudelisboa.pt/en/events/13577-tour-roman-galleries/?ref=romanempiretimes.com), where you need to keep refreshing from the beginning of the month on a daily basis, until the tickets become available. 🏛️ **Important Note:* In April 2026, in order to improve visiting conditions at the Roman Galleries, the Roman Galleries in Lisbon ****will not be open to the public**. More information about this space will be released in due course. We strongly recommend refreshing frequently (multiple times per day) because usually, the **tickets are sold-out within 2-3 hours** and many locals have not succeeded in getting one, after trying for years. It is a unique sight and memory, so it is definitely worth the effort. Each visit lasts between 20 and 25 minutes. Along with the underground tours of this 2,000-year-old heritage site, usually two extra routes are also planned, which "reveal some of the main places where the legacy of the Roman presence in the city is still visible today". ![Subterranean exploration of the Roman Galleries in Lisbon led to connections with contemporary structures](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/04/ezgif.com-optijpeg--8-.jpg) Subterranean exploration of the Roman Galleries in Lisbon led to connections with contemporary structures. Credits: Christina Athanasiou ### Lucretius and the Roman Poem That Changed How the World Was Seen URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/lucretius-and-the-roman-poem-that-changed-how-the-world-was-seen/ Last updated: 2026-04-07T21:29:52.000Z Lucretius wrote in an age of political unrest, but his poem looked far beyond the immediate struggles of Rome. In *De rerum natura*, he asked what the universe is made of, why human beings live in fear, whether the gods govern the world, and what death really means. The result was one of antiquity’s most radical works – a Roman poem that challenged superstition, redefined nature, and changed how later ages would imagine the world itself. ### The Poet and the Poem Titus Lucretius Carus, usually dated to around 99–55 BC, was a [Roman poet](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/) and philosopher. The only work securely connected to him is *De rerum natura*, a philosophical poem that sets out the principles of Epicurean thought and is usually translated as *On the Nature of Things*, though it is sometimes rendered as *On the Nature of the Universe*. Very little can be said with certainty about his life. The safest conclusion is that he was connected, either as a friend or a dependent, to Gaius Memmius, to whom the poem was addressed and dedicated. *De rerum natura* later exercised a strong influence on Augustan poetry, especially on [Virgil](https://romanempiretimes.com/analysis-of-the-world-of-virgil-roman-poet-eclogues-georgics-and-the-aeneid/) – above all in the Aeneid and Georgics, and to a lesser degree in the Eclogues – as well as on Horace. The poem came close to disappearing in the Middle Ages, but it was rediscovered in 1417 by Poggio Bracciolini in a monastery in Germany. After its recovery, it became important both for the later development of atomist thought, influencing figures such as Pierre Gassendi, and for the intellectual efforts of Enlightenment thinkers who sought to shape a new form of Christian humanism. ### Lucretius and the Crisis of Roman Public Life *De rerum natura* may appear at first glance to stand far from the immediate concerns of Roman politics. Its gaze is fixed on atoms, the soul, the [gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/), the earth, and the structure of the universe. Yet beneath that immense philosophical design lies a poem deeply responsive to the tensions of its own age. Its teaching is universal, but its urgency belongs to a [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) marked by instability, competition, and moral fatigue. The poem does not speak the language of public debate in any conventional sense, yet it addresses a society in which ambition, fear, and the struggle for power had become destructive habits of life. This political dimension becomes especially clear in the poem’s account of the development of human society. What begins as a narrative of early mankind gradually forming communities, customs, and institutions also becomes a reflection on the costs of civilization itself. Human beings do not simply move from savagery to order in a clean and triumphant progression. ![This elegant manuscript of Lucretius's philosophical poem, copied by an Augustinian friar for a pope](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/Lucretius--De-rerum-natura--1--1.jpg) This elegant manuscript of Lucretius's philosophical poem, copied by an Augustinian friar for a pope. Public domain. They create laws, bonds, and structures of mutual life, but they also create rivalry, domination, insecurity, and the restless desire to possess more than nature requires. The growth of [society ](https://romanempiretimes.com/inside-roman-society-how-ordinary-life-shaped-an-extraordinary-empire-part-1/)is therefore presented as both necessary and dangerous. It offers protection and stability, yet it also gives new forms to vanity, violence, and fear. The poem’s larger view of the universe gives this historical meditation an even sharper edge. In a world made of atoms moving through infinite space, there is no foundation for believing that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) occupies a privileged place in creation or that its power is guaranteed by divine design. The world itself is not eternal, and neither is any city, institution, or empire within it. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) is not removed from the common condition of all material things. It too belongs to a universe in which everything formed must in time pass away. The poem thus strips Roman greatness of cosmic permanence and refuses to treat [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/) as something secured by destiny or providence. That vision carries serious consequences for public life. The poem does not merely criticize isolated political failures or the misconduct of particular men. Its challenge reaches far deeper, into the very values that sustained Roman competition for office, military glory, status, and wealth. The pursuit of honor is exposed not as a noble fulfillment of human nature, but as a symptom of misunderstanding. The same is true of greed, rivalry, and the hunger for domination. These arise from fear, from insecurity, and from false beliefs about what human beings truly need in order to live well. So long as people remain trapped by those illusions, public life will continue to reproduce conflict. For that reason, the poem offers no ordinary political remedy. It does not suggest that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/) can be set right by a better constitution, a wiser faction, or a stronger ruler. The crisis lies too deep for that. What appears outwardly as political disorder is treated as the visible expression of a more fundamental disturbance in the human mind. Fear of death, superstition, craving for distinction, and the endless pursuit of what is unnecessary all distort human judgment. A society governed by such impulses cannot remain healthy for long. The corruption of public life begins in private confusion. The only true answer offered is philosophical transformation. Human beings must learn to live according to nature rather than according to ambition. They must free themselves from fear of divine punishment, from the terror of death, and from the false belief that power, riches, or reputation can bring lasting peace. Once those illusions are removed, a different kind of society becomes imaginable – one founded not on domination and rivalry, but on restraint, mutual respect, and freedom from aggression. Public harmony depends on inward clarity. Without that inner correction, political life remains unstable no matter what form it takes. The poem offers this vision without any easy optimism. Its account of civilization is marked by the sense that collective life is fragile, and that the achievements of society carry within them the seeds of disorder. The more intensely human beings pursue[ power](https://romanempiretimes.com/eumachia-the-unknown-woman-of-pompeii/), prestige, and excess, the more they weaken the body politic. Political crisis is therefore not treated as an accidental misfortune, but as the natural outcome of desires left unchecked and beliefs left unexamined. The warning is severe: a society that cannot master its fears and appetites will continue moving toward decay. Seen in this light, *De rerum natura* is not a retreat from history but a profound response to it. Its explanation of nature becomes, at the same time, a diagnosis of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/). By denying that [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/) has cosmic privilege and by exposing the emptiness of the ambitions on which Roman public life depended, the poem undermines the moral and ideological foundations of the world around it. What it sets in their place is not a political program, but something more radical: the claim that no society can be healthy unless human beings first learn how to think, desire, and live differently. ("Lucretius and Roman politics and history" by Alessandro Schiesaro) ### Lucretius and the Long Road to Modern Science Lucretius did not write a scientific handbook in the modern sense, yet his poem became one of the most important ancient texts in the later history of science. Its central purpose was to free human beings from fear – especially fear of the gods and of divine interference in the world – and to do that it presented a universe governed not by providence but by the motion and interaction of atoms. ![Lucretius pointing to the casus, the downward movement of the atoms, from the frontispiece of a 1714 edition of Thomas Creech’s translation of Lucretius (1682).](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/Lucretius-pointing-to-the-casus--1--1.jpg) Lucretius pointing to the casus, the downward movement of the atoms, from the frontispiece of a 1714 edition of Thomas Creech’s translation of Lucretius (1682). Public domain. Nature, in this vision, does not wait for orders from above. It acts by itself, without divine supervision, producing all things through material processes. That idea would prove extraordinarily powerful many centuries later, when European thinkers began to challenge older religious and scholastic explanations of the natural world. ### A Universe Without Providence The poem ranges widely across subjects that today would belong to different sciences: sensation, mental disturbance, cosmology, seasons, [eclipses](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-beliefs-and-practices-surrounding-solar-eclipses/), thunder, magnetism, disease, [plague](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-plague-of-justinian-when-death-came-to-constantinople/), and the rise of plant and animal life. What unites all of these topics is the same explanatory method. Phenomena are not traced back to divine will or cosmic purpose, but to matter in motion. The world is not arranged according to a providential plan, and nature does not exist for the sake of human beings. This anti-teleological view was deeply unsettling in societies shaped by religious explanations of the [cosmos](https://romanempiretimes.com/heaven-earth-and-the-roman-cosmos/), but it also opened the door to a different habit of thought – one in which natural events could be studied as natural events. ### Why the Poem Mattered After Its Rediscovery When the poem returned to circulation in a [Christian](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-actually-feed-christians-to-the-lions/) intellectual world, it caused both fascination and alarm. Its claims were too radical to be absorbed unchanged, yet they could not be ignored. The idea that reality consists of atoms and void, that there are no immaterial spirits directing nature, and that the gods do not govern earthly events gradually entered the intellectual bloodstream of early modern Europe. These ideas were often revised, softened, or merged with other systems, but they helped erode the older scholastic picture of a world full of fixed essences, intrinsic purposes, and divinely ordered hierarchies. In that sense, the poem did not simply survive – it became one of the forces helping to reshape the very framework through which nature was understood. ### Ancient Atomism and Modern Science Continuity should not be exaggerated. There are real links between ancient atomism and modern science, but they are not the same thing. What persisted across the centuries was the basic conviction that visible bodies are made of smaller, enduring units that do not themselves possess the full range of qualities found in the larger objects they compose. That basic intuition remained powerful enough for later scientists to treat atomism as one of the most fruitful ways of understanding the material world. Yet modern atomism grew out of experiment, measurement, and mathematical inquiry, whereas ancient atomism belonged to a philosophical effort to explain change, plurality, and first principles. The resemblance is therefore important, but it is not a simple identity. ### From Poetic Vision to Scientific Hypothesis Over the course of the Scientific Revolution and the centuries that followed, the Lucretian vision of a self-sufficient nature helped encourage a world picture in which causes were sought in particles, motion, and configuration rather than in divine intentions or occult forces. In chemistry, physiology, meteorology, and cosmology, the refusal of teleology became a major explanatory ideal. The theory of atoms was eventually transformed from an ancient conceptual model into a hypothesis increasingly confirmed by experiment. In that process, Lucretius remained a point of reference long after antiquity, his poem continuing to offer both provocation and intellectual encouragement. ### Lucretius and the Question of Life The poem also mattered for the history of thinking about life itself. Its account of the emergence of living beings and the disappearance of forms unable to survive gave later readers a powerful anti-creationist framework for imagining the natural history of the earth. Lucretius did not develop a modern theory of evolution, and he did not describe species as indefinitely changing over time. But he did imagine a world in which living forms arise materially and in which extinction plays a decisive role in shaping what survives. Those ideas would resonate later, especially in debates over the development of life and the relation between natural history and theology. ### The Great Difference Between Ancient and Modern Materialism For all that, the deepest difference between Lucretius and modern science lies not only in method but in purpose. Ancient atomism was contemplative. It sought understanding in order to calm the mind, free human beings from superstition, and place life within a larger natural order. It did not aim at technological mastery. Modern materialism, by contrast, became increasingly bound to experiment, intervention, and control. Once matter was understood as corporeal and manipulable, nature could be treated not merely as something to understand but as something to transform. The new sciences moved toward the practical remaking of the world. Lucretius’ poem never imagines that ambition. Its gaze remains philosophical, reverent before nature’s spontaneous processes, and often sharply skeptical about the value of human striving. ### Why Lucretius Still Matters That is why Lucretius occupies such a curious place in the history of science. He is not a modern scientist before science, nor can his poem be reduced to a primitive version of later physics. What he offers instead is something more foundational: a powerful vision of a world that can be explained without providence, without supernatural intrusion, and without purpose built into nature itself. ![Titus Lucretius Carus's bust](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/Lucretius-bust-1.jpg) Titus Lucretius Carus's bust. Public domain. That vision helped prepare minds for later scientific habits of thought, even though the tools, methods, and goals of modern science would become very different from his own. His poem belongs to the history of science not because it discovered modern physics, but because it made the natural world intellectually imaginable in a new and radical way. ("Lucretius and the history of science" by Monte Johnson & Catherine Wilson) ### St Jerome’s Testimony on Lucretius The most famous ancient notice about Lucretius’ life comes from St Jerome. In his continuation of Eusebius’ chronicle, under a year around 94 BC, he records the poet’s birth and adds a far darker claim: that Lucretius was driven mad by a love potion, wrote several books during intervals of insanity, had them later corrected by Cicero, and died by his own hand at the age of forty-four. That account has long been treated with suspicion, above all because of its most dramatic elements – the love potion, the madness, and the suicide. Yet the objections raised against it are not as decisive as they are often made to seem. Once examined closely, Jerome’s testimony appears less easy to dismiss than modern readers have sometimes assumed. There is no strong reason to treat the notice as a Christian invention. Jerome had access to earlier biographical material on classical authors, and there is every reason to think that Lucretius’ life had also circulated in pagan sources. Nor is the reference to [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) especially implausible. The remark that he emended Lucretius’ books need not imply extensive editorial intervention. It may simply mean that he reviewed the poem and approved it for publication. ### The Case Against Jerome The main objections usually take three forms. The first insists that a love potion could not have caused recurring attacks of [madness](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-caligula-mad-or-just-sick/). The second argues that *De rerum natura* does not read like the work of a man writing through periods of mental collapse. The third, and by far the most influential, rests on silence: if earlier writers knew such a story, surely they would have mentioned it. Taken together, these arguments have often been thought strong enough to discredit Jerome altogether. But each is more fragile than it first appears. ### Could a Love Potion Cause Madness? It is certainly difficult to believe that a love potion could directly produce repeated fits of insanity in any simple physical sense. But Jerome’s wording does not require such a literal interpretation. The potion may be understood not as the immediate medical cause, but as the beginning of a chain of suffering. An illness, emotional torment, or some deeper collapse may have followed from it, eventually leading to psychological breakdown and recurring episodes of derangement. Seen in that light, the story is not impossible. Strange, yes – but not inherently absurd. ### Does the Poem Prove Mental Stability? Another objection rests on the poem itself. *De rerum natura* seems, at first glance, too controlled, too intellectually rigorous, too architecturally precise to have been composed, even in part, during lucid intervals between bouts of madness. That objection sounds persuasive until pressed too far. Much of Lucretius’ philosophical material derives from Epicurus, and the poem’s reasoning does not necessarily prove continuous mental composure on the part of its author. Some of the doctrines accepted in the poem, especially the multiple explanations given for natural phenomena such as thunder, eclipses, and the movement of the sun, do not suggest modern scientific exactness so much as fidelity to inherited philosophical teaching. Lucretius was undoubtedly a poet of real power, but that is not the same as proving perfect rational equilibrium. His verse can be magnificent, but it is not uniformly so. Its unevenness does not prove instability, but neither does the poem itself prove the impossibility of it. Nor is there anything unusual, in broader literary history, about major writers suffering from serious mental disturbance. Poetic force and mental fragility have often coexisted. The existence of one does not disprove the other. ### The Weakness of Silence The strongest objection has usually been the silence of earlier authors. If Jerome’s story were true, why do Cicero, [Virgil](https://romanempiretimes.com/analysis-of-the-world-of-virgil-roman-poet-eclogues-georgics-and-the-aeneid/), [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/), [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/), [Quintilian](https://romanempiretimes.com/quintilian-a-roman-theory-of-education-that-left-its-mark-from-antiquity-onwards/), [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/), and others not mention it? ![Frontispiece of a 1754 copy of "De Rerum Natura.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/Open-book-of-Lucretius-De-rerum-natura--1--1.jpg) Frontispiece of a 1754 copy of "De Rerum Natura. Public domain. The answer is less dramatic than the objection suggests. Ancient writers did not approach literary biography in the modern way. They mentioned personal details when those details served a purpose. If they had no reason to dwell on the manner of Lucretius’ death, their silence proves very little. Cicero, for example, says remarkably little about Lucretius at all. In a brief note to his brother Quintus, he offers only a compressed literary judgment on the poem. That hardly creates an expectation that he would discuss the poet’s life. Virgil’s praise of Lucretius is likewise literary, not biographical. His purpose is to honour poetic and intellectual achievement, not to write a life. The same pattern continues elsewhere. Nepos refers only to the death of Lucretius, not to its cause, because the detail is irrelevant to his purpose. Ovid shows interest in the poetry of earlier writers, not in their biographies. Seneca quotes Lucretius for style and thought, not for anecdote. Quintilian is concerned with literary evaluation. Plutarch had little interest in Latin poets as biographical subjects. In each case, silence can be explained perfectly well without assuming ignorance of the tradition. ### Why the Argument from Silence Fails Once enough names are gathered together, silence can look impressive. But accumulation does not create proof. The absence of a reference is only meaningful when there was a strong reason for the reference to appear. In Lucretius’ case, that reason is often missing. The same applies to later authors. Some mention him only in passing. Others cite him for literary or philosophical purposes. A few use language broad enough to include any kind of death. None of this compels the conclusion that Jerome’s story was unknown or fabricated. It shows only that ancient authors were selective, and that biographical detail survived unevenly. ### Lactantius and the Limits of Polemic One of the more serious cases is Lactantius, who attacks Epicurean ideas repeatedly and might seem an obvious place for such a story to surface. Yet even here the silence is less conclusive than it appears. His abusive language toward philosophical opponents is largely rhetorical. When he calls thinkers mad or senseless, he is using the standard vocabulary of polemic, not offering literal diagnosis. More importantly, Lucretius appears to have impressed him as a poet and stylist. He quotes him extensively and even makes use of some of his attacks on superstition. If his real target was Epicurean doctrine, then Epicurus – not Lucretius’ personal end – remained the more useful opponent. ### A Story That Cannot Be Dismissed None of this proves that Jerome’s account is certainly true in every detail. But it does mean that it cannot be brushed aside as fantasy. The objections commonly raised against it are weaker than they first appear. The love potion need not be read literally, the poem does not settle the question of Lucretius’ mental condition, and the silence of earlier writers carries far less force than has often been claimed. What remains is not certainty, but credibility. Jerome’s testimony may be uncomfortable, dramatic, and impossible to verify completely. Yet it survives serious scrutiny better than its critics have always admitted. The old story of Lucretius’ madness and suicide may not be provable – but neither can it be confidently dismissed. Lucretius left behind almost nothing of himself except a poem, yet that poem proved enough to secure his place among Rome’s most formidable minds. It challenged fear, stripped nature of divine supervision, and forced its readers to confront a universe far larger and less comforting than tradition allowed. Whether read as philosophy, poetry, or a response to a world in crisis, *De rerum natura* remains unsettling because it asks for more than admiration. It asks for a different way of seeing life, death, power, and the fragile order of human society. ### In case you had doubts, Christ was Actually a Real Person, Suggest Ancient Roman Texts URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/in-case-you-had-doubts-christ-was-actually-a-real-person-suggest-ancient-roman-texts/ Last updated: 2026-04-02T11:25:04.000Z Did Roman writers ever mention [Jesus](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-kill-jesus/)? The question matters because it sits at the center of a modern argument that is often louder than the evidence itself. Jesus is one of the best-known figures in world history, yet the surviving references to him outside Christian writing are brief, scattered, and later than many readers expect. That has allowed doubt to flourish. But the ancient record is not silent. It is simply narrower, rougher, and more difficult than popular debate usually admits. ### What the Surviving Roman Record Actually Looks Like The first point has to be stated plainly: there is no surviving Roman source written during Jesus’ lifetime that describes him directly. No trial transcript from [Pontius Pilate](https://romanempiretimes.com/i-wash-my-hands-of-this-did-pontius-pilate-really-say-it/) survives, no provincial report to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) names him in real time, and no imperial archive has come down to us recording his execution. That fact often drives modern doubt, because people expect someone as important as Jesus to appear in a clear Roman file. But ancient history rarely works that way, especially for events in a distant province. The absence of a surviving contemporary Roman record is a limitation in the evidence, not proof that Jesus was invented. The earliest surviving texts about Jesus are instead Christian, especially the letters of Paul, written within a couple of decades of his death. Those letters are not biographies, and they do not answer the Roman-source question by themselves. What they do show is that Jesus was already being treated as a recent historical figure by the middle of the first century, and that Paul knew people tied to Jesus’ own circle. ![The Finding of Jesus in the Temple by Giovanni Antonio Fumiani ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/The-Finding-of-Jesus-in-the-Temple-by-Giovanni-Antonio-Fumiani--1--1.jpg) The Finding of Jesus in the Temple by Giovanni Antonio Fumiani. Public domain By the time Roman writers mention Christ or Christians, they are stepping into a world in which the movement already exists and is already spreading ### Tacitus and the Sharpest Roman Statement The strongest Roman passage is in [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/), Annals 15.44\. Writing in the early second century about [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-romes-most-infamous-ruler-part-1/)’s response to the fire of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/), Tacitus explains who the Christians were by tracing the name back to its founder. His wording is unusually direct: > “Christus, from whom the name had its origin,” he says, “suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius.” Tacitus then places that execution “at the hands of … Pontius Pilatus.” This is why Tacitus matters so much. He is not a Christian writer and he is not friendly to Christianity. He presents the movement as a dangerous superstition and mentions Christ only in the course of explaining Nero’s treatment of Christians. The value of the passage lies precisely there: it is a hostile Roman witness that still takes Christ for granted as a real person executed under Pilate in [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/)’ reign. Tacitus is not trying to prove Jesus existed. He simply assumes it as part of the background to [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-rome-most-infamous-ruler-part-2/)’s persecution. That does not mean the passage is beyond all discussion. Some modern scholars have argued that Tacitus may have depended, at least in part, on information circulating among Christians or on material mediated through [Pliny](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/). Even so, the passage remains the strongest Roman reference because it gives the essential historical frame in one place: Christ, Christians, Tiberius, Pilate, and execution. On this question, Tacitus is the central Roman text. ### Suetonius and the More Ambiguous Evidence [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) is useful, but much less precise. In Nero 16 he writes briefly that > “punishment was inflicted on the Christians,” describing them as followers of a new and harmful superstition. That line clearly shows that Roman writers recognized Christians as a distinct group. It does not, however, tell us much about Jesus directly. ![Jesus before Caiphus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/Jesus-before-Caiphus--1--1.jpg) Jesus before Caiphus. Public domain The more debated Suetonius passage appears in Claudius 25, where he says that [Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/) expelled Jews from Rome because they were making disturbances > “at the instigation of one Chrestus.” This line has long been discussed because many readers think it preserves a confused Roman notice of disputes about Christ among Jews in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/). But the passage is not certain. Chrestus could be a mistaken rendering of Christus, or it could refer to another individual altogether. That means it is suggestive, but not decisive. It cannot bear the same historical weight as Tacitus. So Suetonius adds something important, but not the whole answer. He shows that Roman authors knew Christians and saw them as troublesome. He may also preserve an echo of Christ-related unrest in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/). But if the question is whether a Roman author clearly and directly mentions Jesus, Tacitus remains much stronger. ### Pliny and the Visibility of Christ in Roman Administration Pliny the Younger belongs in the discussion for a different reason. He is not telling his readers who Jesus was, and he does not narrate events from Judaea. What he does show is that by the early second century Christ had become central enough to Christian identity that a Roman governor had to ask the emperor how to handle people who refused to renounce him. In his letter to [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/), Pliny says that Christians gathered before dawn and sang > “a hymn to Christ as to a god.” That sentence is brief, but it is revealing. It shows that Christ was not a vague memory at the edge of the movement. He was the focus of worship, oath-taking, and communal identity. Pliny’s problem was not literary theory or theological doctrine. It was legal administration. He was trying to decide what to do with people whose allegiance to Christ put them at odds with Roman expectations. As evidence, then, Pliny does not help much with the details of Jesus’ life, but he is valuable for showing how quickly and firmly the movement centered on Christ had become visible to the Roman state. ### Josephus and the Strongest External Name-Link Although he was not Roman, Josephus is too important to omit. Writing in the late first century, he gives one of the strongest non-Christian references to Jesus when he mentions > “James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.” That line matters because it is short, matter-of-fact, and widely treated as authentic. Josephus is not making a theological confession. He is identifying James by reference to a Jesus already known as “the one called Christ.” ![Michel Corneille the Elder: Resurrection of Christ ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/R--surrection-Corneille-cartouche-central--1--1.jpg) Michel Corneille the Elder: Resurrection of Christ. Public domain The longer Josephus passage, the *Testimonium Flavianum*, has to be handled more carefully. In its surviving form it contains clearly Christian-sounding language, which is why most modern discussion sees it as a passage that has been altered in transmission. Even so, one line often retained in reconstructions of the earlier core is that Pilate > “condemned him to the cross.” That longer passage should not be quoted as though every word were secure. The shorter James passage is safer and more useful for a restrained historical case. ### What the Roman Material Can and Cannot Prove The Roman material is not large, and it does not give us everything. It does not produce a full biography of Jesus. It does not prove Christian doctrine. It does not remove every question about the channels through which Roman authors learned what they knew. What it does give us is a set of external notices that are difficult to reconcile with the claim that Jesus was merely a late myth or literary invention. Tacitus treats Christ as the executed founder of the Christians. Suetonius recognizes Christians as a group and may preserve an echo of disputes about Christ in Rome. Pliny shows Christians worshipping Christ in a way that had already become a matter of imperial administration. Josephus, from outside the Roman tradition proper, ties Jesus to James in a brief and widely accepted notice. So the argument is cumulative rather than singular. There is no one Roman text that settles everything. But there is also no serious reason to say that the Roman world was silent. It was not silent. It was sparse, later, and uneven — but not silent. ![Jesus at the home of Marta and Maria by Hans Rottenhammer and Paul Brill](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/04/Jesus-at-the-home-of-Marta-and-Maria-by-Hans-Rottenhammer-and-Paul-Brill--1--1.jpg) Jesus at the home of Marta and Maria by Hans Rottenhammer and Paul Brill. Credits: Archaeodontosaurus, CC BY-SA 4.0 That is why mainstream historians do not usually treat Jesus as a fictional character. The evidence is limited, yet it still places him firmly enough in the historical landscape that the older question is no longer whether he existed, but what exactly can be known about him from the kinds of sources antiquity has left behind. The Roman evidence is not abundant, and it was never going to be. Jesus was not an [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), senator, or general whose life would naturally fill state archives. But the surviving references are enough to show that he was not simply a character floating free in legend. Roman writers knew of Christians, knew the name Christ, and in Tacitus’ case linked him directly to execution under Pilate in Tiberius’ reign. The record is limited, but it is real, and it is one reason the question of Jesus in history has never rested on belief alone. ### Did Romans Actually Feed Christians to the Lions? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-actually-feed-christians-to-the-lions/ Last updated: 2026-04-01T21:25:43.000Z Were the Romans really feeding their arena beasts with the first Christians? Was that the capital punishment of the early believers, and were Romans acturally torturing Christians to death? 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in December 2024\. It was updated in April 2026.* ### Christians to the Lions? The question arises: "Were Christians truly fed to lions during Roman times?" Tertullian, in his [*Apologeticum*](https://amzn.to/4gRRPkd?ref=romanempiretimes.com), reflects the popular sentiment of the era: > "If the Tiber reaches the walls, if the Nile does not rise to the fields, if the sky does not move or the earth does, if there is famine, if there is plague, they cry at once, 'The Christians to the lions!'" The [*Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicity*](https://amzn.to/4iMWtBT?ref=romanempiretimes.com) recounts the story of two women—a young noblewoman and mother, Perpetua, and a slave woman, Felicity—who were executed in early third-century Carthage by [*damnatio*](https://romanempiretimes.com/damnatio-memoriae-condemnation-and-eradication-in-the-political-sphere-of-rome/) *ad bestias* (condemnation to the beasts). While lions are not explicitly mentioned, the text describes other animals involved in their martyrdom. Historical evidence, such as the Zliten Mosaic, confirms that lions and other large predators were indeed used in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) to execute criminals and insurrectionists. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/12/A-gravure-depicting-Perpetual-and-Felicitas-gored-by-a-bull-in-the-arena.jpg) ## It is also clear that Christians were among those condemned to face wild beasts. **A gravure depicting Perpetual and Felicitas gored by a bull in the arena. Public domain* However, the scale of the practice and the specific animals involved remain subjects of scholarly debate. Christians faced many forms of execution in the Roman Empire. Eusebius, in his [*De Martyribus Palestinae*](https://amzn.to/3DzwdLb?ref=romanempiretimes.com), documents that Urbanus, governor of Palestine, employed diverse methods of persecution, including burning, drowning, exposing martyrs to beasts, forcing youths into [gladiatorial combat,](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/) and other forms of torture and imprisonment. Maybe the question should be: "*Did Christians face persecution as portrayed by modern Christian teachings?*" This question holds merit, as Christian tradition often emphasizes that early Christians endured significant persecution. Images of martyrdom and being thrown into gladiatorial combat are frequently brought up when people are asked what they imagine the early years of Christianity were like. ## However, this perspective is not the most accurate interpretation and is **not widely accepted* among scholars today. ![The famous Zliten mosaic, depicting Roman games and animal hunts](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/12/The-famous-Zliten-mosaic--depicting-Roman-games-and-animal-hunts.jpg) The famous Zliten mosaic, depicting Roman games and animal hunts. Public domain Historian Candida Moss explores this topic in [her book](https://amzn.to/4gSPSUq?ref=romanempiretimes.com), “*The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom*”. Moss, a professor of New Testament Studies at Notre Dame, argues that widespread persecution of Christians, as commonly imagined, **is a myth**. She presents evidence showing that out of over 250 years of early Christian history, no more than 12 years saw significant, [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/)\-ordered persecution—and none of these occurred during the first century, when Christianity was still emerging. In its earliest decades, Christianity likely went relatively unnoticed. By 70 CE, small churches had appeared across the eastern Mediterranean and even in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/), but these groups were too small to attract serious attention or opposition. Moss suggests that widespread persecution wasn’t plausible at this stage, as Roman authorities were unlikely to even be aware of Christianity’s existence. It was only as Christianity grew in popularity, likely by the late first century, that Christians began to face harsher criticism. Even then, most early Christians experienced more social scorn and dislike—similar to the treatment of Jews outside the Levant—than direct persecution. The author emphasizes that "*the vast majority of Christians never stood before a Roman judge, paid a fine, or experienced torture.*" While there were localized instances of persecution in some regions of the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall/), these were exceptions rather than the rule. She further notes that during the first century, [Roman emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) likely weren’t even aware of Christians as a distinct group. As she puts it, “For *almost all of the first century, it’s unclear that Roman emperors even knew that Christians existed.*" Without awareness of their existence, the Roman state had little reason to actively persecute Christians. ![A painting by Konstantin Flavitsky showing Christian Martyrs in the Colosseum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/12/A-painting-by-Konstantin-Flavitsky-showing-Christian-Martyrs-in-the-Colosseum.jpg) A painting by Konstantin Flavitsky showing Christian Martyrs in the Colosseum. Public domain ### Persecution and Myth: Reevaluating Early Christian Suffering in the Roman Empire Moss says that when considering the experiences of Christians under Roman rule, many immediately envision dramatic scenes of persecution: Christians being thrown unarmed into amphitheaters to face lions, burned alive, or executed in ways that epitomize cruelty and sadism. These images often include hostile Roman crowds delighting in their suffering, with Christians depicted as meek, devout, and constantly fearful of arrest and execution. This narrative has been deeply ingrained in two millennia of literature, art, and modern media, from *Ben Hur* to *The Passion of the Christ*. The image of Christians living in fear, secretly meeting in catacombs, and communicating through covert symbols like the fish remains ubiquitous. However, the reasons for this supposed persecution are less clear to many. Popular belief suggests Christians were targeted because of their distinctiveness, their devout nature, or simply the fear and jealousy of their Roman persecutors. Early Christian accounts themselves, such as those from Justin Martyr and Tertullian, emphasize this narrative. Justin, writing in the second century, claimed that Christians were condemned merely for their identity as Christians. Tertullian famously noted that any disaster in Rome—from floods to famines—was blamed on Christians, with cries of "The Christians to the lions!" echoing through the city. This story of persistent and brutal persecution has been repeated across generations, creating a deeply entrenched narrative of continuous suffering. Yet, this perspective warrants scrutiny. How many Christians were truly martyred? And why were they targeted at all? ![The famous painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme dubbed The Christian Martyrs' Last Prayer](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/12/The-famous-painting-by-Jean-L-on-G-r-me-dubbed-The-Christian-Martyrs--Last-Prayer.jpg) The famous painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme dubbed The Christian Martyrs' Last Prayer. Take note of the Christians praying, and the ones that are set ablaze or getting ready to be burned on the cross, so you can analyse the next painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme later in the article. Public domain She explores the evidence for violence against Christians in the early church and the reasons behind it. While Christians were certainly not a beloved group in Roman society and were often disliked, they were not perpetually hunted or regularly subjected to imperial persecution. In some cases, actions that led to Christian executions were not even specifically directed at them. Focusing only on periods of persecution can exaggerate the impression that Christians were constant targets. Moss specifically examines periods of persecution, revealing that state-driven measures against Christians were relatively rare and often limited in scope. Historically, four major periods of persecution are often cited: - The aftermath of the Great Fire of Rome in 64 CE - The reign of Emperor Decius around 250 CE - A brief period during Emperor Valerian’s reign (257–258 CE) - The “Great Persecution” under Emperor [Diocletian](https://romanempiretimes.com/diocletian-architect-of-the-roman-empires-renewal/) (303–305 CE), later renewed by Maximinus Daia (311–313 CE) Even with these events considered, imperial actions against Christians lasted fewer than ten years across nearly three centuries. Scholars like Geoffrey de Ste. Croix argue that no evidence supports Roman governmental persecution before 64 CE. The classification of these events as persecution often depends on perspective, as many incidents were localized and limited in duration. ![A painting by Fedor Bronnikov, dubbed Entering the Arena, with Christians getting ready to meet their deaths](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/12/A-painting-by-Fedor-Bronnikov--dubbed-Entering-the-Arena--with-Christians-getting-ready-to-meet-their-deaths.jpg) A painting by Fedor Bronnikov, dubbed Entering the Arena, with Christians getting ready to meet their deaths. Note the similarities with the group of Christians on Jean-Léon Gérôme’s painting, above. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ## Punishment as Public Spectacle in Ancient Rome In his *Apologeticum*, Tertullian vividly describes the grim theatricality of [Roman punishments](https://romanempiretimes.com/gemonian-stairs-rome-spot-mourning-execution-scalae-gemoniae/), recounting incidents where individuals were burned alive as Hercules or castrated as Attis. These macabre spectacles, which he termed "fatal charades," blended execution with role-playing in a dramatic public setting, often featuring elaborate recreations of mythological scenes. ### Roman Penal Aims and Practices Punishment in ancient Rome was deeply intertwined with cultural, social, and political frameworks. Unlike modern systems, which emphasize reform and deterrence, Roman penalties served a complex mix of purposes, including retribution, humiliation, and deterrence. Public executions and punishments were designed not just to punish offenders but also to communicate societal norms and [enforce authority](https://romanempiretimes.com/foundations-of-justice-romes-twelve-tables/) through spectacle. [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/) acknowledged that punishment often aimed to satisfy vengeance or reassert the status of victims. For example, crimes like arson were met with execution by fire, adhering to the principle of *talio* ("an eye for an eye"). Similarly, fraudulent money-changers had their hands amputated, a penalty that combined retribution, humiliation, and deterrence. Humiliation played a pivotal role in Roman punishments. Publicly shaming the offender served to alienate them from their community and validate the state’s authority. High-profile punishments, like [those of Jesus](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-execute-jesus/), often included mockery as a means of reinforcing societal hierarchies. The humiliation was sometimes enhanced through theatrical elements, as seen in the soldiers’ mocking of Jesus with a crown of thorns and a [purple](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) robe, parodying the regalia of Hellenistic rulers. ![The painting by Henryk Siemiradzki dubbed Nero’s Torches, depicting the burning of Christians in front of the Emperor and his audience](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/12/The-painting-by--0AHenryk-Siemiradzki-dubbed-Nero-s-Torches--depicting-the-burning-of-Christians-in-front-of-the-Emperor-and-his-audience.jpg) The painting by Henryk Siemiradzki dubbed Nero’s Torches, depicting the burning of Christians in front of the Emperor and his audience. Public domain Public displays of punishment were central to the Roman penal system. Executions often took place in amphitheaters or other highly visible locations to maximize their deterrent effect. The intent was to inspire fear among spectators while ensuring the audience derived a sense of moral superiority. This dynamic explains why executions were often elaborate affairs, blending horror and entertainment. Roman philosophers like Seneca and Taurus acknowledged deterrence as a key objective of punishment. The gruesome spectacles served as a warning, with the public setting reinforcing the consequences of deviant behavior. However, the theatricality of these events also distanced spectators from the reality of suffering, turning punishment into a form of [popular entertainment.](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-romes-arena-of-death-and-glory/) Fatal charades elevated Roman punishments to an extraordinary level of theatricality. Offenders were forced to play mythological roles that mirrored their crimes. For example, arsonists might be burned alive as Hercules, and others might reenact stories from mythology before their execution. These performances were meticulously staged, with the dual purpose of delivering justice and entertaining the masses. The charades capitalized on Roman society’s fascination with drama and myth, transforming executions into grand [public spectacles](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-romans-flood-the-colosseum-for-naval-battles-in-the-arena/). The audience's pleasure derived from witnessing the offender’s suffering was integral to the event, reflecting the cultural norms of the time. ![A gravure depicting a Christian facing a lion in the Roman arena](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/12/A-gravure-depicting-a-Christian-facing-a-lion-in-the-Roman-arena.jpg) A gravure depicting a Christian facing a lion in the Roman arena. Public domain ### Correction, Prevention, and Justice Though retribution and deterrence dominated Roman punishments, the concept of correction was not entirely absent. Philosophers like Plato and Seneca suggested that punishment should aim to reform offenders, though this idea rarely influenced actual practices. More commonly, punishments sought to prevent repeat offenses by physically incapacitating [criminals ](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-and-punishment-in-ancient-rome-justice-and-inequality/)or removing them from society altogether. (*Fatal Charades: Roman executions staged as mythological enactments*, by K. M. Coleman) ### The Legal Foundations of Christian Persecution in the Roman Empire before 250 CE The persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire before 250 CE has long been a subject of fascination and debate among historians. T.D. Barnes’ “*Legislation against the Christians*”, sheds light on this complex topic, challenging traditional narratives and revealing a nuanced picture of the legal and social frameworks that governed early Christian prosecutions. By examining the primary evidence, Barnes dismisses many misconceptions and provides a clearer understanding of how and why Christians were targeted during this period. Barnes begins by emphasizing the absence of explicit legal enactments against Christians in the early years of the Roman Empire. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/12/A-painting-by-Jan-Styka--depicting-the-Christians-thrown-to-the-lions.jpg) ## Contrary to common assumptions, there is no evidence of a definitive **senatus consultum* or imperial decree that declared Christianity illegal. **A painting by Jan Styka, depicting the Christians thrown to the lions. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times* For instance, Tertullian’s claim that Emperor Tiberius advocated for Christianity in the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/) and sought to integrate it into the [Roman Pantheon](https://romanempiretimes.com/unveiling-the-eternal-things-about-the-pantheon-you-did-not-know/) is based on unreliable sources. This narrative, often repeated in later traditions, lacks corroboration and cannot be taken as historical fact. The infamous persecutions under Emperor Nero, following the [Great Fire of Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) in 64 CE, illustrate the ad hoc nature of early Christian prosecutions. Nero did not persecute Christians because their faith was inherently criminal but rather used them as scapegoats to deflect blame for the disaster. According to [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/), Christians were labeled as arsonists and subjected to brutal punishments, satisfying the public’s demand for retribution. This event marked the beginning of Christians being associated with criminality in the public eye, though it was not rooted in a broader legal framework. Subsequent emperors approached the question of Christianity with varying degrees of pragmatism. Emperor [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/)’s correspondence with [Pliny the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/) offers a revealing glimpse into early imperial attitudes. Pliny, as governor of Bithynia, sought guidance on how to handle Christians in his jurisdiction. [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/) responded with a policy of restraint: Christians were not to be actively sought out but could be punished if openly accused and if they refused to recant. Those who renounced their faith and performed acts of sacrifice to [Roman gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) were pardoned. This approach focused on public conformity rather than religious suppression, illustrating the absence of a systematic legal strategy against Christians. ![The gruesome painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme dubbed The Retreating Lions](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/12/The-gruesome-painting-by-Jean-L-on-G-r-me-dubbed-The-Retreating-Lions.jpg) The gruesome painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme dubbed The Retreating Lions. Note this is the aftermath of the previous painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme, showing the lions as they are forced out of the arena, the Christian mutilated bodies, and their charred remains on the cross — notice the halos on their heads, showcasing their martyrdom. Public domain Under Emperor [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrians-wall-the-roman-empires-enigmatic-frontier/), this cautious approach continued. His rescript to *Minicius Fundanus*, proconsul of Asia, discouraged frivolous accusations against Christians and emphasized the importance of due process. However, while this decree provided some measure of protection, it did not eliminate the threat of persecution, as accusations could still be weaponized by individuals seeking to exploit social or political grievances. The precarious status of Christians remained unchanged. During the reign of [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-stoic-emperor-how-marcus-aurelius-outwitted-death-in-the-germanic-wilds/), the persecution of Christians intensified sporadically, particularly in regions like Gaul. Local governors and public sentiment often played a significant role in these episodes, rather than direct imperial directives. Barnes highlights that these events were driven more by regional dynamics than by a coordinated policy from Rome. This pattern underscores the decentralized nature of Christian persecution in the early Empire. The period of the [Severan](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-severan-marble-plan/) dynasty presents further ambiguities. Septimius Severus is often credited with issuing an edict that prohibited conversions to Christianity and Judaism. However, Barnes argues that the evidence for this edict is tenuous at best. Christians during this period were still prosecuted primarily for their identity rather than for acts of conversion. The narrative of Severus’ alleged edict likely stems from later interpretations rather than contemporary records. Barnes concludes that Christian persecution in the Roman Empire before 250 CE was neither systematic nor uniformly enforced. Instead, it was shaped by episodic imperial policies, regional authorities’ discretion, and societal prejudices. Christians **were prosecuted**, but not as part of a coordinated effort to exterminate their faith; it was done as a means of maintaining social order and suppressing perceived deviance. These prosecutions reflected broader Roman concerns about unity, tradition, and conformity rather than targeted religious animosity. ### Did Pontius Pilate Really Say "I Wash My Hands of This"? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/did-pontius-pilate-really-say-i-wash-my-hands-of-this/ Last updated: 2026-04-01T17:23:19.000Z *“I wash my hands of this.”* The phrase echoes through centuries of art, literature, and liturgy — a symbol of moral detachment and reluctant authority. Attributed to Pontius Pilate during the trial of [Jesus](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-execute-jesus/), it has become one of the most enduring lines in Western memory. 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in April 2025\. It was updated in April 2026.* But did the Roman governor of Judea actually utter those words, or is this detail a literary creation? While the Gospel of Matthew describes Pilate performing this symbolic act before the crowd, no Roman historian — not Josephus, not Philo, not [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) — ever mentions it. To uncover the truth behind this moment, we must look beyond familiar verses and examine the Roman world Pilate inhabited, the politics he navigated, and the image later generations chose to preserve. Appointed by [Emperor Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/) around 26 CE, Pontius Pilate served as the Roman prefect of Judea — a small but politically sensitive province within the sprawling [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/). As an equestrian official, he was charged with maintaining order, overseeing tax collection, and enforcing Roman law in a land deeply resistant to foreign rule. Based in Caesarea Maritima but present in Jerusalem during major festivals, Pilate governed a population divided by religion, class, and deep resentment toward Roman occupation. His rule, as recorded by Jewish historians such as Josephus and Philo, was marked by tension, violence, and a series of miscalculations that would ultimately lead to his recall. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-painting-by-Mattia-Preti-of-Pontius-Pilate-washing-his-hands.jpg) ## Far from being a passive administrator, Pilate wielded his authority with a heavy hand — a man more feared than respected. **A painting by Mattia Preti,of Pontius Pilate washing his hands. Credits: The MET, CC0 1.0* ### Pilate in the Eyes of Jewish Historians: Josephus and Philo Outside the Gospel narratives, two major Jewish historians of antiquity — Flavius Josephus and Philo of Alexandria — offer additional perspectives on Pilate’s rule in Judea. Their accounts, while shaped by their own cultural and political lenses, portray him not as a hesitant judge, but as a rigid and provocative Roman official, often indifferent to Jewish customs and prone to unnecessary violence. In Jewish Antiquities, Josephus describes multiple incidents that inflamed local unrest. One of the earliest involved Pilate’s decision to bring Roman standards bearing the emperor’s image into Jerusalem by night — a move seen by the Jewish population as idolatrous. When a large protest formed in Caesarea, Pilate initially threatened mass slaughter but backed down only when demonstrators bared their necks in defiance: > “They threw themselves upon the ground and bared their necks, calling out that they would gladly die rather than see the laws of their forefathers transgressed… > > Pilate, astonished at their steadfastness, ordered the images to be carried back to Caesarea.” [*Jewish Antiquities*](https://amzn.to/3RROdUN?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Josephus also recounts how Pilate used funds from the Temple treasury *(korbanas*) to build an [aqueduct](https://romanempiretimes.com/marvel-ancient-roman-aqueducts/) — triggering another protest in Jerusalem. This time, Pilate responded with undercover violence: > “He sent armed soldiers, disguised in civilian clothes, to mix with the crowd… > > At a given signal, they attacked the protesters with clubs, many of whom perished under the blows or were trampled to death as they fled in panic.” [*Jewish Antiquities*](https://amzn.to/3RROdUN?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Philo of Alexandria, writing in Embassy to Gaius, echoes Josephus’ portrait but goes even further, painting Pilate as a symbol of imperial arrogance and cruelty. He describes him as: > “...a man of inflexible, stubborn, and cruel disposition, who executed people without trial, and was guilty of countless acts of violence and outrages upon the people.” [*Legatio ad Gaium*](https://amzn.to/3RTACMG?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Philo also recounts the episode of the gilded shields — objects dedicated to Tiberius that Pilate installed in Herod’s palace in Jerusalem. Though they bore no image, their very presence in a holy city sparked public outcry. Pilate refused to remove them until a delegation of Jews appealed directly to the emperor, who ordered the shields taken down and relocated to Caesarea. Taken together, these accounts reveal a man whose governance was harsh and politically clumsy, often insensitive to the religious sensibilities of his subjects. Pilate emerges not as the reluctant executor of Jesus’ death, but as a man already known for provoking unrest and responding with calculated — sometimes brutal — force. ![Model of Herod’s Palace in Jerusalem](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Model-of-Herod-s-Palace-in-Jerusalem.jpg) Model of Herod’s Palace in Jerusalem. Credits: flik47 from Getty Images, by Canva ### The Civil Trial: Pilate, Rome, and the Power to Crucify After the Sanhedrin passed a death sentence on Jesus, they were unable to carry it out themselves. 📜 The Sanhedrin was the supreme council and tribunal of the Jewish people during the Second Temple period, consisting of priests, elders, and legal scholars. Presided over by the high priest — in this case, Caiaphas — the Sanhedrin held authority over religious and civil matters within Judea. However, under Roman rule, they were prohibited from carrying out capital punishment without imperial approval. Thus, after condemning Jesus on the charge of blasphemy, they brought Him to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, and reframed their accusation in political terms to ensure Roman intervention. Under Roman law, Jewish authorities were permitted to handle minor legal matters, but capital punishment was reserved for Roman jurisdiction. Any death sentence issued by a Jewish court had to be brought before the Roman governor, who could either uphold or overturn it. And so, Jesus was led to the judgment seat of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea. Pilate, who had governed the province for several years, represented the authority of Imperial Rome. He ruled from Caesarea Maritima, a coastal city built in Roman style but traveled to Jerusalem during major festivals like Passover to oversee public order. There, he resided in Herod the Great’s former palace — a grand structure near the Temple, where official proceedings often took place in open air. Pilate had a fraught relationship with the Jewish population. Known for his harshness and lack of sympathy toward their religious customs, he had repeatedly provoked unrest and was accused of corruption and brutality. On this occasion, Pilate met the Sanhedrin outside the palace, since they considered entering a Gentile residence during Passover defiling. From a raised platform near the palace’s front colonnade, the trial began, with [Roman soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) standing behind the governor, and the religious leaders presenting their prisoner. Pilate immediately asked for the charges against Jesus. The Jewish authorities, perhaps hoping Pilate would simply confirm their judgment, replied vaguely: > “If he were not a malefactor, we would not have handed him over to you.” But Pilate refused to rubber-stamp the decision. > “Take him and judge him according to your law,” he said — a statement that forced them to admit, with resentment, that only [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) had the authority to carry out an execution. ![A painting by Munkacsy, depicting Jesus Christ in front of Pontius Pilate](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-painting-by-Munkacsy--depicting-Jesus-Christ-in-front-of-Pontius-Pilate.jpg) A painting by Munkacsy, depicting Jesus Christ in front of Pontius Pilate. Public domain Pressed to offer formal accusations, they advanced three claims: that Jesus incited the people, forbade paying taxes to Caesar, and claimed to be a king. Notably, they omitted the charge of blasphemy on which they had convicted Him, knowing Pilate would not entertain a theological dispute. The second charge — that He opposed taxation — directly contradicted Jesus’ own teaching to “render unto Caesar.” The third accusation — that He claimed kingship — was deliberately framed in a political light to suggest sedition. Pilate, skeptical of their motives, likely saw through their manipulations. He knew they delivered Jesus out of envy and possibly had prior knowledge of His teachings. Inside the palace, away from the crowd, he questioned Jesus directly: > “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus responded carefully, asking whether this was Pilate’s own question or one passed along from others. Pilate, impatient, dismissed the nuance: > “Am I a Jew? Your own people have handed you over.” Jesus then explained: His kingdom was not of this world. If it were, His followers would have fought to prevent His arrest. But His kingdom — a kingdom of truth — was different. Pilate, puzzled yet intrigued, asked: > “So, you are a king then?” Jesus answered: > “You say that I am a king. For this reason I was born: to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” But Pilate, worldly and indifferent to spiritual matters, replied: > “What is truth?” — not waiting for an answer. Though unconvinced by the charges and likely seeing Jesus as no political threat, Pilate returned to the crowd and declared: > “I find no fault in him.” *The Project Gutenberg eBook of "The Trial and Death of Jesus Christ: A Devotional History of Our Lord's Passion"* ![A painting by a Hieronymus Bosch follower, where Christ stands calm and radiant amid a grotesque, chaotic mob before Pilate, who prepares to condemn him, the distorted faces and close-up format reflect Flemish devotional art, emphasizing the contrast between divine beauty and human fallenness](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-painting-by-a-Hieronimus-Bosch-follower--where-Christ-stands-calm-and-radiant-amid-a-grotesque--chaotic-mob-before-Pilate--who-prepares-to-condemn-him.jpg) A painting by a Hieronymus Bosch follower, where Christ stands calm and radiant amid a grotesque, chaotic mob before Pilate, who prepares to condemn him, the distorted faces and close-up format reflect Flemish devotional art, emphasizing the contrast between divine beauty and human fallenness. Public domain ### A Time of Handwashing: Pilate’s Gesture on Screen and Its Symbolic Weight [Christopher McDonough](https://amzn.to/4ijIxxy?ref=romanempiretimes.com) in “[*Pontius Pilate on Screen: Sinner, Soldier, Superstar*](https://amzn.to/4ihsAYL?ref=romanempiretimes.com),” explores the enduring impact of the prefect of Judea on cinematic imagination — and nowhere is this more vividly captured than in the recurring dramatization of Pilate’s most famous gesture: the washing of hands. Though drawn from a single Gospel verse (Matthew 27:24), this act has been magnified by generations of filmmakers as a potent symbol of moral ambiguity, powerlessness, and bureaucratic guilt. In the 1927 epic [*King of Kings*](https://amzn.to/4iomFkX?ref=romanempiretimes.com) by Cecil B. DeMille, Pilate’s handwashing becomes an orchestrated ritual. A servant brings a basin and pitcher, and as Pilate ritually cleanses himself, the background displays a [Roman eagle](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-has-the-eagle-become-the-roman-symbol/) — an unmistakable emblem of imperial authority. His gestures — toward Christ, then Caiaphas, then the crowd — dramatize a transfer of responsibility, culminating in a symbolic X formed by Roman and Jewish actors parting ways. This visual geometry not only marks a moment of theatrical absolution but also underscores the political theatre of the scene. More intimate portrayals continue this tradition. In [*Day of Triumph*](https://amzn.to/42ioDhZ?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (1954), Pilate, played by Lowell Gilmore, washes his hands abruptly and hurls down the towel in irritation — a gesture of petulance rather than repentance. In [*Barabbas*](https://amzn.to/4cUFATn?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (1961), Pilate (Arthur Kennedy) performs the act in a public forum, only for Barabbas to mirror the motion at a nearby fountain. This doubling suggests a shared complicity: one man orders death, the other escapes it — but neither walks away unstained. McDonough’s epilogue, fittingly titled *A Time of Handwashing*, reflects on how this ancient moment has been reinterpreted in modern contexts. From pandemic satire in [The Babylon Bee](https://babylonbee.com/news/scholars-now-agree-pontius-pilate-didnt-wash-his-hands-for-20-seconds-bears-some-responsibility-for-jesus-crucifixion?ref=romanempiretimes.com) — which jokes that Pilate didn’t scrub long enough to avoid divine judgment — to the omission of the gesture in Jesus of Nazareth, where Pilate’s decision stands bare and unceremonious, the act continues to evolve. Whether included or left out, it draws attention to the timeless struggle between power, responsibility, and conscience. Across portrayals, Pilate’s hands — washed, unwashed, or trembling — remain a canvas on which filmmakers, theologians, and viewers project their own questions about guilt and evasion. McDonough’s study shows that this one small ritual, performed in the open air of Roman justice, echoes louder than many speeches — not for what it resolved, but for what it revealed. ![A painting by Matthias Stom, depicting Pontius Pilate washing his hands in innocence](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-painting-by-Matthias-Stom--depicting-Pontius-Pilate-washing-his-hands-in-innocence.jpg) A painting by Matthias Stom, depicting Pontius Pilate washing his hands in innocence. Public domain ### Pilate’s Role in the Gospels: Historical Governor or Theological Figure? Stephen Liberty’s “*The Importance of Pontius Pilate in Creed and Gospel*” (The Journal of Theological Studies, 1944) gives us an extensive analysis of the question asked. The striking image of Pontius Pilate washing his hands before the crowd — declaring: > “I am innocent of this man’s blood” — is recorded only in the [*Gospel of Matthew*](https://amzn.to/3Y2uwx6?ref=romanempiretimes.com). While often taken at face value, many scholars argue that this gesture was not a historical Roman custom, but a theological construct. In his article, Stephen Liberty makes the case that Pilate’s entire portrayal in the Gospels — and his enduring presence in Christian creeds — is deeply symbolic. Far from a passive figure in history, Pilate becomes, in the Christian imagination, a paradoxical tool of divine justice and injustice: a Roman governor exercising earthly authority while unknowingly fulfilling a divine plan. Liberty notes that Pilate’s inclusion in the early creeds (“*suffered under Pontius Pilate*”) was not meant to date the crucifixion, but to highlight a theological truth — that the Son of God was judged and condemned by the representative of the greatest earthly power. This had profound rhetorical weight, especially when preaching to the Jewish diaspora, as it explained how the Messiah’s rejection by his own people became the moment when salvation opened to the Gentiles. The trial scene, then, becomes a narrative fulcrum: a moment when Jew and Gentile unite, paradoxically, in the condemnation of Christ, fulfilling the Redeemer’s role in exposing human sin. In this framework, the handwashing scene functions not as a Roman legal formality — for which there is no parallel in Roman sources — but as a deliberate literary gesture. It echoes Jewish purification rituals (see [*Deuteronomy 21:6–9*](https://blesstype.com/bible-kjv-old-testament-deuteronomy/?ref=romanempiretimes.com)), thus resonating with Matthew’s Jewish-Christian audience, while simultaneously illustrating Pilate’s attempt to distance himself from a sentence he himself would ultimately carry out. As Liberty observes, the Gospels are not modern histories but theological texts, shaped by the early Christian community’s need to interpret suffering, rejection, and redemption. Pilate’s gesture, therefore, becomes a dramatic symbol of moral evasion and the collision of earthly rule with eternal truth. In Liberty’s view, the handwashing — like Pilate’s name in the creeds — serves a dual function: it condemns the injustice of secular power and dramatizes the tragic irony of a man who, faced with truth incarnate, chooses the path of caution and ambiguity. By embedding Pilate into the passion narrative and Christian memory, the Gospel of Matthew offers a powerful meditation on how divine purpose unfolds even through political weakness, ethical failure, and ritualized innocence. ![Looking for answers in the Bible](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Looking-for-answers-in-the-Bible.jpg) Looking for answers in the Bible, on whether Pilate actually washed his hands or if it was just an addition of great symbolism to the early Christian faith. Credits: kevron2001 from Getty Images, by Canva ### The Man Behind the Gesture As the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate held the highest authority in the province, responsible for maintaining order and executing justice on behalf of the empire. Yet, when confronted with the case of Jesus of Nazareth, Pilate revealed himself to be a man caught between power and pressure, law and expediency. Historical analyses, such as the one in Michael Nthuping’s “*The Characterisation of Pontius Pilate in the Four Gospels*,” depict Pilate as a figure of contradictions: shrewd enough to recognize Jesus’ innocence, but politically vulnerable enough to yield to public outcry. Without immediate military support during his early years in office, Pilate had to rely on delicate cooperation with the local Jewish elite — a reality that may have influenced his decision to appease the crowd. His reluctance to condemn, his philosophical detachment (“*What is truth?*”), and his symbolic distancing from guilt — captured most vividly in the Gospel of Matthew’s handwashing scene — all point to a man struggling to preserve authority while relinquishing responsibility. In the end, Pilate’s gesture, whether historical or literary, reflects a universal temptation: to claim innocence while enabling injustice. And in that quiet moment at the edge of history, Pontius Pilate became not just a Roman governor, but a mirror for power itself. In that moment, as water trickled through Pilate’s fingers, **history slipped through them too**. ### Why did the Romans kill Jesus? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-kill-jesus/ Last updated: 2026-04-01T12:10:28.000Z The [crucifixion](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/crucifixion/) of Jesus is a central event in [Christian history](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/) but why did the Romans kill him? What was the motive behind Jesus’ death? The crucifixion of Jesus involves multiple layers of political, social, and religious contexts. The Romans, who controlled Judea during the time of Jesus, played a crucial role in his execution. 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in April 2024\. It was updated in April 2026.* ### What was the background before Jesus’s death? Judea was under Roman occupation, and the Roman governor Pontius Pilate was responsible for maintaining law and order. The Romans were particularly sensitive to any form of rebellion or unrest that could threaten their control. Christianity emerged in Judea during the mid-first century CE, initially centered on the teachings of Jesus and later expanded through the writings and missionary efforts of Paul of Tarsus. At its inception, Christianity was a small and loosely organized sect that offered the promise of personal salvation after death. This salvation was attainable through faith in Jesus as *the son of God*, the same deity worshipped by Jews. Early Christians debated whether their message should be exclusive to Jews or if it should also include Gentiles. Over time, Christianity attracted adherents not only from Jewish communities but also from various parts of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/). Jesus was a peasant from a small town in a Roman province, distant from the hubs of political and religious authority. Individuals in such situations rarely posed any significant threat to Roman power. As a Jewish prophet and teacher known for performing miracles, **Jesus did not present a typical threat** to the Roman authorities. He neither took up arms nor encouraged his followers to do so. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/) was highly vigilant regarding any potential uprisings. When actions of individuals or groups appeared even remotely seditious, Rome responded with swift and decisive violence. The Romans crucified hundreds, if not thousands of people—primarily slaves and suspected revolutionaries—and frequently employed military force in the provinces. Given that Jesus was crucified, it is evident that he was executed by the Roman authorities (Jewish authorities did not practice crucifixion). Although Jesus did not wield conventional political power, his actions and teachings posed threats to the existing order. One of the most significant threats Jesus posed was his ability to attract large crowds. The gospels describe how great crowds followed him. When he entered Jerusalem during the last week of his life, he was welcomed with local fanfare. His popularity, combined with the gathering of possibly hundreds of thousands of pilgrims in Jerusalem for Passover, would have made Roman authorities extremely uneasy. ![Jesus had such a popularity and crowd-gathering ability, that might have made the Romans feel uneasy.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/06/Jesus-preaching-in-front-of-large-crowd-judea.jpg) Jesus had such a popularity and crowd-gathering ability, that might have made the Romans feel uneasy. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### Why did the Romans crucify Jesus? The Romans crucified Jesus because the *Sanhedrin* condemned him to death for blasphemy, claiming he declared himself to be the Messiah, the Son of God. While the accounts in Mark and Matthew align on this narrative, Luke does not mention any condemnation by the Sanhedrin or accusations of blasphemy, and John does not reference any Sanhedrin meeting on the night of Jesus' arrest. These **discrepancies in the biblical accounts** suggest that the motivations and events leading to Jesus' crucifixion may not have been entirely consistent. What is clear is that Jesus was executed on political charges. Many people believe that Jesus fell foul of the authorities because he committed blasphemy or offended the religious leaders of his day (such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees of the Sanhedrin). Jesus had been referred as the *King of the Jews* by his followers. This title was interpreted politically, not spiritually as the biblical text insinuates. Being a king meant being the political leader of the people of Israel, a role that could only be appointed by the Roman governor or someone the Romans approved of, like Herod. Anyone else claiming to be king was seen as usurping Roman authority and was viewed as a threat or a public nuisance. So, although the Romans were indifferent to Jewish blasphemy or internal Jewish disputes about doctrine and practice, they could not allow for the threat of insurgency, and had methods for dealing with lower-class peasants who were seen as troublemakers or public nuisances. **They crucified them.** ![A depiction of the Raising of the Cross, by Sebastiano Mazzoni, 17th century, Ca' Rezzonico](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/06/Ca-_Rezzonico_-_Innalzamento_della_Croce_-Inv.065-_-_Sebastiano_Mazzoni.jpg) A depiction of the Raising of the Cross, by Sebastiano Mazzoni, 17th century, Ca' Rezzonico. Credits: Didier Descouens and one more author, Public domain There are numerous reasons to believe this was indeed the charge against Jesus. Contextually, it makes sense, as the Romans did not execute people without a cause or simply for offending Jewish religious sensibilities. More importantly, this charge is consistently mentioned in multiple sources, including the accounts in Mark and John, during both the trial and crucifixion scenes. Additionally, this charge is unlikely to have been fabricated by early Christians, as it meets the criterion of dissimilarity. The term "King of the Jews" is significant. Jesus never uses it to refer to himself in the Gospels, nor is it a term used by any first-century Christian author to describe him. Its presence as the charge against him at his trial and on the placard at his crucifixion strongly suggests it was indeed the **genuine charge** brought against him. ### What was Pontius Pilate’s role? Pontius Pilate is a crucial figure in Christian history because of his involvement in the trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. In historical terms, Pilate was the Roman prefect (governor) of Judea from 26 to 36 CE, serving under [Emperor Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/). During his tenure, Pilate made a significant decision that led to the execution of a Jewish rebel, Jesus of Nazareth, and his decision inadvertently contributed to the foundation of Christianity, which would grow into a major world religion. Josephus Flavius, a Roman-Jewish historian, writing approximately fifty years after Pontius Pilate sentenced Jesus Christ to death, offers an insightful historical view of this elusive Roman official. According to Josephus, Pilate funded the construction of an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem using money from the Temple treasury, sparking public outrage. Unlike previous instances, Pilate did not yield to the protesters' demands. Instead, he sent plain-clothed soldiers to blend in with the crowd. At his signal, these soldiers used clubs hidden in their garments to assault the protesters, resulting in the deaths of many demonstrators. Josephus also documented Pilate's notorious role in the execution of Jesus. Unfortunately, **the original account is lost**, and the existing version is widely discredited by scholars. Despite its altered state, Josephus' account depicts a Roman governor tasked with maintaining peace in one of the Empire's most volatile provinces. Pontius Pilate appears to have managed this effectively, retaining his position for ten years, which is notably long given the frequent tensions and uprisings in the region. ![Print of Christus with Pontius Pilate. Made in the 16th century](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/06/Christus_bij_Pilatus.jpg) Print of Christus with Pontius Pilate. Made in the 16th century. Credits: Unknown author, CC BY-SA 4.0 Shortly after Jesus' trial, Pontius Pilate faded from historical records. According to Flavius Josephus and [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/), after brutally suppressing a suspected Samaritan uprising, he was summoned back to Rome by his superior, the legate of Syria, to justify his actions before [Emperor Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/villa-jovis-the-secret-lair-for-the-dark-pleasures-of-an-old-emperor/). This is the last historical mention of Pilate, who inadvertently played a significant role in the development of Christianity. Pilate's recall in 36/37 CE coincided with Tiberius' death, so his trial would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the new emperor, [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-caligula-mad-or-just-sick/). It is unclear if a hearing ever took place, as new emperors often dismissed pending legal cases from their predecessor’s reign or granted pardons. Pilate might have been among those acquitted after Caligula's ascension. However, the fourth-century church historian Eusebius claims that, according to tradition, Pilate committed suicide after being recalled to Rome due to disgrace. There is **no historical evidence** supporting this claim. Some traditions, including those of the Coptic Church, suggest that Pilate converted to Christianity and is venerated as a saint. ### How do the Gospels present the story? The account of Jesus' final days, a fundamental aspect of Christianity, is widely known. Accused of making false messianic claims and viewed as a threat due to his teachings, Jesus was arrested by the Jewish priestly council, the Sanhedrin, during the Passover festival. They brought Jesus before Pontius Pilate to be tried for blasphemy—specifically for claiming to be the King of the Jews. This was a serious charge, as the only legitimate authority in Judea was the Roman emperor and his representative, the prefect and procurator. However, the Gospels depict Pontius Pilate not as a harsh official but as a hesitant judge. According to the Gospel of Mark, Pilate tried to defend Jesus but ultimately gave in to the crowd’s demands. The Gospel of Matthew adds a dramatic scene where Pilate washes his hands before the crowd, declaring himself innocent of Jesus’ blood in an attempt to distance himself from responsibility for Jesus' fate. The crowd's response, "*His blood be on us and our children*," as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, has had a profound and tragic impact on history, as this line has been misused to justify anti-Semitic attitudes and actions over the centuries. ![Pontius Pilate washing his hands has been one of the core scenes in Christian belief](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/06/Pontius-Pilate-washing-hands.jpg) Pontius Pilate washing his hands has been one of the core scenes in Christian belief. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ## What are the existing references to Jesus? Within a century of the traditional date of Jesus's death, Roman authors mention him on three occasions. Notably, none of these references were made during Jesus's lifetime or even in the first century of Christianity. These authors were writing about eighty to eighty-five years after the traditional date of his death. ### **Pliny the Younger** The first surviving reference to Jesus from a non-Christian, non-Jewish source appears in the writings of [Pliny the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/), who was the governor of the Roman province of Bithynia-Pontus in Asia Minor (now Turkey). Pliny is distinguished from his famous uncle, [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/), a renowned natural scientist who tragically died investigating the [eruption of Mount Vesuvius](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/) in 79 CE. Pliny the Younger observed the eruption from a safe distance and documented it in his writings. Among early Christianity scholars, Pliny the Younger is best known for a series of letters to the [Roman emperor Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/), in which he sought advice on governing his province. **Letter number 10**, written in 112 CE, is particularly significant as it contains what appears to be a mention of Jesus. However, the letter itself addresses a political issue rather than focusing on Jesus directly. In Pliny's province, a law had been enacted that prohibited social gatherings to prevent potential political uprisings. This law inadvertently included fire brigades, leading to a lack of effective fire-fighting measures and resulting in villages burning down. In his letter number 10 to the Emperor, Pliny discusses the fire problem and, in that context, mentions another group that was illegally gathering—the local community of Christians. Pliny learned from reliable sources that the Christians gathered early in the morning, including people from various socioeconomic levels, and ate meals of common food. He likely mentioned this to **counter rumors of cannibalism**, as Christians were said to *eat the flesh of the Son of God* and *drink his blood*. Pliny informs the Emperor that the Christians "*sing hymns to Christ as to a god*." **This brief mention of Jesus is significant** as Pliny notes that the Christians worshipped him by singing to him. Pliny refers to him as Christ, not Jesus, which suggests he may not have known Jesus's actual name. This reference confirms that Christians were worshipping Christ in the early second century in Asia Minor, information already known from other Christian sources. ![Pliny the Elder composing his letters to Emperor Trajan.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/06/Pliny-the-elder-writing-letter-10-to-emperor-trajan.jpg) Pliny the Younger composing his letters to Emperor Trajan. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### **Suetonius** Another reference is found in the writings of the [Roman biographer Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/), best known for his twelve biographies of Roman emperors. In his biography of [Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/claudius/), emperor of Rome from 41 to 54 CE, Suetonius mentions that Claudius deported all the Jews from Rome because of riots instigated by "*Chrestus*". This name has led scholars to speculate that Suetonius was referring to Christ and the tensions caused by Jewish Christians in Rome. This theory finds some support in the New Testament book of Acts (18:2). However, since Chrestus was a common name, it's possible Suetonius referred to another individual entirely. ### **Tacitus** Lastly, the Roman historian Tacitus provides a more promising reference to Jesus. Tacitus mentions [Christians and their persecution](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/) under Nero, providing valuable evidence for the existence and early spread of Christianity. Tacitus wrote his famous *Annals of Imperial Rome* in 115 CE as a history of the empire from 14 to 68 CE. Probably the best-known single passage of this sixteen-volume work is the one in which he discusses the fire that consumed a good portion of Rome during the [reign of the emperor Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), in 64 CE. According to Tacitus, it was the Emperor himself who had [arranged for arsonists to set fire to the city](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) because he wanted to implement his own architectural plans and could not very well do so while the older parts of the city were still standing. But the plan backfired, as many citizens—including those, no doubt, who had been burned out of house and home-suspected that the emperor himself was responsible. Nero needed to shift the blame onto someone else, and so, according to Tacitus, he claimed that the Christians had done it. The populace at large was willing to believe the charge, Tacitus tells us, because the Christians were widely maligned for their "hatred of the human race". And so Nero had the Christians rounded up and executed in very public, painful, and humiliating ways. Some of them, Tacitus indicates, were rolled in pitch and set aflame while still alive to light Nero's gardens; others were wrapped in fresh animal skins and had wild dogs set on them, tearing them to shreds. ![Wild dogs in a Roman arena, violently attacking Christians at the orders of Emperor Nero.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/06/Wild-dogs-attacking-christians-roman-arena-nero.jpg) Wild dogs in a Roman arena, violently attacking Christians at the orders of Emperor Nero. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney In the context of this gory account, Tacitus explains that: > "Nero falsely accused those whom... the populace called Christians. > > The author of this name, Christ, was put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate, while Tiberius was emperor; but the dangerous superstition, though suppressed for the moment, broke out again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but even in the city \[of Rome\]." Once again, Jesus is not actually named here, but it is obvious in this instance that he is the one being referred to and that Tacitus knows some very basic information about him. He was called Christ, he was executed at the order of Pontius Pilate, and this was during the reign of Tiberius. Moreover, this happened in Judea, presumably, since that was where Pilate was the governor and since that was where Jesus's followers originated. All of this confirms information otherwise available from Christian sources, as we will see. At the same time, the information is not particularly helpful in establishing that there really lived a man named Jesus. How would Tacitus know what he knew? It is obvious that he had heard of Jesus, but he was writing some eighty-five years after Jesus would have died, and by that time Christians were certainly telling stories of Jesus (the Gospels had been written already, for example), whether the mythicists are wrong or right. It should be clear in any event that **Tacitus is basing his comment about Jesus on hearsay** rather than, say, detailed historical research. Had he done serious research, one might have expected him to say more, if even just a bit. But even more to the point, brief though his comment is, Tacitus is precisely wrong in one thing he says; he calls Pilate the "procurator" of Judea. We now know from the inscription discovered in 1961 at Caesarea that as governor, Pilate had the title and rank, not of procurator (*one who dealt principally with revenue collection*), but of prefect (*one who also had military forces at his command*). This must show that Tacitus did not look up any official record of what happened to Jesus, written at the time of his execution (*if in fact such a record ever existed, which is highly doubtful*). He therefore had heard the information, but whether he heard it from Christians or someone else, we cannot know. ### What did “Son of God” mean in a world already ruled by emperors claiming divine sonship? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/what-did-son-of-god-mean-in-a-world-already-ruled-by-emperors-claiming-divine-sonship/ Last updated: 2026-03-24T17:02:04.000Z The title “Son of God” is so familiar now that it can seem to belong only to Christian theology. Yet in the first-century Roman world, it did not arrive in an empty religious landscape. It entered an [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/) already shaped by divine honors, imperial family language, and rulers whose power was expressed in terms that blurred the line between human and divine. To ask what “Son of God” meant in that world is to ask how early Christian language sounded in an age when [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), too, could be called the sons of gods. ### Hearing “Son of God” in the Roman World To approach the phrase “Son of God” in the first century requires stepping into a world very different from a modern one. A Jew living under Roman rule did not move through life as an autonomous individual protected by personal liberties. Life unfolded within an empire, and that imperial setting shaped the way power, fame, and identity were understood. Whether one lived in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/), [Alexandria](https://romanempiretimes.com/appian-of-alexandria-the-greek-historian-who-explained-romes-empire/), or Jerusalem, the emperor stood over ordinary existence as the most powerful and visible figure in the world, even for people who had never seen him in person. ![Gold Aureus of Vespasian, Rome ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Gold-Aureus-of-Vespasian--1--1.jpg) Gold Aureus of Vespasian, Rome. Public domain That distance did not make him unfamiliar. Stories about the emperor circulated everywhere—stories about his words, his deeds, his triumphs, even his childhood. His face appeared on [coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/), while statues displayed not only him but his whole family. For many people, the emperor’s image may have been more familiar than their own reflection. He was known through narrative, public display, and constant repetition. In an age before private likenesses and daily self-regard, the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-shadow-of-the-dagger-assassinations-of-roman-emperors/)’s face was one of the most widely recognized in the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/). Alongside that imperial world stood another figure also known through report rather than direct sight. Jesus, too, was encountered through stories passed on by those who claimed to have known him. Those stories told of what he said and did, of his death, and of his later appearance in glory. They were believed, repeated, and treated as life-giving. But turning that shared memory into a narrative posed its own problem. There was no detailed knowledge of his childhood, no secure picture of what he looked like, and no simple way to begin the story of his life. The difficulty deepened when it came to the title itself. Jesus was proclaimed as “Son of God,” he addressed God as “father,” and those around him spoke of a new family formed in relation to that fatherhood. That language could be lived and confessed, but narrating it was another matter. For a Jewish writer, the problem was especially sharp because Israel’s God did not have a divine consort and did not beget children in the way many gods in the wider Roman world were imagined to do. That made the task unusual from the start: if God did not procreate, then how was one to tell the life of God’s son? The question, then, was not simply what to say about Jesus, but how to begin telling such a story at all. This problem is what gives the phrase “Son of God” its force in the Roman world. It did not appear in a vacuum. It was heard within a social and political order already saturated with family language, dynastic claims, public ritual, and imperial imagery. It belonged to a world in which fatherhood and sonship could never be merely private matters. They were bound up with inheritance, legitimacy, rank, and power. ### Reading the Phrase Before Later Theology The meaning of “Son of God” now feels stable because centuries of[ Christian](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/) usage have made it so familiar. It seems to come already packaged with later doctrinal meanings. The Son is imagined as eternally begotten of the Father, distinct yet one in being, divine in a way carefully defined by later theology. That framework is familiar because it became standard. But it does not belong to the first-century Roman world. ![Statue of Jesus Christ in Bcharre, Lebanon](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Statue-of-Jesus-Christ-in-Bcharre--Lebanon--1--1.jpg) Statue of Jesus Christ in Bcharre, Lebanon. Credits: Vyacheslav Argenberg, CC BY 4.0 A major difficulty in interpreting early Christian divine sonship is that later theological language has often been allowed to govern earlier evidence. Questions that became central in the fourth century—whether the Son implied absolute divinity, whether he was begotten or made, when he came into existence—have often been pushed backward into the first century as though they were already the obvious questions to ask. Yet in the social and political world in which the New Testament emerged, those were not the governing terms of discussion. Even when the distinction between “begotten” and “made” mattered, it did not yet carry the highly technical metaphysical weight it would later acquire. A different approach begins by setting aside those later categories and asking instead what the phrase would have sounded like in its own time. That means listening to the Roman world itself: its religion, its practices of honor, its imperial household, and its family ideology. Once that happens, divine sonship starts to look less like a problem of abstract theology and more like a problem of public meaning. The phrase must be heard not in the light of Nicea, but in the light of [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/). That shift in approach changes the kinds of evidence that matter. Philosophical treatises remain part of the picture, but they can no longer dominate it. Rituals, inscriptions, dedications, priesthoods, public honors, and images become equally important. In that broader field, divine language is no longer limited to intellectual speculation. It belongs to the public life of [cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), to the commemorative life of monuments, and to the symbolic life of the imperial family. ### Divinity as Status, Not Essence Modern ways of thinking about divinity have been deeply shaped by Platonism and Christianity. Together, those traditions made it natural to imagine the divine as a distinct essence or nature, sharply separated from the human by an absolute divide. In that framework, the gods belong to one realm, human beings to another, and the problem of religion becomes the problem of crossing the gulf between them. But that way of thinking does not fit the Roman world very well. Recent scholarship on [Roman religion](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-religion-of-ancient-rome-how-roman-worshipped-their-gods/) has increasingly argued that divinity in the Roman world was not understood primarily as fixed essence. It was more often understood as status, power, and position within a wider cosmic and social order. The divine realm was not conceived as wholly detached from the human one in the later metaphysical sense. It belonged instead to a spectrum in which rank, honor, and benefaction mattered more than abstract definitions of being. This does not mean that [gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) and humans were simply interchangeable. It means that the Roman world did not organize divinity around one unbridgeable abyss between them. This change in perspective has been especially important in the study of emperor worship. Once one moves away from a model that asks whether a ruler was “really” divine in an essential sense, older problems become less perplexing. The emperor could be treated as both human and divine because Roman religion did not require a choice between those categories in the later philosophical sense. ![ Presumed temple of Jupiter, where there was a frieze adorned with figurative shields, which are believed to have borne the signs of the Zodiac](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Temple-of-Jupiter--1--1.jpg) Presumed temple of Jupiter, where there was a frieze adorned with figurative shields, which are believed to have borne the signs of the Zodiac. Credits: IssamBarhoumi, CC BY 4.0 Divine honors were not automatically false because they were given to a ruler. They belonged to the same social world that rewarded extraordinary benefaction with extraordinary honor. The same change in perspective affects the study of Roman religious evidence more generally. Older scholarship often relied heavily on elite philosophical texts and asked what Romans believed about the gods. More recent work has widened the evidence base considerably. [Temples](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/), priesthoods, inscriptions, papyri, sacrifices, libations, hymns, processions, oaths, images, and dedications all become central. Religion appears not as a tidy intellectual system but as a complex field of public and communal practice. That shift from inward belief to enacted religion matters. It makes it harder to dismiss Roman religious life as hollow or merely formal. It also makes it harder to treat emperor worship as an anomaly. Once ritual practice is taken seriously, emperor worship begins to look less like a curious distortion and more like a central expression of Roman religious life. The emperor received temples, sacrifices, priesthoods, dedications, and honors across the empire. These were not marginal acts, and they were not confined to one region. They formed part of a broad and durable religious landscape. ### Why Emperor Worship No Longer Looks Like a Problem Older scholarship often struggled with emperor worship because it assumed that no thinking person could really treat a human being as divine. From one angle, emperor worship was interpreted as top-down manipulation: an instrument of government imposed from above. From another, it was seen as empty flattery: people outwardly participating in a cult they did not inwardly believe. Both explanations depended on the assumption that the emperor’s humanity made genuine divine honor impossible. That assumption has become much harder to sustain. Once scholars began to focus on material evidence and ritual practice, the scale and seriousness of emperor worship became impossible to ignore. The evidence shows that it was geographically widespread, socially broad, and deeply integrated into local life. It involved local [elites](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/), municipal institutions, freedmen, associations, [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/), and provincial communities. It was not restricted to one corner of the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/), nor was it limited to posthumous rulers. Living emperors, members of the imperial family, and the emperor’s genius and numen all received cultic honors. This has also changed the way power is understood. Emperor worship was not simply imposed from Rome on unwilling subjects. Local communities often took the initiative. They used the emperor’s cult to express loyalty, display status, negotiate favor, and locate themselves within the structures of empire. In that sense, emperor worship belonged to the ordinary Roman logic of honor for benefaction. ![Lionel Royer - Vercingetorix Throwing down His Weapons at the feet of Julius Caesar](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Lionel-Royer---Vercingetorix-Throwing-down-His-Weapons-at-the-feet-of-Julius-Caesar--1--1.jpg) Lionel Royer - Vercingetorix Throwing down His Weapons at the feet of Julius Caesar. Public domain Great benefactions called forth great honors. If a ruler’s power and generosity were perceived as extraordinary enough, the honors could take divine form. That logic makes better sense of the emperor’s divinity than the older choice between sincerity and cynicism. The emperor’s cult was neither just administrative theater nor a misunderstanding. It was part of a religious system in which divinity could be enacted through honor, ritual, and public recognition. Over time, repeated benefaction and repeated worship could stabilize divine status more firmly, especially within the imperial household. Divinity remained dynamic, but it was not therefore unreal. This revised understanding also changes the meaning of the language used for the emperor. Terms such as *deus, divus*, and *theos* did not always preserve the rigid distinctions that later readers wanted to find in them. The same term could carry different resonances in different contexts, and [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/)\-speaking regions in particular did not preserve a neat Latin contrast. The result is that divine language about the emperor was broader, more flexible, and more socially embedded than older models allowed. ### The Title That Helped Build Augustus Within that religious and political world, the title “Son of God” took on extraordinary force through the rise of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/). The basic outline is familiar. [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) was treated as divine by some during his lifetime and was formally deified after his death. Octavian, later Augustus, used his status as Caesar’s son to strengthen his legitimacy in the struggle for power. He could therefore call himself *divi filius*, “son of god.” Yet the title did not become powerful simply because it sounded grand. It worked because [Roman society](https://romanempiretimes.com/inside-roman-society-how-ordinary-life-shaped-an-extraordinary-empire-part-2/) already understood sonship in deeply public and legal terms. Sonship was not only a matter of biological descent. It was tied to inheritance, succession, family continuity, public identity, and the transmission of status. In that setting, the title *divi filius* was more than honorific ornament. It announced a recognizable relationship and grounded Octavian’s claim to rule in a form that people could understand. The striking fact is that Augustus was not Julius Caesar’s biological son. He was his adopted son. That fact is central. The title “Son of God” did not begin with a natural son inheriting his father’s divinity by blood. It began with adoption. That immediately complicates later assumptions about divine sonship. In the Roman world, “son” could be a matter of legal and social transmission, not only biological descent. [Adoption](https://romanempiretimes.com/to-adopt-or-not-to-adopt-rome-took-a-clear-position/) was not a secondary or weaker form of sonship. It was one of the principal ways Roman family and political life worked. Augustus could also draw on more than one form of divine connection. Claims about divine ancestry and divine favor were available to him as well. But the title that proved most effective was the immediate one: son of the deified Caesar. That relationship, rather than some remote mythical genealogy, did the most work in building the new imperial ideology. It gave Roman dynastic politics a new language, and that language would shape the imperial family for generations. ### Sons by Birth, Sons by Law Once the title was established, it continued to develop through the imperial family. Yet it did not do so smoothly. The early principate struggled to produce a stable line of natural sons, and imperial succession repeatedly depended on adoption. This meant that divine sonship in the Roman world could not be reduced to biological begetting. It had to include sons who were “made” through adoption as well as sons who were begotten. This distinction mattered because the Roman imperial family was closely watched. People across the empire took note of who had been born into the house, who had been adopted into it, and who was emerging as the rightful heir. Divine sonship, therefore, was not just a word attached to the emperor. It was connected to visible processes of family formation and succession. During the Julio-Claudian period in particular, the making of imperial sons remained meaningful and publicly legible. At first glance, the title “Son of God” might seem to have become merely honorific over time. The fact that later emperors could bear it more loosely might encourage that reading. But the evidence suggests a more complex picture. Through much of the first century, divine sonship continued to carry real family and dynastic weight. It was not detached from succession, even if it was capable of broadening into more general exaltation. ![Bronze statue of Augustus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Bronze-statue-of-Augustus--1--1.jpg) Bronze statue of Augustus. Credits: Deiadameian, CC BY 4.0 Only later did the title begin to loosen more fully from its original family logic. By the time of the Flavians, an emperor such as [Vespasian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/) could be called “son of god” without the same direct adoptive or biological relationship that had anchored the title under [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/). That did not erase its earlier meaning. It showed rather that the title could now operate on both levels at once: as part of a dynastic framework and as a broader mark of imperial exaltation. In that sense, the distinction between begotten and made already mattered in Roman public life long before it became a technical theological issue. In the Roman world, it was not first an abstract problem of essence. It was a practical question of family, legitimacy, and political order. ### Why the Phrase Already Carried Weight This Roman background matters because it shows that divine sonship already carried strong social and political meaning before Christians applied the title to Jesus. It was not an empty phrase waiting to be filled. It already belonged to a world in which emperors could be called sons of god, and in which sonship itself was shaped by inheritance, legitimacy, adoption, and family ideology. That does not mean early Christian language was identical to imperial language. It does mean that the phrase entered a world already trained to hear father-son language in public and political terms. Claims about divine sonship were not heard innocently. They came into a setting where family, power, worship, and legitimacy were already entangled. In that setting, the divine sonship of Jesus could be expressed in more than one way—through Davidic descent, miraculous birth, baptism, election, or adoption-like language—because the wider world already held multiple models of sonship together. The Roman world had shown that sonship could be articulated through more than one mode, and that complexity belongs to the first-century evidence itself. It is not simply a later confusion introduced by theology. The result is that “Son of God” in the Roman world cannot be reduced either to later Nicene doctrine or to a simple imperial slogan. It belonged to a field of meanings already shaped by Roman religion, emperor worship, family practice, and dynastic ideology. To hear the phrase in its first-century setting is therefore to hear both divine status and family succession at once. ("The Son of God in the Roman World. Divine Sonship in Its Social and Political Context by Michael Peppard) The title “Son of God” is so familiar now that it can seem to belong only to Christian theology. Yet in the first-century Roman world, it did not arrive in an empty religious landscape. It entered an empire already shaped by divine honors, imperial family language, and rulers whose power was expressed in terms that blurred the line between human and divine. To ask what “Son of God” meant in that world is to ask how early Christian language sounded in an age when emperors, too, could be called the sons of gods. ### Eumachia: The Unknown Powerful Woman of Pompeii URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/eumachia-the-unknown-woman-of-pompeii/ Last updated: 2026-03-20T20:13:40.000Z In the heart of ancient Pompeii, a woman’s name once stood where everyone could see it—cut into stone above a grand public entrance, facing the busiest civic space in town. Eumachia did not survive in epic poetry or imperial histories; she survives in something more Roman, more durable: inscriptions, buildings, and the public honor of her fellow citizens. ### Who Eumachia was Eumachia is one of those rare figures who steps out of antiquity not through a long narrative, but in a handful of sharply focused facts. The clearest of those facts is how she presented herself publicly: Eumachia, daughter of Lucius, public priestess—and a benefactor bold enough to say so on the fabric of the city. Her “public priestess” title (*sacerdos publica*) matters. In Roman civic life, religion was not private sentiment; it was public office, public prestige, public visibility. A *sacerdos publica* is not a household devotee but a [woman](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) recognized by the community as fit to represent the city in ritual space. That alone implies status. But Eumachia’s inscription adds something more: she had the money—enough to fund a monumental complex—without needing a husband or a magistracy to speak on her behalf. Her family background is partly inferential, but the clues point toward the prosperous, commercially grounded elite of [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/). Modern discussion links the Eumachii to industries like tiles and ceramics through stamped building materials, suggesting that their wealth could be made as well as inherited. This is a very Roman story: in a booming Campanian town, business success could translate into civic prominence—especially when it was converted into generous public spending. Eumachia also wrote her benefaction as a family project. The main dedication is made “in her own name and in the name of her son, Marcus Numistrius Fronto.” On the surface this is affectionate and dutiful—an elite woman tying public generosity to household continuity. But it is also political language in stone: a lasting announcement that the family belongs among the city’s leading names. In Roman towns, buildings were reputations you could walk through. Eumachia understood that perfectly. If much of Eumachia’s life is silent to us, one thing is not: her confidence. She does not appear as someone hidden behind male guardianship. The inscriptions imagine her as a civic actor—religious officeholder, donor, commemorator—whose identity is legible without explanation. That is exactly why she matters. ### What she built and why it mattered Eumachia’s most famous act was architectural. She funded major elements of the large forum-side complex now associated with her name, and the inscription is unusually explicit about what she paid for: a *chalcidicum,* a *crypta*, and *porticus*. ![Eumachia Building (side perspective)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/eumachia-building-landscape--1--1.jpg) Eumachia Building (side perspective). Credits: Francesco Domenico D'Auria CC BY-SA 3.0 The terminology can sound technical, but the idea is clear. The *chalcidicum* is best understood as a deep, monumental porch or vestibule—an impressive threshold that turns entry into ceremony. The *porticus* are the *colonnades*, the ordered lines of columns that frame movement and give a public building its sense of dignity and rhythm. The *crypta* (here not a tomb, but a covered gallery/corridor) creates shaded circulation and “inner” space—ideal for meetings, display, and controlled access. Together, they make a complex that is not merely functional but performative: it stages status and community. Dating remains debated in scholarship, but most treatments place the project in the early Imperial period; official interpretive materials often narrow this to the years around AD 2–3, while scholarly discussion keeps a broader early first-century frame. Most revealing of all is what she dedicated the building to: *Concordia Augusta* and *Pietas*. These are not random divine names. They are virtues—social harmony and dutiful loyalty—shot through with Augustan-era political meaning. Eumachia’s gift is therefore not only civic generosity; it is civic messaging, aligning her monument with the moral language of the new imperial order while also elevating her own prestige within it. ### The fullers, the wool world, and the debate Eumachia’s connection to the wool and textile economy enters the story through another inscription—short, blunt, and socially loaded. The *fullones*, the professional fullers who cleaned and finished cloth, set up an honorific dedication to her. That public honor suggests a relationship of patronage or protective sponsorship: a major occupational group thought she mattered enough to honor her formally, in stone, in a prominent civic context. But what was the building for? Here the debate begins. Older interpretations sometimes imagined it as a kind of textile exchange or even a functional space linked to the industry. Modern archaeological work has pushed back against single-function labels, emphasizing that the complex likely served multiple roles—meeting space, display space, transactional space—rather than operating as a working “factory.” In other words, even if it related to commerce, it was commerce conducted in the language of civic grandeur, not workshop labor. That is a key distinction, and it helps explain why a guild would honor her: the building offered status and visibility as much as utility. ### The Building in the Forum The Building of Eumachia has long stood at the center of debate because of its size, its position, and the woman who gave it her name. Rising on the east side of [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-tavern-inn-wine-bar-the-hospitality-business-of-an-ancient-roman-city/)’s Forum, directly along one of the city’s most important urban lines, it was too large and too prominent to be a marginal structure. Only the Basilica was bigger. ![Edificio di Eumachia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Eumachia-s-building-1.jpg) Edificio di Eumachia. Credits: Mentnafunangann, CC BY-SA 3.0 Its façade formed part of the Forum colonnade, and its dedication made its public meaning unmistakable: Eumachia, a public priestess, built and dedicated it in her own name and in that of her son to Concordia Augusta and Pietas. That already tells us something important. This was not a private house, nor a modest family donation, but a monument meant to be seen, entered, and remembered. 💡 ****EUMACHIA L(uci) F(ilia) SACERD(OS) PVBLICA NOMINE SVO ET M(arci) NVMISTRI FRONTONIS FILI CHALCIDICVM CRYPTAM PORTICVS CONCORDIAE AVGVSTAE PIETATI SVAE PEQVNIA FECIT EADEMQVE DEDICAVIT**. ****“Eumachia, daughter of Lucius, public priestess, in her own name and in that of her son Marcus Numistrius Fronto, built the chalcidicum, crypt, and porticoes at her own expense, and dedicated them to Concordia Augusta and Pietas.”** Its layout helps explain why the building has been so difficult to define. At the front stood a deep porch opening toward the Forum. Behind it lay a large colonnaded court, with a surrounding covered corridor. The complex could also be reached from the Via dell’Abbondanza, and some of its entrances were arranged in ways that suggest controlled access rather than free circulation. There were porter’s lodges, doors that could be supervised, and architectural features that seem designed to separate those with business inside from the ordinary flow of traffic outside. That does not fit very comfortably with the image of a simple market open to everyone at all times. Older attempts to explain the building often tied it directly to Pompeii’s cloth trade. Because the fullers dedicated a statue to Eumachia inside the complex, and because earlier excavators reported vats, basins, and tables in the court, some scholars thought they had found either a fullery or a cloth market. From there, more elaborate explanations followed: the front porch was imagined as a place for auctions, the inner colonnades as areas for displaying textiles, and the central apse as a kind of tribunal for commercial disputes. Those readings had obvious appeal, especially in a city so closely associated with textile production and finishing. That interpretation, however, became much harder to sustain once the evidence was examined more closely. The vats and basins in the court were later understood not as permanent fixtures of a working fullery, but as temporary features connected with repairs after the earthquake of AD 62\. More importantly, the plan of the building does not resemble what one would expect from a true retail market. Its interior spaces are long passageways and an open court rather than a practical arrangement of booths or shops. Even more striking, the entrances do not seem well suited to the movement of large quantities of goods. Instead, they suggest monitoring and restriction. If the building had really functioned as a major cloth bazaar essential to the city’s daily economy, it is difficult to explain why its design worked against that purpose. ![Some of the columns of the portico of the Eumachia Building.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Eumachia-Building-Portico--1--1.jpg) Some of the columns of the portico of the Eumachia Building. Credits: daryl\_mitchell CC BY-SA 2.0 A more persuasive reading sees the building not as a retail market but as a focal point for the city’s wool and cloth interests at a higher level. In that interpretation, the inner spaces were less about everyday selling and more about controlled access, meetings, and business conducted by people with a right to be there. The *porticus* and *crypta* would have offered seclusion, shade, and privacy—something closer to an elite commercial meeting place than to a street [market](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/). The upper rooms may also have had an administrative function. In this reading, the fullers’ dedication makes excellent sense: the building mattered to them, but not because it was a workshop. It mattered because it stood at the center of the trade world that supported their work. The most suggestive feature in this argument is the porch itself. One of the two raised platforms in the front seems to have been genuinely usable, while the other was effectively decorative, preserving visual symmetry. That detail matters because it points toward a very specific function for the working platform: not a general speaking stage, but an auction block. Similar arrangements are known elsewhere in Pompeii. If that is right, then the front porch may have been used for the sale of wool or finished cloth in bulk rather than for ordinary retail trade. The gates that could close off the porch from the Forum then make much better sense. They would not have been there to protect a public arcade at night, but to create privacy and control when important transactions were underway. Seen in this light, the Building of Eumachia becomes far more than an isolated monument. It appears as the civic face of one of Pompeii’s major industries. It connected elite benefaction, religious dedication, and the economic life of the town in a single monumental setting. Eumachia’s role in it was therefore not decorative. By placing her name on such a structure, and by linking it to Concordia Augusta and Pietas, she inserted herself into the public, commercial, and moral life of the city at once. The fullers’ gratitude only makes that clearer. Whatever the building’s exact balance of functions, it was a place where status, business, and public identity met in stone. ("The Building of Eumachia: A Reconsideration" by Walter O. Moeller) ### Eumachia, Livia, and the Politics of Public Display Eumachia’s building did more than place her name on the Forum. It also placed her within a language of public honor that reached beyond Pompeii. The dedication to Concordia Augusta and Pietas Augusta connected her monument to values closely associated with the early imperial order, and the building itself seems to have echoed major public architecture at Rome. ![Edificio di Eumachia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Building-of-Eumachia2-1.jpg) Edificio di Eumachia. Credits: Mentnafunangann, CC BY-SA 3.0 That matters because it suggests that Eumachia was not simply funding a useful structure for her city. She was presenting herself in a style that invited comparison with the women of the imperial household. The wording of the inscription is especially revealing. Eumachia named herself first and stated clearly that the building was made at her own expense, even though she also included her son, Marcus Numistrius Fronto. That order is important. It does not read like a mother quietly promoting a son while remaining in the background. It reads like a woman claiming public credit in her own right, while at the same time linking her benefaction to the future standing of her household. In Pompeii, as in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/), buildings could be used to secure memory, project prestige, and strengthen a family’s position in civic life. That combination of self-display and family strategy has often been read against the example of Livia, the wife of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) and mother of [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/). Eumachia’s dedication to Concordia Augusta, together with the architectural resemblance between her building and major public monuments at [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/), makes the comparison hard to ignore. By the early first century AD, Livia had become one of the most visible women in the Roman world, associated not only with dynastic continuity but also with public religion and public honor. In that context, Eumachia’s inscription may have done more than advertise generosity. It may have aligned her with a wider model of female prominence that was now being made acceptable, even admirable, under the new imperial order. If that is right, then Eumachia’s role in Pompeii becomes clearer. She was not stepping outside civic life, nor acting only as the mother of a rising son. She was using recognized Roman forms of public benefaction to place herself at the center of the city’s symbolic life. Her office as public priestess had already made her visible in ritual terms. Her building added urban permanence to that visibility. The result was a woman whose authority was expressed through religion, architecture, and inscription all at once. Her wider family background also helps explain how such a role was possible. The Eumachii were an established Campanian family with links to local wealth, and Eumachia herself was married to Marcus Numistrius Fronto, who held one of Pompeii’s highest magistracies. Her son, named in the building inscription, must have stood to benefit from the public prestige created by her dedication, even if he is otherwise little known. The evidence suggests a family deeply embedded in the civic elite, with Eumachia herself acting as one of its most forceful public representatives. Even her [tomb](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) reinforces that impression. Outside the Porta di Nocera she built one of the most imposing tombs in Pompeii, and the inscription there states that it was made for herself and her household. That wording is striking. It keeps the emphasis on Eumachia as the active figure, the person who organized memory as well as monument. Just as she had inscribed herself into the life of the Forum, she also inscribed herself into the city’s funerary landscape. ("The public priestesse of Pomepeii" by Roy Bowen Ward, in The Early Church in its context) ![Front wall and monumental exedra of the tomb.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Tomb-of-Eumachia--1--1.jpg) Front wall and monumental exedra of the tomb. Credits:Jamie Heath,CC BY-SA 2.0 These details make Eumachia more than a local benefactor attached to a famous building. They show a woman who knew how public life worked in a Roman town and how architecture, [religion](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-religion-of-ancient-rome-how-roman-worshipped-their-gods/), and family identity could be brought together in one carefully shaped civic image. She was not simply present in Pompeii’s history. She made herself impossible to overlook. Eumachia survives because she understood how Roman public life worked. She used religion, architecture, inscription, and family identity to secure a place for herself in the civic memory of Pompeii. That is what makes her so compelling today. She was not an ornament to the city’s history, but one of the people who shaped its public face. In a world where so many women appear only faintly in the record, Eumachia made sure that her name, her office, and her ambition would endure in full view. ### Heaven, Earth, and the Roman Cosmos URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/heaven-earth-and-the-roman-cosmos/ Last updated: 2026-03-14T23:06:03.000Z The Romans did not leave behind a single sacred book explaining how the universe began, why human beings exist, or whether the stars rule our lives. Instead, they left a set of powerful and very different answers. In Ovid, the world is drawn out of chaos and humanity is made to lift its eyes to the sky. In Lucretius, the universe is not built for us at all, but develops through nature without divine design. In Cicero, the cosmos is an ordered structure of spheres in which the soul, virtue, and public duty all find their place. In Manilius, the heavens become a readable system, and fate itself is written in the stars. These works show that Roman cosmology was not one doctrine but a field of argument in which myth, philosophy, religion, and astrology all competed to explain heaven, earth, and the human condition. ### More Than One Roman Universe There was no single Roman creed about the cosmos. That is the first thing worth making clear. [Roman religion](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-religion-of-ancient-rome-how-roman-worshipped-their-gods/), as practiced in the city and across the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), was embedded in public ritual, sacrifice, civic life, and the management of divine favor. But when Romans tried to explain the structure of the universe, the origin of humanity, or the meaning of celestial order, they did not all speak with one voice. Their answers came through [poetry](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/), philosophical dialogue, didactic verse, and inherited myth. A Roman reader could move from a poetic account of creation, to an atomist denial of providential design, to a vision of immortal souls rising through celestial spheres, and then to a universe governed by astral law. These positions did not merge into one neat system, but neither were they sealed off from one another. They coexisted in Roman intellectual life. That plurality matters because it keeps us from forcing Roman cosmology into a false simplicity. The Romans did not ask their cosmos only one question. They asked how the world was formed, how living things emerged, what place belonged to the gods, whether heaven was rationally ordered, whether souls were immortal, and whether celestial patterns shaped earthly destinies. Different writers answered those questions in different ways. What unites them is not a shared doctrine, but a shared seriousness about the relation between the universe and human life. For Roman writers, the heavens were never just decoration. They were a source of explanation, orientation, humility, fear, and sometimes hope. ### Ovid – A World Drawn Out of Chaos [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/) begins Metamorphoses at the point before order. Before land, sea, and sky were assigned their proper places, the universe was a “rude and undeveloped mass,” a confused heap in which the seeds of things lay mixed together without structure. The first act of creation in Ovid is therefore not the making of matter itself, but the ordering of matter already present. A [god](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/), or perhaps a better principle of nature, divides and arranges the elements, separates heaven from earth, sea from land, light from darkness, and imposes shape on what had been formless. The Roman imagination here does not begin with nothingness. It begins with chaos, then moves toward structure, balance, and distinction. ![Early season image of the milky way - the closest dark site to Los Angeles, CA](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Joshua-Tree-Milky-Way--1--1.jpg) Early season image of the milky way - the closest dark site to Los Angeles, CA. Credits: Benjamin Inouye, CC BY 4.0 That movement is central. Ovid’s cosmos is not accidental. It is shaped. Regions are marked out, the winds are assigned their quarters, the stars are placed in heaven, and the earth is made inhabitable. The world becomes intelligible because it becomes ordered. Even the language of the passage suggests arrangement more than fabrication: separation, allotment, distinction, and placement. This is a universe in which creation means giving each thing its proper realm. It is a highly visual cosmology, one in which the universe becomes legible through lines, limits, and hierarchy. Humanity enters that ordered world in a striking way. Ovid offers more than one explanation of human origin. Either the maker of all things formed humankind from divine seed, or Prometheus shaped it from newly made earth still carrying traces of heavenly substance. The ambiguity matters. Ovid does not force a single doctrinal answer. He keeps open more than one possibility, but both make the same larger point: human beings are distinguished from the rest of life. They are made upright. Other creatures bend their gaze downward, but man is given “a lofty countenance” and told to look upward at the heavens. In Ovid’s universe, that posture is itself a cosmological statement. Human beings belong to the earth, yet they are marked by orientation toward the sky. Ovid’s creation story also prepares for the instability that runs through the whole poem. The world has been ordered, but it is not frozen. It remains vulnerable to anger, [punishment](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/), transformation, and the crossing of boundaries. Gods become animals, humans become stones or birds or trees, and the line between mortal and divine is repeatedly tested. Ovid’s cosmos is therefore ordered but not serene. It is a world in which form can still be altered and life can still be remade. Creation does not end change. It makes change possible within a now-structured universe. ### Lucretius – A Universe Not Made for Us If Ovid offers a poetic world drawn from chaos into order, Lucretius gives a far more disruptive answer. In *De Rerum Natura*, the universe is not built by gods for the sake of mankind. That point is made with extraordinary force. Lucretius argues that heaven and earth were not designed for human benefit and that it is wrong to imagine the gods as craftsmen arranging the universe with us in mind. The cosmos belongs to nature, not providential planning. It has causes, but not a creator in the sense imagined by mythic theology. This changes everything about human origins. Lucretius does not tell a story of divine shaping or cosmic intention. He says openly that no living creatures “dropped from heaven.” Instead, the earth itself once produced life. In its youth, the ground generated plants, animals, and finally human beings. Life emerges from material conditions. Humanity is part of nature, not the object of a special act of divine craftsmanship. Roman cosmology here becomes natural history. The question is not which god made mankind, but what material processes allowed living things to arise. The implications are enormous. Human beings do not stand at the center of a benevolently designed world. They emerge within a larger material system and must learn to live inside it. Lucretius’ account of early humanity is stark. People did not begin in comfort, wisdom, or social refinement. They lived roughly, exposed to danger, slowly developing language, society, and techniques for survival. ![A human, aligned with the Milky Way, looks at the stars from Oeschinensee (Switzerland) during Perseids in search of shooting stars.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Human-looking-at-the-stars-during-Perseids--1--1.jpg) A human, aligned with the Milky Way, looks at the stars from Oeschinensee (Switzerland) during Perseids in search of shooting stars. Credits:Giles Laurent, CC BY-SA 4.0 Civilization is not handed down from heaven. It is built over time out of fear, need, habit, and experiment. The Roman reader is offered a history of humanity in which development is cumulative and earthly, not sacred and complete from the beginning. Lucretius is just as bold about religion. He links the growth of religious fear to ignorance of natural causes. Human beings, confronted by celestial movements, storms, strange phenomena, and the sheer scale of the world, imagine divine intention where none exists. That does not mean Lucretius denies the gods altogether. His Epicurean universe still leaves room for divine beings, but they do not govern the world, intervene in history, or create the cosmos for human use. Religion, in the sense of fear-driven misreading of nature, becomes something to be overcome by knowledge. In that sense, Lucretius offers the most anti-providential Roman cosmology we possess. And yet his universe is not empty. It is intelligible. The point of his argument is not despair, but liberation. If the world was not built as a theater of divine punishment, then human beings can stop misreading nature as a field of supernatural threats. A universe of atoms and void still has order, but it is not moralized from above. Lucretius’ Roman cosmos strips away sacred purpose and replaces it with explanation. That makes it one of the most radical voices in Latin literature. ### Cicero – Height, Harmony, and the Smallness of Earthly Fame [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)’s Dream of [Scipio](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-continence-of-scipio-a-legacy-of-clemency-in-roman-history-and-art/) moves in a very different direction. Here the universe is presented as an immense, intelligible, and morally charged order. The earth sits fixed at the center, while the heavens surround it in “nine circles or rather spheres.” The stars move in orderly courses, the planetary bodies occupy their appointed places, and the [moon](https://romanempiretimes.com/august-super-moon-is-coming-how-did-romans-see-the-moon/) marks a decisive boundary: below it lies the mortal world, above it the eternal realm. The cosmos is not merely vast. It is layered, hierarchical, and meaningful. [Cicero’](https://romanempiretimes.com/stoic-in-the-sauna-why-a-baiae-bathhouse-linked-to-cicero-is-deliciously-ironic/)s translation of cosmology into moral vision is what makes the passage so characteristically Roman. [Scipio](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-was-the-best-roman-warrior-scipio-africanus-a-man-who-never-lost-a-battle/) is not shown the heavens simply to satisfy curiosity. He is shown them so that human glory may be judged correctly. From above, the earth is tiny. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) itself, for all its power, contracts into little more than a point. Fame, conquest, and public distinction suddenly appear fragile and provincial against the scale of the universe. What seems immense from below becomes small from the stars. Cicero uses cosmology to discipline ambition. The heavens teach humility. Yet this is not a rejection of public life. Cicero does not urge withdrawal from civic duty into contemplation alone. Quite the opposite: he ties the ordered cosmos to justice, service, and immortality. Human beings are set upon the earth for a purpose, and the soul belongs to a higher order than the body. Those who preserve and strengthen their fatherland are promised a place among the blessed. The upward gaze therefore does not dissolve Roman public values. It confirms them. The man who understands the cosmos is called not away from the [city](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), but back into it with a corrected sense of scale and duty. The result is a deeply Roman adaptation of [Greek ](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/)cosmology. Plato and later speculation stand clearly behind the structure of the vision, but Cicero has recast them for a culture in which office, ancestry, public service, and the moral meaning of political life remain central. The stars do not merely reveal the architecture of the world. They reveal how to live beneath that architecture. Heaven becomes a moral frame for [Roman civic life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/). ### Manilius – Fate Written in the Sky Manilius carries Roman cosmology into a more overtly astrological realm. In the opening movement of the *Astronomica,* the [stars ](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-astronomy-how-did-romans-see-the-planets/)are not passive lights scattered across heaven. They are “fate’s confidants,” and the sky itself becomes a system whose patterns disclose the fortunes of human beings. The cosmos is rational, divine, and readable. It does not simply exist above us. It communicates structure into earthly life. ![Hubble ultra deep field.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Hubble-ultra-deep-field--1--1.jpg) Hubble ultra deep field. Public domain This is one of the clearest Roman attempts to turn cosmic order into a science of destiny. Manilius presents the heavens as governed by reason and the world as bound together by an inner law that can be studied. The stars exercise “sovereign power,” and the movement of heaven belongs to “the eternal spirit of reason.” What matters here is not only belief in divine order, but confidence that such order can be decoded. Astrology is not treated as fantasy or superstition. It is presented as disciplined knowledge of how cosmic structure and human life correspond. That makes Manilius especially important for understanding Roman ideas of fate. In his universe, fate is not simply a string of accidents or a blind decree external to the world. It is woven into the heavenly system itself. Birth, time, temperament, fortune, and destiny all stand in relation to astral order. This is not the same as Ovid’s poetic creation or Lucretius’ natural emergence or Cicero’s morally ascending cosmos. It is a universe in which the sky can be read because the sky already encodes the pattern of life below. Manilius is also useful because he knows he writes in a world where multiple cosmological theories already circulate. He can mention competing explanations—chaos, elemental theories, atomist language, fiery principles—while still advancing a strongly ordered and providential sky. Roman cosmology here does not erase debate. It stands in the middle of debate and chooses astral reason as its answer. ### How the Romans Placed Human Beings in the Universe These four voices differ sharply, but together they reveal the range of Roman reflection on the cosmos. Ovid places humanity in a newly ordered world and marks it out by its upward gaze. Lucretius places humanity inside nature, not above it, and denies that the world was built for us at all. Cicero gives human beings a place within a layered and morally charged universe, where the soul belongs to the heavens and duty on earth reflects celestial order. Manilius places humanity under a sky that does not merely shine but signifies, a sky in which fate is embedded. This is why Roman cosmology cannot be reduced to one answer about origins or one image of the heavens. The Romans inherited and developed multiple ways of imagining the world. Some were poetic, some philosophical, some astrological, and all carried consequences for how human beings were understood. Were we shaped from divine seed, born from earth, bound to immortal soul, or governed by the stars? Roman literature does not force a single verdict. It leaves the argument open—and that openness is part of what makes it so rich. What the Romans saw when they looked at the universe was never just a physical world. They saw order, disorder, origin, mortality, duty, and fate. Sometimes the cosmos explained why humans should raise their eyes above the earth. Sometimes it explained why they should stop imagining that the world was made for them. Sometimes it made the soul feel at home among the stars. Sometimes it made the stars themselves into governors of human life. Roman cosmology was never one clean system, but that is exactly what gives it its force. It preserved, in Latin form, several of antiquity’s greatest attempts to answer the same enduring questions: where did the world come from, what are we doing inside it, and what—if anything—lies above us. ### Status in Rome: What You Were, What You Had, Who You Knew URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/status-in-rome-what-you-were-what-you-had-who-you-knew/ Last updated: 2026-03-12T19:35:10.000Z Rome was the largest city of the ancient world and, as the imperial capital, stood apart in scale, diversity, and complexity. Its most famous landmarks – the Colosseum, the imperial palaces, the Pantheon – are only part of the picture. The more revealing perspective is Rome as a place where vast numbers of people were born, lived their daily lives, and died within the same urban landscape. ### Size, Power, and the Social Effects of a Metropolis > “He used to play jokes on his slaves, even ordering them to bring him a thousand pounds of cobwebs and offering them a prize; and it is said that he collected ten thousand pounds’ worth, and then remarked that one could realize from that how great a city Rome was.”Historia Augusta, Elagabalus 26. For a pre-modern, pre-industrial city, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)’s scale was extraordinary. The commonly accepted estimate for the Augustan period – roughly 800,000 to 1,000,000 inhabitants – would place it among a tiny group of [cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) worldwide of comparable size before the nineteenth century, with the closest parallels found in China. After 1800, technological change and new economic structures made multi-million cities increasingly common, but [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) achieved its size under far more restrictive conditions. Ancient observers themselves linked this achievement to the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/)’s wealth and power, which made the capital’s growth possible. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s size matters not simply as a symbol of greatness, but because it shaped the workings of Roman society. The city’s ability to expand despite practical and ecological constraints reveals something about the capacities of the Roman economy – not comparable to modern performance, but notable within the limits of pre-industrial societies. At the same time, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/)’s growth was itself a driver of transformation. The city’s demand for people, food, and raw materials reworked economic and social structures across a hinterland that stretched around the Mediterranean. The capital’s position explains the foundations of that expansion. Members of the ruling [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) channelled the gains of imperial domination into the urban environment, while migrants arrived in large numbers to meet elite needs and to pursue their own share of imperial wealth. Yet those investments were not merely decorative. The prominence of [Rome ](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)mattered for maintaining elite authority, because the city’s grandeur formed part of the ideology that underpinned Roman rule. The size of the city also reshaped everyday life and social relations. Concentrating such a large population into a limited space produced a distinctive demographic pattern, leaving [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/some-of-rome-worst-rulers-nobody-talks-about/) dependent on continual inward migration simply to sustain its numbers. The resulting social world is characterised by constant movement, instability, and sustained interaction among many cultures. ![Giovanni Paolo Panini: Roman Capriccio: The Colosseum and Other Monuments ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Giovanni-Paolo-Panini-Roman-Capriccio--The-Colosseum-and-Other-Monuments-Indianapolis-Museum-of-Art--1--1.jpg) Giovanni Paolo Panini: Roman Capriccio: The Colosseum and Other Monuments. Public domain In contrast to the more personal relationships of countryside and small-town life, the metropolis fostered contacts that were often anonymous and impersonal, while widening the gap between the political elite and the mass of the population. Within this environment, social order relied less on intimate patron–client ties and more on large-scale mechanisms. Public rituals, ceremonies, and major civic occasions became central, alongside the force of architecture and visual imagery, which worked to uphold a symbolic order capable of binding a sprawling society together. Ancient writers repeatedly emphasised that Rome surpassed every other city in the Mediterranean. [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/), drawing on brief remarks about the city’s physical extent, concluded that no city in the world could be compared with Rome in magnitude (Natural History 3.5.67). For some purposes that general impression may be enough, but questions about Rome’s demographic regime and its demand for [food](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/) and resources require a more precise sense of population size. Comparisons with other large pre-industrial cities also depend on this. In some contexts, a “primate” city could dominate its region with only tens of thousands of inhabitants, remaining politically and culturally decisive while exerting a more limited economic and social pull. If Rome truly approached one million or more, its impact on the empire would have been far greater. The difficulty is that direct evidence for Rome’s population does not survive. A figure of one million is widely accepted, but it remains a hypothesis rather than a secure fact. Estimates have varied dramatically over the centuries, ranging from about 150,000 to as high as four million – an implausibly vast number by pre-nineteenth-century standards. Historians are forced to work from indirect indicators, repeatedly returning to the same small body of figures and measurable traces, often of uncertain reliability, and debating what they can reasonably support. The problem resembles attempts to infer population from odd “proxy” data: a very large quantity of cobwebs might imply many rooms and buildings, but without dependable information about how many spiders typically lived in each structure and how productive they were, any calculation built on such material will remain contested. (“Population size and social structure" by Neville Morley, in The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rome) ### The “Classic” Social Order of the Early Empire From [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) to [Antoninus Pius](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-quiet-power-of-antoninus-pius-stability-and-prosperity-2/), the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/) is often treated as a high point not only in political stability and territorial reach, but also in the development of Roman society. The argument here is not that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-story-rome-wanted-to-hear/) invented a new social system in these years. ![Statue of Antoninus Pius at Square Antonin in Nîmes, Gard, France](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Statue-of-Antoninus-Pius-in-Nimes--1--1.jpg) Statue of Antoninus Pius at Square Antonin in Nîmes, Gard, France. Credits: Krzysztof Golik, CC BY-SA 4.0 Rather, the familiar “orders–strata” model that had taken shape in the Late Republic continued largely intact and reached its most recognisable, fully developed form. Two developments are singled out as genuinely new in social terms. First, the imperial monarchy became the political framework that best suited Roman society. That shift reshaped the place and function of each social layer and added a new summit to the social pyramid in the imperial household. Second, the integration of provinces and provincials extended what had been “Roman” social ordering across much of the empire. The outcome was a broadly shared imperial aristocracy, a closer alignment of local elites, and a measure of assimilation for wider segments of the population. Even in this “classic” phase, the system is described as slowly changing rather than fixed. The position of specific groups (senators, rural [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/), and others) could shift over time, and integration advanced unevenly through citizenship and urbanisation. Yet change remained internal to the traditional orders–strata structure until the later second century, when signs of deeper crisis became clearer. ### Why Land Mattered More Than Money Continuity in social structure is linked to continuity in the underlying economy. The Early [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) is described as enjoying a major upswing—higher output and productivity, expanding urban markets, stronger craft production, mining development, and more extensive trade and financial activity. Provincial development and urbanisation raised productivity in many regions, especially in the western provinces, and new mining resources were exploited and administered more directly through imperial structures. Craft output expanded to meet demand from cities and the [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/), with mass production in large workshops held up as especially visible in pottery industries. Trade also intensified, supported by banking, credit, and investment. But none of this is treated as a revolution in the economic system. The framework remains the Late Republican one, now extended across the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/). Technological development is described as failing to translate into structural transformation, and the economy remains fundamentally agrarian. Expansion—one of the engines that had provided new labour, markets, and resources—slowed after [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/), limiting the conditions for continued growth. This matters directly for social classes because the primary division of society is tied to the ownership of land. In a world where agriculture dominates production and employment, wealth and status concentrate in landholding more than in entrepreneurship. The highest social layers are therefore not primarily merchants, manufacturers, or bankers, but large landowners—senators above all, then equestrians, then local urban elites—many of whom also engage in commerce and finance without being defined by it. ![Wall painting with a farmer leading a pair of oxen, dated to the late 1st century AD, Museo Archeologico Ostiense, Italy](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Wall-painting-with-a-farmer-leading-a-pair-of-oxen--2--1.jpg) Wall painting with a farmer leading a pair of oxen, dated to the late 1st century AD, Museo Archeologico Ostiense, Italy. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 Because the economy is not built around large-scale technological systems requiring a distinct managerial or industrial middle, a true “middle order” cannot fully develop. Urban craftsmen and traders exist, sometimes prospering, but they remain a relatively small minority in a society where the countryside dominates. ### The Shape of Society: Orders Above, Dependent Strata Below The empire’s population was overwhelmingly rural. Out of perhaps 50–80 million inhabitants, roughly nine-tenths are placed on the land, living directly from agriculture. Most towns were small by modern standards, often only a few thousand people, with many cities in the 10,000–15,000 range. Only a handful—Rome above all, and a very small number of other great centres—approach the scale of hundreds of thousands. This demographic structure helps explain the social one. Most members of the lower strata work in agriculture, whether on small plots, as tenants, as dependent labourers, or as enslaved workers where slavery in agriculture is entrenched. City populations include artisans and traders, but many urban residents are also effectively peasants cultivating land near the city. At the same time, the social order is not reduced to economics. The division into orders is also shaped by non-economic factors: origin and ancestry, political organisation under monarchy, legal status, and especially the possession or absence of Roman citizenship. These elements reinforce hierarchy and limit rapid mobility, producing a relatively stable social ladder and a culture strongly tied to tradition. ### The Emperor as the New Summit of Rank The consolidation of monarchy was completing the social hierarchy. Instead of multiple competing leaders at the top, the empire now has one supreme figure whose pre-eminence rests on the traditional foundations of status: power, prestige, and wealth. Imperial power was effectively unmatched: legislative initiative, provincial governance, military command, and decisive influence over admissions to and expulsions from the senatorial and equestrian orders. Alongside formal authority stands personal standing—*auctoritas*—and the symbolic apparatus that grows around the[ emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/): *titulature*, dress, ceremonial, and religious charisma, including cult honours and, in parts of the [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) east, deification. ![Ancient Roman busts of Emperors and Empresses at the Altes Museum in Berlin, Germany](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Ancient-Roman-busts-of-Emperors-and-Empresses-at-the-Altes-Museum-in-Berlin--Germany--1--1.jpg) Ancient Roman busts of Emperors and Empresses at the Altes Museum in Berlin, Germany. Credits: Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP(Glasg), CC BY-SA 4.0 Imperial wealth is likewise portrayed as unmatched, grounded in crown property and private holdings—above all land, but also mines and workshops. These realities sharpened the definition of other groups’ roles. The emperor’s relationships with elites resemble “friendship” among near-equals in status, while the relationship between ruler and masses is described as resembling patronage on an imperial scale, reinforced through largesse, public games, ritual participation, and loyalty oaths. ### Senators, Equestrians, and a More Precisely Graded Elite Within this system, the senatorial order continues to occupy the traditional commanding positions in administration, the judiciary, and military leadership. What changes is the meaning of public service: it increasingly becomes service to the emperor. Even offices that had once symbolised republican prestige are treated as rewards tied to loyalty and performance within the imperial framework. Equestrians are described as receiving a clearer and expanded role. Where their public activity had been limited in the Republic, the early imperial period employs capable equestrians—after military service—in administrative and financial posts linked to imperial property and the fiscal management of the empire. This division of labour between senators and equestrians fixes the distinction between the two leading orders more sharply than before and creates finer hierarchies inside each order, based on imperial career pathways and the level reached in service. The logic of hierarchy extends beyond free elites. Even among slaves and freedmen, a new internal stratification is described as emerging through the rise of an influential group attached to the imperial household—imperial [slaves ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/)and freedmen whose proximity to power gives them an exceptional position. ### Provinces, Citizenship, Urbanisation: A Roman Class System Spreads The second major development is the extension of this social order across the empire. As Roman economic patterns spread in the Latin west and as the Greek east becomes more fully integrated into imperial economic life, provincial societies are portrayed as increasingly divided along lines that resemble Italy’s. The upper strata in the provinces were city elites and large landowners, with the wealthiest increasingly drawn into the equestrian and senatorial orders. The lower strata—urban and rural—were living in varying forms of dependency as free people, freedmen, or slaves. Over time, the higher ranks of the empire are no longer confined to Italy: provincials enter the commanding heights, first as prominent senatorial groupings and eventually as emperors themselves. Two mechanisms drive this integration: the spread of Roman citizenship and, even more, urbanisation. Citizenship is granted to individuals and communities, increasingly reaching beyond long-Romanised regions. Urbanisation expands through colonies (often veteran settlements) and through the granting of civic autonomy to communities as municipia; in the Greek east, existing cities are promoted rather than replaced. The development produces a dense network of urban centres that helps standardise social structures and encourages assimilation—though not uniformly. Regional differences remain decisive. The Mediterranean core shows more complex social layering, while many northern provinces are portrayed as having fewer and less powerful cities, fewer senatorial landowners, and different patterns of dependent labour. Some areas, especially Egypt, are treated as retaining distinctive local structures more strongly, with only limited alteration under Roman rule. Even so, the overall picture is of a broadly shared imperial model, varying by region but setting the dominant direction of social and economic development across the Roman world. ### The Sharpest Divide: Upper Strata and Lower Strata In the Early Empire, society was not reorganised into a fundamentally new system. Instead, the familiar Late Republican structure became more clearly defined. The most visible line remained the separation between upper and lower strata, unequal in size and sharply unequal in standing. ![Wall painting - mistress and three maids - Herculaneum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Wall-painting-mistress-and-three-maids-Herculaneum--1--1.jpg) Wall painting - mistress and three maids - Herculaneum. Credits: ArchaiOptix CC BY-SA 4.0 Ancient observers expressed the divide in paired opposites—rich and poor, great and small, prestigious and nameless, noble and ordinary—while still assuming that the “better” should rule and the majority should obey. By at least the mid-second century, legal language reflects the same split through the categories *honestiores* and *humiliores/tenuiores*. The “honourable” were characterised not only by wealth, but by the prestige and recognised standing that accompanied it—expressed through ideas such as *dignitas* and *auctoritas*—while the lower categories carried the marks of lesser status and fewer protections. Membership of the true upper strata required the convergence of several qualifications: wealth, access to higher office and power, social prestige, and—crucially—membership in a privileged ordo. In practice, the core of the upper strata consisted of three corporate orders: the senatorial order, the equestrian order, and the decurional order of cities. Others could be rich or influential without fitting this full profile. Wealthy freedmen might possess fortunes, and imperial slaves and freedmen could hold extraordinary behind-the-scenes influence at court, yet they still carried stigma tied to origin and were excluded from the leading orders in principle. Other groups complicate the picture without overturning it. [Soldiers ](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/)were not counted among the upper strata, even though the military could become a decisive political force and certain units enjoyed privileges. The urban plebs in Rome could sometimes register as a political factor, yet their general social standing remained low. The polarity becomes clearest when the traits of the lower strata are set side by side: poverty, lack of power, exclusion from higher office, low prestige, and a life outside the privileged orders. Broadly—though not perfectly—the lower strata overlapped with the great mass of producers in town and countryside. ### What Made Status: Land, Office, Birth, and Legal Standing Wealth mattered, but not as an abstract number alone. The most decisive form of wealth was landholding, and the gap between rich and poor could be enormous. Evidence from Italy under [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/) illustrates how uneven land distribution could be, with many small owners holding modest valuations while a small minority controlled very large valuations. Contemporary complaint could even treat large estates as destructive to the land. Similar concentration is described in parts of the provinces, including claims that in parts of Africa an immense share of land lay in very few hands. At the top end, fortunes could reach extraordinary levels, whether held by senators or by powerful freedmen tied to the imperial court. At the bottom end, the evidence includes cases of extreme rural poverty, with tiny plots subdivided among many families and living conditions reduced to crowded, minimal housing and near-total lack of possessions. Social distance was not only economic but cultural and moral, reinforced by contempt directed at the poor and by the reality that wealth could multiply rapidly for a few, while upward turns were rare for most. Power and office sharpened the hierarchy further. The highest posts in imperial administration and military command were restricted to senators and equestrians, while the running of civic communities belonged to local elites within the decurional order. Informal routes to influence also existed—*court bureaux* run by imperial freedmen, bribery, intervention by powerful women, and other forms of manipulation—but these did not dissolve the overall pattern. The key point is that status was tied to access to office and the prestige that office conferred, not to wealth alone. ![Painting The Entrance to a Roman Theatre (1866) by Lourens Alma Tadema on canvas.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/awrence-Alma-Tadema---The-Entrance-to-a-Roman-Theatre--1--1.jpg) Painting **The Entrance to a Roman Theatre* (1866) by Lourens Alma Tadema on canvas.Public domain Legal status carried direct social consequences. Citizenship remained a powerful divider: citizens held key rights in public service, military service at the more prestigious level, and private law, even though citizenship itself did not guarantee wealth. Within the citizen body, distinctions also existed, including forms of partial citizenship tied to Latin rights. Another legal distinction cut still deeper: freeborn, freed, and enslaved status. Slavery meant legal dependency and severe restriction—lack of control over work or residence, barriers to wealth, and exclusion from public office. Freed status removed slavery but carried continuing stigma. Elite hostility toward slave origins could persist even across generations, reinforced by policies that limited the political ascent of freedmen’s descendants. Even when imperial freedmen wielded influence, they could be treated as socially tainted by origin. Geography and origin mattered too. Rome could claim that high positions were open to outsiders and that talent could be found across the empire, yet long-standing prejudices did not vanish. Italian precedence was often assumed early on, and hostility toward easterners, Syrians, Cappadocians, Jews, and Egyptians appears in literary sources, with real consequences for honour and advancement. Exceptional individuals could break through—an equestrian Jew from Alexandria is one example—but the larger pattern remained one of unequal reception and slow cultural acceptance. ### Orders, Symbols, and the Limits of Mobility A defining feature of Roman hierarchy is that elite status was not simply a social outcome—it was corporate membership, controlled by formal admission and publicly marked by symbols and *titulature*. Entry into the senatorial order, the equestrian order, and the decurional order was not automatic for outsiders who merely became wealthy. Membership was recognised and displayed through insignia, titles, and official procedures. Senatorial status, for instance, became hereditary in principle, while new admissions depended on imperial decision; equestrian status depended on grants such as the *equus publicus*; municipal elite status depended on civic office and official enrolment. Expulsion was equally formal and meant unmistakable social demotion. This corporate structure helped preserve hierarchy by regulating who could enter and who could remain. Birth stood at the centre of this system. Once a family secured high position, continuity tended to follow—sometimes supported by imperial assistance to keep senators above the required wealth threshold. Rome was not a caste society, and moralists could criticise birth-based nobility, but inherited standing still gave a decisive advantage. The *homo novus* faced steep barriers and needed unusual effort, fortune, or imperial favour to rise. Personal merit could matter, but within limits. Financial skill could produce great fortunes; specialised training could bring wealth and recognition; legal expertise and oratory could propel careers; and loyalty and service to the emperor could open doors, especially in political crises. Yet achievement did not erase every stigma. Wealth could not fully cancel servile origin, and education did not automatically grant entry to privileged orders. The system could reward talent, but it did so without abandoning its preference for pedigree and corporate rank—an ambivalence that remained a defining feature of Roman social life. ### The Senatorial Order in the Early Empire – Small, Closed, and Replenished Under the Empire the senatorial order is presented as becoming more tightly bounded than it had been in the Late Republic. Augustus reduced the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) to 600 after removing those judged unworthy, and the figure is described as remaining broadly stable for two centuries. Entry was controlled: only a limited number could begin the senatorial track each year, while some men of equestrian background could be admitted at higher rank by imperial decision. At the same time, the boundary between senators and equestrians is described as hardening. Senators’ sons were formally treated as senatorial, the senatorial property qualification rose well above the equestrian minimum, and later policy fixed the principle that an equestrian who entered senatorial rank left his former order behind. ![Ernest Joseph Bailly The Vestal Virgins Handing over the Testament of Emperor Augustus to the Roman Senate ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Ernest-Joseph-Bailly-The-Vestal-Virgins-Handing-over-the-Testament-of-Emperor-Augustus-to-the-Roman-Senate--1.jpg) Ernest Joseph Bailly The Vestal Virgins Handing over the Testament of Emperor Augustus to the Roman Senate. Public domain. Senatorial wealth was typically far above the minimum census and rooted above all in landholding, even when senators also profited from lending, estate production, and office incomes. But wealth alone did not define the order: its corporate identity rested on legal status, public function, and shared ideology. Senators are described as bound together by family ties, [marriages](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/), [adoptions](https://romanempiretimes.com/to-adopt-or-not-to-adopt-rome-took-a-clear-position/), and networks of friendship, and by a relatively uniform set of responsibilities in administration,[ law](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/), and military command. Their formation encouraged common patterns of behaviour and a strong sense of belonging to the “most distinguished order,” reinforced by the expectation of public service and a lifestyle fitting high rank. Despite this solidarity, the order is presented as constantly changing in composition. Childlessness, political violence, and periodic purges meant many families vanished within a generation, so the Senate required continual replenishment through *homines novi*. New men—often drawn from the upper strata of cities, frequently from equestrian families—are described as becoming especially prominent, in part because emperors favoured them as able and loyal supporters of monarchy. Over time, recruitment shifts from Italy to the provinces as provincial integration deepens; yet provincial senators are presented as adopting the same senatorial ideals as Italians, with internal hierarchy driven by office rank and imperial career pathways rather than regional origin. ### Equestrians, City Elites, and the Wealthy Freedmen The equestrian order was far larger than the senatorial order and expanded as provincials were increasingly admitted. It possessed an identity marked by *titulature* and civic solidarity, but it was less cohesive than the Senate because its membership was socially and economically varied and its occupations ranged widely. In formal terms it was not hereditary: admission elevated individuals rather than families, even if “equestrian families” existed in practice. The order also formed a bridge within elite society—supplying recruits to the Senate above, while remaining closely connected to municipal elites below, since many equites held civic office and could belong at the same time to a city’s decurional council. Equestrian wealth differed sharply from one member to another. Some barely met the census needed to sustain an equestrian lifestyle; others were richer than many senators. Income could come from office salaries for those in imperial service, but private wealth remained decisive. Equestrians were more visible than senators in commerce, enterprise, and finance, though landholding still underpinned wealth for many and remained a common marker of status. In social origins, the order was mixed. Some equites came from relatively low backgrounds, including rare cases of freedmen or sons of freedmen, men promoted through long military careers, and select provincial notables. The dominant pattern, however, is that most equites came from the leading families of cities and owed their rank largely to wealth and local standing. Provincial representation rose gradually, first from more urbanised regions and later from areas where urbanisation produced families oriented toward Rome and eligible for equestrian distinction. Only a minority entered the imperial “aristocracy of office” through the military and administrative cursus; the highest equestrian posts could place their holders near the centre of power, narrowing the practical distance between top equites and leading senators. Below the empire-wide orders sat the civic elites organised in local *ordines* *decurionum*. Each city had its own council-based elite, typically around a hundred members, deliberately set apart from the urban [plebs](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/). Although admission was not formally hereditary, it often became so in practice as property and standing passed within families. Yet uniform organisation produced wide variation: wealth thresholds differed by city, and local economies shaped the real status, education, and occupations of decurions. Decurions governed civic life—justice, finance, food supply, [building](https://romanempiretimes.com/insulae-apartment-buildings-ancient-rome-romans/), public order—and were expected to fund it through entry payments, office costs, priesthood expenses, construction, and benefactions. Over time, financial strain—especially on less wealthy councillors—made the decurionate increasingly burdensome and pushed the system toward greater control and growing attempts to secure exemptions. ![Jean-Paul Laurens - Tales of the Merovingian Era - Its Magistrates, the Decurions.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Jean-Paul-Laurens---Tales-of-the-Merovingian-Era---Its-Magistrates--the-Decurions_jpg-1.jpg) Jean-Paul Laurens - Tales of the Merovingian Era - Its Magistrates, the Decurions. Public domain Alongside decurions stood rich freedmen who could match them in wealth, often through trade, [banking](https://romanempiretimes.com/credit-loans-and-risk-how-ancient-rome-handled-money-without-a-central-bank/), and crafts, while also investing profits into land. Servile origin usually blocked them from entering the decurional council, so they formed separate civic bodies—often connected to the imperial cult and commonly styled Augustales—which functioned as a secondary elite in many towns. Their spending contributed heavily to urban development and welfare, and when their role declined, civic finances tightened and burdens shifted more heavily onto decurions. The emperor’s own slaves and freedmen could be exceptionally wealthy and influential, yet the same stigma of origin set limits: entry into the equestrian order was rare and entry into the senatorial order did not occur, even for the most powerful court freedmen. ### The Urban and Rural Lower Strata – Dependency, Work, and Limited Mobility The lower strata was divided first by place: an urban plebs and a rural plebs, separated by different work, lifestyles, culture, and chances for advancement. Ancient writers regularly treated town life as more “cultivated” than the countryside, and medical and geographical observers alike noted a sharp gap between better-provided city-dwellers and disadvantaged rural populations. A second set of divisions ran through the lower strata by legal status—freeborn, freed, and enslaved—categories that mattered because they shaped different forms of dependency on the upper strata. Yet these labels did not create neat social compartments. Prosperity or poverty, control of resources, and degrees of dependence varied widely within each category, producing a graduated internal stratification rather than clear-cut boundaries. City life is presented as offering the lower strata better prospects than the countryside: more work, greater occupational flexibility, more public life, more distributions and patron-funded support, and easier access to entertainment. Even enslaved people are described as often being better placed in cities than on estates, where labour could be harsher. Urban life also created forms of organisation through *collegia*, associations that allowed artisans, devotees of cults, and even some enslaved people to build corporate identity, imitate civic hierarchy in miniature, and fund meals and [burials ](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/)through dues and benefactions. Alongside associations stood two major pillars of urban stability: regular [grain provision](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)—especially prominent at Rome—and the constant availability of [spectacles](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-greek-glory-to-roman-spectacle-the-olympic-games-evolution/) and leisure. At the same time, urban life is not presented as comfortable for most. The urban poor are described as widely despised, living in cramped and harsh conditions, vulnerable to food shortages, and surrounded by visible begging. Work and ability did not guarantee security, and even trade could end in disappointment. A further source of resentment lay in the humiliations of client life in elite households, where poor freeborn and freed alike could be demeaned, sometimes even by slaves. ![Sale of a slave girl, Pompeii, Praedia Julia Felix](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/sale-of-a-slave-girl--pompeii--1--1.jpg) Sale of a slave girl, Pompeii, Praedia Julia Felix. Credits: Yair-haklai, CC BY-SA 4.0 The occupations of the urban lower strata ranged from crafts and small shopkeeping to a broad set of “intellectual” services—doctors, teachers, administrators, artists, performers—activities treated socially as closer to crafts than to elite professions. Urban economies included both tiny independent businesses (sometimes even run by slaves with permission or as agents) and large-scale workshops and commercial networks using enslaved people and freedmen as labour and agents. The boundaries between freeborn, freed, and enslaved were blurred in cities because of constant turnover. Many enslaved people expected manumission, often around a set age, and freedmen were, by definition, former slaves. The children of freedmen could be counted as freeborn, meaning that large sections of the urban lower strata—sometimes even within higher ranks—could be of servile descent. This mobility depended on the continual replenishment of enslaved populations, yet under the Empire large-scale conquest no longer supplied slaves as in earlier centuries. Slaves increasingly came from within the empire: births within slave households, exposure and raising of foundlings, sale of children, and even “voluntary” self-sale by desperate free people. The prospect of eventual freedom could make enslavement appear preferable to rural poverty, especially because manumission by a citizen master could bring Roman citizenship or Latin rights, along with training in a trade. Slaveholding practices are also presented as shifting under these conditions. With replenishment less assured, owners had incentives to keep enslaved labour productive and manageable, and moral pressure against extreme cruelty grew. Laws and imperial interventions are described as placing limits on certain forms of brutality and extending some protections. Manumission remained common enough to require regulation: legislation limited mass testamentary manumissions, set minimum ages and conditions, and channelled some freed people into Latin status rather than full citizenship. These measures are described as aiming less at ending manumission than at controlling the political and civic consequences of large numbers of newly freed people. Finally, the manumission system was a refined form of exploitation rather than a clean break. Freed people often remained bound to former masters through obligations and dependence, while owners benefited from disciplined labour motivated by hope of freedom, from peculium arrangements, and from the patronage ties that continued after manumission. In urban settings, many owners bought slaves with the expectation of freeing them later, because the resulting dependent relationship could be especially profitable. (“The Social History of Rome” by Geza Alfoldy Rome’s hierarchy endured because it combined rigid boundaries with controlled pathways. Legal status and citizenship set limits, land and office concentrated power, and networks—from household patronage to civic councils and collegia—decided how protection, opportunity, and humiliation were distributed in daily life. The system could absorb newcomers, free slaves, and elevate provincials, yet it kept signalling that birth, rank, and recognised membership mattered most. In the end, Roman status was not a single ladder, but a set of overlapping measures that shaped who could command, who had to ask, and who was expected to endure. ### Majorian: A Different Kind of Emperor, With a Plan URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/majorian-a-different-kind-of-emperor-with-a-plan/ Last updated: 2026-03-10T23:18:40.000Z In the middle of the fifth century, the Western Empire was already being reduced to pockets of authority, negotiated loyalties, and emergency improvisation. Yet Majorian’s reign stands out because it left more than battlefield anecdotes and hostile rumours. In a period when emperors were often chosen to be managed, Majorian tried to govern – and the surviving traces of his rule read like a blueprint drafted under pressure, for a state that was already coming apart ### Majorian and Ricimer – From Avitus to a Shared Regime Majorian’s rise belongs to the political collapse that followed Avitus’ failure in Italy. (Eparchius Avitus was a Roman emperor of the Western Empire from July 455 to October 456.) After Avitus was defeated outside Placentia in 456, Ricimer (Flavius ​​Ricimer was a Roman general of Visigothic origin who led part of the Roman army and effectively controlled part of the Western Roman Empire) and the *foederati (*peoples and cities bound by a treaty, known as foedus, with Rome*)* under his command provided the military force that made Avitus’ removal possible. Majorian then replaced Avitus as emperor in 457. Both men are also placed within the earlier Aetian world: they had served under Aetius, whose position ended when Valentinian the Third ordered his assassination in 454\. Majorian is also shown as a plausible candidate in the turbulence after Valentinian’s murder in 455, though he then disappears briefly from public life; Sidonius’ panegyric connects that withdrawal to hostility from Aetius’ Gothic wife, who is portrayed as resentful of Majorian’s growing reputation. Avitus is portrayed as relying on Gallic aristocratic support and Visigothic connections, a dependence that widened the breach with the Italian [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/). His position weakened further because he could not curb Geiseric’s Vandal raiding. Ricimer’s defence of Italy – including a reported destruction of a Vandal force – elevated his standing, and Majorian’s aristocratic ancestry helped make him acceptable to the Italian Senate. ![Bojokal and Avitus Discussing the Division of the Land.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Bojokal-and-Avitus-discussing-the-division-of-the-land--1--1.jpg) Bojokal and Avitus Discussing the Division of the Land. Public domain In [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/), famine and public anger forced Avitus to send away those he had brought from Gaul. He dismissed Goths who served as his guard and paid them from public works. Unrest followed, and once fear of the Goths eased, Majorian and Ricimer moved into open revolt. Under pressure from internal disorder and the Vandal threat, Avitus withdrew from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) toward Gaul. Majorian’s regime is then presented as a partnership in which roles were separated but authority was shared: Majorian as [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), Ricimer as patrician and *magister militum*. This arrangement is anchored in Majorian’s legislation. In a novella delivered before the Senate in 458, Majorian states that military affairs would be watched over by both himself and “our parent and patrician Ricimer,” and that they would protect a Roman position they had freed – through joint vigilance – from foreign enemies and internal catastrophe. ### The Vandal Expedition, the Lost Fleet, and Majorian’s End The decisive strain is located in Majorian’s preparations for war against the Vandals. After campaigns against Burgundians and Visigoths, he planned a major expedition against Geiseric in 460\. The motives presented for this operation range from an offensive strategy meant to reduce Vandal raiding and perhaps reopen the path to Africa, to retaliation for the sack of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/) in 455 intended to strengthen imperial prestige. Yet the evidence is marked by a significant silence: despite Ricimer’s office as *magister militum* and his earlier success against a Vandal force in 456, he is not shown organising the expedition. That absence is treated as consistent with the view that the undertaking was considered excessively risky. The result is described in stark terms. Majorian’s fleet – given as more than 300 ships – was seized in Spain after Geiseric struck first. Majorian then returned to Gaul and, at Arles, held a banquet tied to circus games. Sidonius is described as present while saying nothing about the defeat in his letter, leaving room for the possibility that the setback was not immediately understood as a total catastrophe. This is set beside John of Antioch’s report of a “disgraceful” truce with the Vandals. A different narrative tradition is also noted: Procopius has Majorian die of dysentery before the expedition can even be launched, a sequence that removes Majorian from responsibility and preserves an idealised portrait. In August 461, Majorian returned to Italy, was arrested, stripped of office, and executed on Ricimer’s orders. The familiar explanation – that Majorian was raised up as a controllable figure and removed once he proved unwilling to be controlled – is presented and then treated as too simple. Majorian’s Aetian background made it unsurprising that he would act as a campaigning [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/), and the language of the 458 novella is used to underline the public claim that both men shared responsibility for defending the empire. ("The Original Godfather: Ricimer and the Fall of Rome" by Max Flomen) ![Portrait of Flavius ​​Ricimer](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Ricimer--1--1.jpg) Portrait of Flavius ​​Ricimer. Public domain ### A Life Recovered Through Praise and Politics Majorian’s early life is difficult to reconstruct, especially before he assumed the [purple](https://romanempiretimes.com/tyrian-purple-the-royal-dye-of-the-ancient-world-and-the-secrets-of-murex-extraction/). The fullest narrative thread runs through Sidonius Apollinaris’ panegyric – a text that is indispensable, but also inherently compromised by its purpose and context. Sidonius himself had reason to treat emperors as patrons as much as subjects: he was connected to multiple regimes and composed panegyrics for more than one ruler. Before turning his pen to Majorian, he had supported Avitus, his father-in-law, and later he would produce a panegyric for Anthemius, who followed Majorian. This background makes the relationship between Sidonius and Majorian potentially strained from the outset. Majorian had been involved in the overthrow that ended Avitus’ rule, and Gaul soon became a flashpoint of resistance to Majorian’s authority. Sidonius’ own city, *Lugdunum* (Lyon), is presented as one of the principal centres of that unrest. The panegyric, delivered at Lyon, can therefore be read as part of a wider attempt to reduce tensions between Gaul and Italy – and, more immediately, to secure a workable settlement for the city and for Sidonius himself by demonstrating loyalty to the new emperor. All of this heightens the risks of using the poem as evidence. Panegyric as a genre is designed to praise, and Sidonius’ skill as a [poet](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/) means the text is saturated with rhetorical amplification. Yet it can still preserve useful details about Majorian’s career, provided it is read with constant awareness of exaggeration, self-interest, and the political bargaining that often sat behind public praise. When Sidonius turns to Majorian’s origins, the family is not presented as one of the great dynastic houses. Instead, the poem builds status through military association. The first ancestor singled out is Majorian’s maternal grandfather, also named Majorian, who is said to have reached high command under Theodosius the Great and to have operated on the Danubian frontier, with Aquincum placed at the centre of this frontier world. Sidonius describes campaigns against Goths in language steeped in classical ethnographic naming, assigning older labels to contemporary peoples and places. The picture is of a competent frontier commander whose reputation, while not strongly reflected in certain narrative historians, could still be made to serve as an honourable foundation for his grandson. Sidonius then introduces Majorian’s father, strikingly without naming him, and frames him through loyalty rather than lineage. The father is depicted as a senior imperial servant who chose to attach himself to one powerful patron – Aetius – and remained unmoved even by the prospect of the consulship. His office is described in financial-administrative terms, with an emphasis on restraint and probity, as though his moderation safeguarded his son’s future resources as much as his position advanced the family’s standing. In Sidonius’ construction, the family’s claim to distinction lies less in aristocratic ancestry than in service, discipline, and proximity to celebrated leaders: Theodosius for the grandfather, Aetius for the father. That connection to Aetius also becomes the engine of Majorian’s own early career. Sidonius places him in Aetius’ forces at a young age and depicts his formative years as shaped by campaigns in Gaul, where he is portrayed as learning the craft of war in the field. The poem adds the expected martial superlatives, even comparing him to heroic and mythic exemplars, but behind the ornament lies a consistent theme: Majorian emerges primarily as a [soldier](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/), trained through service and campaigning rather than as a civilian statesman shaped by a formal liberal education. Sidonius also includes a phase of political exile. In his telling, this retreat is tied to fears about Majorian’s ambitions and the politics of dynastic [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/), with Placidia – Valentinian the Third’s younger daughter – positioned as the key figure in succession manoeuvring. ![Placidia was the younger daughter of Emperor Valentinian III, who planned to marry her to Majorian (450 ca.). As the powerful magister militum Aetius realised that this marriage would weaken his position, he sent Majorian away from his staff to private life, thus hindering the marriage.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Placidia--2---1--1.jpg) Placidia was the younger daughter of Emperor Valentinian III, who planned to marry her to Majorian (450 ca.). As the powerful magister militum Aetius realised that this marriage would weaken his position, he sent Majorian away from his staff to private life, thus hindering the marriage. Public domain Aetius’ wife, presented as hostile to Majorian’s prospects, is made to articulate that anxiety directly, framing Majorian as a threat to plans centred on her own son, Gaudentius. The poem’s implication is that Majorian was viewed as a plausible imperial candidate because a marriage to Placidia could create the closest available link to the imperial house at a moment when Valentinian lacked a male heir and the elder daughter’s marriage prospects were already politically allocated. Majorian’s return to active service is tied to the crisis after Aetius’ death. Sidonius has Valentinian recall him and assign him the task of bringing Aetius’ *bucellarii* under imperial control. Valentinian’s murder soon after prevented any longer-term outcome from this commission, and later titles are difficult to pin down with certainty, but the sequence supports Sidonius’ broader portrait of Majorian as a trusted military operator during a rapidly destabilising succession. For the upheavals after Valentinian’s assassination, the evidence becomes more fragmentary and contradictory. One strand of testimony suggests a contested field of candidates – including Majorian – and even hints at support from the imperial widow Eudoxia, but this report stands alone and is difficult to weigh confidently against the wider silence. Sidonius’ panegyric, meanwhile, moves through the disasters associated with Petronius Maximus and the sack of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) while crafting a delicate rhetorical transition to Majorian’s rise. The poem contains a famously awkward passage that seems to brush against the idea that Majorian might have been implicated, at least by inaction, in the miseries of the state – and then quickly repositions him among soldier-emperors who restore order after dynastic collapse, comparing his accession to earlier moments of renewal. Read closely, the section reveals how Sidonius tries to balance praise with the memory of recent catastrophe. The poem insists on Majorian’s legitimacy as a restorer, even as it cannot entirely avoid the moral and political debris of the years immediately preceding his reign. ![The works of Sidonius Apollinaris](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/the-worls-of-Sidonius-apollinaris--1--1.jpg) The works of Sidonius Apollinaris. Public domain The result is a portrait that is valuable precisely because it shows what had to be said – and what had to be smoothed over – for Majorian to be presented as a credible ruler in the aftermath of humiliation and disorder. ("The Last Romans: Emperor Majorian and the Fall of Rome. A study of the Late Empire and its energetic Emperor" by Janus de Vries. University College Tilburg. Liberal Arts and Sciences. Humanities Major Bachelor Thesis) ### Majorian’s Laws – A Programme of Repair In early 458, Majorian addressed the fiscal damage that had accumulated in the provinces. He cancelled arrears that had become impossible to pay, then tied that concession to enforcement by restricting how collection was carried out, limiting the scope for local administrators to exploit the process and reserving key responsibilities to provincial governors. Later the same year, further measures targeted losses to the treasury caused by corruption in provincial administration and the courts, pressing officials to stop diverting public money for private benefit. He also tried to stabilise civic life through local protection. The *defensor civitatis* was strengthened as a barrier against oppression at the municipal level. In Rome, he issued a law against dismantling public buildings for reusable material, treating the practice as a long-standing abuse that disfigured the city and setting penalties and controls intended to stop it. Surviving legislation also shows attention to the way legal and ecclesiastical mechanisms could be used to distort property outcomes, including a prohibition on coercive ordinations that turned inheritance into a tool of exclusion. Majorian’s reforms are preserved mainly through his Novellae (imperial “new laws”), especially those issued in 458 (mostly at Ravenna). What survives lets us point to a fairly clear programme: tax relief + anti-corruption enforcement + rebuilding municipal protection + protecting public property/monuments + tightening inheritance/clerical abuses. ### Fiscal relief and tax-collection discipline Remission of tax arrears (Novella 2, De *indulgentiis reliquorum*, 11 March 458): cancels accumulated back taxes that had become impossible to pay, explicitly framed as a way to restart normal collection by removing the crushing backlog. Restricting who can collect taxes (within Novella 2): bars unauthorized/abusive public officials (who had been skimming) from tax collection, reserving collection authority to the proper provincial governors. Fisc and judicial venality (Novella 5, De *bonis caducis sive proscriptorum,* 4 September 458): addresses losses to the treasury caused by judges’ corruption and orders oversight to stop provincial fraud against the fisc. Currency / payments in Gaul (Novella 7.14, 6 November 458): regulates what collectors can refuse/accept in solidi, with a specific carve-out for “Gallic” solidi valued differently ### Municipal administration and the curial class *Curiales/Decurions* and flight from obligations (Novella 7, 6 November 458): tackles the collapse of town councillors (*decurions*) who were liable for shortfalls, describing how corruption and extortion drove them to flee, hide under patrons, and evade civic duty; it sets measures intended to stabilise and regulate the class. Reviving the *defensor civitatis* (Novella 3, De *defensoribus civitatum*, 8 May 458): attempts to restore/strengthen the city “defender” office to protect ordinary people from oppression (especially around tax collection). ### Property, inheritance, and clerical abuses Safeguarding inheritances for families (Novella 6, 26 October 458): addresses problems around widows/nuns and inheritance, aiming to protect children’s interests and curb predatory manoeuvres around estates. Episcopal jurisdiction and forced ordinations (Novella 11, 28 March 460): prohibits coercive ordinations used to manipulate inheritance outcomes (making someone clergy to block succession), and regulates related church-legal practices. Majorian’s fall did not erase what he attempted. The laws, the tone of command, the insistence that public authority still mattered – all of it points to a ruler who treated collapse as something that could be confronted, organised against, and, at least in part, corrected. The Western Empire did not survive his removal, but the outline of his programme survives as evidence of how late Roman government still imagined repair: through discipline, restored offices, protected resources, and a claim that the state could still be made to function. ### Publius Quinctilius Varus: The Roman Official History Remembered for One Catastrophe URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/publius-quinctilius-varus-the-roman-official-history-remembered-for-one-catastrophe/ Last updated: 2026-03-04T21:48:18.000Z Some figures in Roman history are remembered not for the span of their careers but for a single catastrophic moment. For Publius Quinctilius Varus, that moment came in AD 9 with the destruction of three Roman legions in the forests of Germania. The defeat in the Teutoburg Forest ensured that Varus’ name would be permanently tied to one of the most shocking military defeats of the Roman world. ### The Man Behind the “Varian Disaster” Certain moments in Roman history were so consequential that the individuals associated with them became inseparable from the event itself. Everything else in their careers faded into the background. For Publius Quinctilius Varus, that defining moment was the defeat in the [Teutoburg Forest](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-defeat-rome-never-forgot-teutoburg-forest-9-ce/) in AD 9\. The scale of the catastrophe ensured that his name would forever be linked to what later sources called the *Clades Variana* – the “Varian Disaster.” Without that defeat, Varus might have remained a relatively obscure senator of the early imperial period, known primarily to specialists. Instead, he became one of the most notorious figures of the Augustan age, remembered less for decades of public service than for the destruction of three legions in Germania. Yet the near-universal assignment of blame to Varus, both in ancient narratives and in much of modern scholarship, has increasingly been questioned. Re-examination of the literary evidence, combined with archaeological research at the probable battlefield site in Germany, has complicated the traditional picture. Rather than an incompetent commander inexplicably entrusted with a crucial frontier command, Varus emerges as an experienced official with a substantial political and administrative record. Recent scholarship has also explored how the Julio-Claudian regime framed and interpreted military defeat, and how narratives of responsibility were shaped in the aftermath. Within this broader context, Varus’ reputation has begun to shift. While the disaster in the Teutoburg Forest remains central to his historical legacy, it no longer automatically defines him as uniquely inept. A fuller reconstruction of his career – drawing on literary testimony and material evidence – reveals a figure who operated near the centre of early imperial power, held major provincial commands, and carried significant administrative responsibilities before his final campaign in Germania. Placed within the arc of his life, the defeat of AD 9 appears not as the isolated act of a reckless commander, but as the culmination of complex political, military, and frontier dynamics in the Augustan world. ### Prestige Without Power: The Quinctilii Varii Publius Quinctilius Varus was born into the gens Quinctilia, specifically the branch known as the *Quinctilii Varii*, a patrician family of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/). As members of the patrician order, the family belonged to the traditional ruling [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). In theory, adult male members possessed the right to sit in the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) and were expected to pursue public office as part of their civic duty. ![Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, Romulus, Victor of Acron, Carrying the Spoils to the Temple of Janus, 1812,](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/romulus--1--1.jpg) Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, Romulus, Victor of Acron, Carrying the Spoils to the Temple of Janus, 1812\. Public domain In Roman tradition, the patricians were regarded as descendants of the earliest political community of the city. According to legend, when [Romulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-romulus-kill-remus-the-tragic-tale-of-the-founders-of-rome/) founded [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) in 753 BC, he appointed one hundred leading men as *patres* (“fathers”), forming the first Senate. Their descendants were said to have inherited both prestige and political authority. Over the course of the early Republic, patrician families became associated with wealth, high office, and privileged access to power. Below the patricians stood the equestrian order – wealthy citizens whose name derived from their ability in earlier periods to equip themselves for cavalry service. Although equestrian rank could be inherited, it depended upon maintaining a required level of property, verified by the census. Beneath both patricians and equestrians were the [plebeians](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/), who comprised the majority of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s free population. While legally eligible for certain offices, most plebeian families lacked the wealth and influence necessary for sustained political advancement. By the later Republic, however, not all patrician houses retained the prominence their ancestry suggested. Many ancient families preserved their formal status while losing political influence and material strength. Prestige increasingly depended not only on lineage but on recent achievement – particularly the attainment of high magistracies such as the consulship. The Quinctilii Varii belonged to this category of distinguished but diminished houses. The family traced its origins deep into [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/)’s early history and was counted among its most ancient clans. Yet by the late Republican period it had become known more for its antiquity than for contemporary power. For centuries, members of the family had failed to secure the consulship – one of the chief markers of political importance. By the time Varus was born, more than four hundred years had passed since a Quinctilius had held that office. Although the family retained senatorial status and a respected name, it no longer ranked among the leading political forces of [Rome.](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/) Its members continued to participate in public life, and the heads of the household maintained their seats in the Senate, but the family lacked recent achievements capable of elevating its standing within the competitive aristocratic hierarchy. Even so, the Quinctilii Varii remained sufficiently embedded within the elite to take part in the major conflicts of the late Republic. Sextus Quinctilius Varus, the father of Publius, was involved in the struggles that reshaped Roman politics – first in the conflict between [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/) and [Pompey the Great](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/), and later in the confrontation between Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus on one side and [Octavian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) and [Mark Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/) on the other. ![Bust of Marcus Junius Brutus Antique busts (series title)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Bust-marcus-Junius-brutus--1--1.jpg) Bust of Marcus Junius Brutus Antique busts (series title). Public domain Thus, Varus was born not into obscurity, but into an ancient patrician lineage whose formal prestige outstripped its recent political record. His later ascent within the Augustan regime would, in part, represent a revival of that family name within the transformed structures of imperial Rome. ### An Old Name on the Margins of Power Family lineage carried real weight in Roman public life. Ancestry shaped political expectations, social standing, and even religious practice. The Quinctilii Varii, into whom Publius Quinctilius Varus was born, belonged to one of Rome’s most ancient patrician clans. Their first clear appearance in the historical record dates to 453 BC, when a Sextus Quinctilius Varus held the consulship – the highest office of the Republic and the culmination of the *cursus honorum*, the structured sequence of magistracies that defined aristocratic careers. In theory, patrician males followed a predictable path: military service in youth, followed by progression through offices such as *quaestor*, *aedile*, and *praetor* before becoming eligible for the consulship in their early forties. Two consuls were elected each year, and attainment of that office marked both personal distinction and family prestige. Yet for the Quinctilii Varii, early prominence did not translate into sustained influence. By the late Republic, no member of the family had achieved the consulship in more than four centuries. Although still patrician in status and entitled to senatorial participation, the family had become known more for antiquity than for achievement. Scattered references place members in minor magistracies and occasional military commands, but without lasting political impact. One possible ancestor, a Publius Quinctilius Varus who served as praetor during the Second Punic War, fought against the Carthaginian commander Mago Barca in 203 BC. According to [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/)’s account, he took an active role in battle and led a cavalry charge that nearly ended in disaster when Roman horses panicked at the sight of war elephants. Though the Romans ultimately prevailed, the episode suggests that members of the family did participate in significant military roles. Whether this earlier Varus was a direct ancestor or from a collateral branch remains uncertain. Other late Republican Quinctilii appear sporadically in the record – one as a pontifex in the 70s BC, another as praetor and later proconsul in Hispania. These notices confirm continued participation in public life but do not indicate renewed prominence. By the time of Publius Quinctilius Varus’ birth, the family retained its patrician dignity but stood far from the centre of political power. ### Varus’ Parents and Possible Imperial Connections More revealing than distant ancestors are the circumstances of Varus’ immediate family. His father, Sextus Quinctilius Varus, held the quaestorship by 49 BC, marking his formal entry into the senatorial career path. His advancement, however, coincided with the outbreak of civil war between [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) and Pompey the Great, a conflict that reshaped the Roman political order. Sextus’ political trajectory unfolded amid these upheavals, and he would later be involved in the struggles that followed [Caesar’s assassination.](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-shadow-of-the-dagger-assassinations-of-roman-emperors/) Little is securely known about Varus’ mother. No definitive source names her, but she likely came from an elite background. A plausible – though not universally accepted – identification suggests she may have been a daughter of Gaius Claudius Marcellus Minor from an earlier marriage, making her connected by marriage to Octavia Minor, the sister of Augustus. If correct, this would have placed Varus within the extended orbit of the emerging imperial family. Such a connection would not have made him a direct member of the Julio-Claudian house, but it would have situated him on its periphery at a formative moment in Roman history. In a period when political advancement increasingly depended upon proximity to Octavian – later [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/) – even indirect ties could prove significant. This possible maternal link may help explain the patronage Varus later received and his integration into the early imperial regime. ![Ceiling of Caesar Augustus speaks with essays](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Ceiling-of-Caesar-Augustus-speaks-with-essays--1--1.jpg) Ceiling of Caesar Augustus speaks with essays. Credits: Livioandronico2013, CC BY-SA 4.0 Whether or not this identification is secure, it is clear that Varus was born into an ancient patrician lineage that had lost much of its former distinction. His later career would represent not merely personal advancement, but a partial restoration of a family name that had long stood at the margins of power. ### From Fatherless Patrician to Augustan Insider Born in the mid–to–late 40s BC, Publius Quinctilius Varus entered the world with little to suggest an exceptional future. His patrician name was ancient, but his family’s recent record was modest, and his father’s repeated alignment with the anti-Caesarian cause could have left Varus politically exposed from childhood. That danger sharpened in 42 BC, when his father died by suicide after Philippi, leaving Varus very young and effectively without a clear protector from within his immediate household. What followed is largely undocumented. Varus disappears from the historical record until the early 20s BC, when he emerges already moving within the structures of public life. The most plausible reconstruction is that he and his sisters were taken into another household under a guardian who could preserve their property, supervise Varus’ education, and—crucially—provide the personal networks needed for advancement. A later family association with Tivoli, and a possible Quinctilius Varus connected with the arts there, has sometimes been proposed as part of that background, though firm evidence is limited. Varus’ childhood unfolded during the final convulsions of the Republic: the uneasy partnership of Octavian and Antony, renewed violence, and the slow narrowing of power toward a single ruler. By the time Varus came of age, the political world had shifted. Careers no longer depended primarily on old republican alliances, but on proximity to the new regime. Augustus also faced a practical problem: decades of civil war had reduced the pool of eligible elites. Excluding the sons of former enemies was neither workable nor desirable. Instead, the early Principate created pathways for young aristocrats to enter public life earlier, gain military experience, and attach themselves to the imperial order. Varus benefited from this landscape. However compromised his father’s legacy may have been, Varus appears to have built his future by aligning with Octavian’s regime and taking advantage of Augustus’ efforts to replenish and stabilise the governing class. The result was a trajectory that broke with his family’s recent pattern: Varus advanced quickly, eventually reaching the consulship—something no Quinctilius Varus had achieved for centuries—and later even entering the imperial family by [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/). Before the Teutoburg disaster defined his name, Varus’ rise looked like a success story of the early Principate. The surviving evidence is scattered, but a clear pattern emerges: early exposure to hard campaigning, unusually close access to Augustus, and a fastening web of elite marriages that pulled his family into the imperial orbit. A likely tribuneship in Spain during the brutal Cantabrian campaigns may have brought him into Augustus’ view; by 22–19 BC he is hand-picked as one of only two quaestors to accompany the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) on a major eastern tour, where he sees imperial rule at work—rewarding cities, punishing unrest, and turning diplomacy into propaganda through the return of the Parthian standards. Back in Rome, he keeps climbing—while his sisters’ marriages link him to Augustus’ kin and closest friends, placing Varus ever closer to the centre of power. By the mid-teens BC, he is no longer a marginal patrician from a faded line, but a known Augustan insider whose trajectory points directly toward the consulship in 13 BC. ### The Defeat That Defined a Career The events of AD 9 rank among the most devastating military defeats in Roman history. In the late summer or early autumn of that year, while serving as governor of Germania, Publius Quinctilius Varus commanded the Roman forces stationed along the Rhine. During a march to suppress what was reported to be a regional uprising, a column of three [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/) – likely the Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and Nineteenth – supported by auxiliary units, advanced deep into wooded terrain. ![ Wilhelm Lindenschmit the Elder: Battle of the Teutoburg Forest ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/the-battle-of-Teutoburg--1--1.jpg) Wilhelm Lindenschmit the Elder: Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. Public domain Over the course of three or four days, the force was caught in a prolonged ambush. The legions were virtually annihilated, their standards captured, and their commander killed alongside much of his staff. The destruction was nearly total. Survivors were either slain or taken captive, and the symbolic loss of the [legionary eagles ](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-has-the-eagle-become-the-roman-symbol/)carried profound psychological weight. The assault had been orchestrated by [Arminius,](https://romanempiretimes.com/arminius-from-friend-of-rome-to-german-leader-at-the-teutoburg-forest-battle/) a German chieftain who had previously served in the Roman army and possessed Roman citizenship. Familiar with Roman tactics and command structures, he exploited both the terrain and Roman assumptions about the stability of the region. In the immediate aftermath, fears spread that Germanic forces might press westward across the Rhine, prompting alarm even in Rome itself. For centuries, the engagement has been characterised as a decisive turning point – “the battle that stopped Rome.” It has often been portrayed as the moment when Roman ambitions to incorporate Germania permanently collapsed. Yet subsequent Roman campaigns in the region complicate that interpretation, suggesting that the consequences were more nuanced than later tradition implied. The scale and drama of the defeat ensured Varus’ enduring notoriety. Yet in many accounts, attention focuses overwhelmingly on the ambush itself, leaving Varus as a shadowy figure within the very event that bears his name. His earlier career is frequently treated as incidental, or ignored altogether. This imbalance obscures the fact that Varus had once stood close to the centre of Augustan power. Though not born into the foremost ranks of the aristocracy, he rose steadily within the imperial system. He held the consulship, governed major provinces, commanded legions, accumulated wealth, and forged connections within the imperial family, reportedly marrying into it and maintaining close ties with both Augustus and [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/). His appointment to the Rhine command in AD 7 represented the culmination of an established political and administrative career. Nevertheless, ancient narratives often depict him as ill-suited to military leadership – an administrator overwhelmed by frontier realities, negligent of warnings, and responsible for his own downfall. Modern assessments have frequently echoed this verdict, portraying him as capable in legal and civil administration but deficient in command. Such judgements, however, rarely integrate the broader trajectory of his career. The portrait of Varus as uniquely incompetent sits uneasily beside the record of sustained advancement and imperial trust that preceded AD 9\. A fuller evaluation requires placing the disaster within the wider framework of his life and of Augustan frontier policy, rather than allowing a single event to define the whole. ### Varus in the Ancient Record By modern standards, Publius Quinctilius Varus is sparsely documented. No contemporary biography survives, and most literary references to him arise only in connection with the disaster of AD 9\. These accounts tend to focus on the defeat itself rather than on Varus as a historical figure. As a result, much of his earlier life must be reconstructed indirectly – through scattered literary notices and, increasingly, through inscriptions, coinage, and archaeological discoveries that have clarified aspects of his military postings, civic offices, and marital alliances. Such evidence has begun to place Varus more firmly within the administrative and political structures of the Augustan regime. His proximity to imperial power, and his integration into the imperial family, help explain why he was entrusted with the Rhine command in AD 7 – and why the catastrophe that followed reverberated so deeply in Rome. Literary evidence for his career before AD 9 is limited. One notable exception concerns his governorship of Syria, where he intervened during the final years of King Herod’s rule and subsequently suppressed unrest following Herod’s death. These events are described by Flavius Josephus in both the Antiquities and the Jewish War. ![(and in the background: Seven Devils Tower), Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Statue-The-failed-Varus-in-Germany--1--1.jpg) Sculpture “The Failed Varus” by Wilfried Koch (and in the background: Seven Devils Tower), Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Credits: Dietmar Rabich, CC BY-SA 4.0 Although Varus occupies only a secondary role within Josephus’ broader narrative, his actions left a lasting impression; later Jewish tradition even referred to the uprising he quelled as the “War of Varus.” Aside from a brief and hostile remark by [Velleius Paterculus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-story-rome-wanted-to-hear/), who accused him of financial misconduct in Syria, other literary testimony about this period is scarce. Much of his earlier *cursus honorum* is known instead from inscriptions and coin issues bearing his name. The defeat in Germania, however, ensured Varus’ prominence in historical writing. Four principal surviving narratives address the episode: those of Velleius Paterculus, [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/), Florus, and [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/). Each contributes a distinct perspective, though none provides a fully detailed or consistent account. Velleius, writing within two decades of the battle and himself a former officer who had served in Germany under Tiberius, offers the earliest extant narrative. His proximity to the events and to the imperial regime lends his account immediacy, yet it also introduces potential bias. Tiberius emerges favourably in his version of events, while Varus appears culpable and ill-judging. The description of the battle itself is comparatively brief and lacks tactical detail, but Velleius provides valuable contextual continuity for the years surrounding AD 9. Tacitus, writing about a century later in the Annals, does not narrate the battle directly. Instead, he describes the visit of Germanicus to the battlefield in AD 15\. His vivid depiction of the site – littered with bones and remnants of fortifications – offers powerful imagery and fragmentary recollections from survivors. Yet Varus himself remains marginal in this narrative, overshadowed by the focus on Germanicus and the political tensions of the early Tiberian principate. Tacitus’ broader attitudes toward imperial power and oppression may also colour his portrayal of Rome’s relationship with the Germanic tribes. Florus, writing in roughly the same period, provides a brief and dramatic sketch. His emphasis lies less on strategy and more on the suffering of captured [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/). Although less overtly hostile to Varus than Velleius, Florus neither reassesses nor challenges the established narrative of culpability. The most detailed surviving account comes from Cassius Dio in the early third century. His narrative uniquely describes the engagement as unfolding over several days, comments on terrain and weather, and attempts a more structured chronology of events. Even so, the conclusion of his account is partially lost, and his distance from the events – nearly two centuries removed – inevitably limits his evidentiary basis. Dio adds little about Varus’ character beyond what earlier traditions had already shaped. One significant loss to the historiography is the *Bella Germaniae* of [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/), a multi-volume history of Rome’s wars in Germany. Written within living memory of the disaster and by a man who had served in the region, it might have preserved invaluable testimony, perhaps even drawing on surviving veterans. Yet the work has not survived, and later historians may have drawn upon it without preserving its detail. ![Excerpt of Cassius Dio's Roman History from a 5th-century manuscript. This section talks about the Constitutio Antoniniana](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/03/Vatican-Apostolic-Library-MS-Vatican-Greek-1288_-fol-2v-Cassius-Dio-Roman-History--1--1.jpg) Excerpt of Cassius Dio's Roman History from a 5th-century manuscript. This section talks about the Constitutio Antoniniana. Public domain Across the surviving narratives, the focus rests overwhelmingly on the defeat itself and on assigning responsibility. Varus is frequently depicted as ineffective, corrupt, or naïve – an administrator unsuited to frontier command who ignored warnings about conspiracy. The battle is typically framed as a Roman failure rather than as a strategic triumph engineered by Arminius. Even when Arminius receives acknowledgment for his role, Varus remains cast in the shadow of incompetence. Beyond the major narratives, references in authors such as [Strabo](https://romanempiretimes.com/strabo-mapping-the-world-of-rome/), Seneca the Elder, and others show that the disaster quickly became a cultural shorthand within Roman literature. The mere mention of Varus and his lost legions required no explanation. The episode had entered collective memory – not only as a military catastrophe, but as a symbol of imperial vulnerability. ("Publius Quinctilius Varus. The Man Who Lost Three Roman Legions in the Teutoburg Disaster" by Joanne Ball)) ### Rethinking the “Disaster” – Was Teutoburg Really a Turning Point? For centuries, the defeat of Publius Quinctilius Varus in AD 9 has often been described as the moment that ended Roman ambitions in Germany. According to the traditional interpretation, Rome had been steadily advancing its control eastward from the Rhine toward the Elbe, and the destruction of three legions in the Teutoburg Forest abruptly halted a project of conquest that had seemed close to completion. In this view, the battle demonstrated the impossibility of subduing the Germanic tribes and forced the empire to retreat permanently to the Rhine frontier. Modern scholarship has increasingly questioned whether the situation was ever so clear-cut. Some historians have argued that the dramatic narrative surrounding the battle owes as much to later literary interpretation as to the realities of Roman strategy. The surviving accounts of the campaign—written decades or even centuries after the events—often present contradictory descriptions of both the scale of Roman control in Germany and the circumstances of the defeat. Attempts to reconcile these narratives into a single coherent story have proved difficult, suggesting that the traditional reconstruction may rely too heavily on problematic sources. In particular, the assumption that Rome had already effectively conquered the region east of the Rhine before AD 9 has been challenged. Archaeological and logistical considerations indicate that Roman control there may have been far more limited and experimental than later writers imply. While Roman armies certainly campaigned repeatedly across the Rhine during the reign of Augustus, the infrastructure normally associated with the creation of a permanent province—large administrative centres, a dense network of roads, and long-term garrison installations—appears far less developed than one might expect if a full provincial system had already been established. From this perspective, Roman operations in Germany may have been aimed less at annexation than at managing the frontier. Military expeditions could demonstrate Roman power, punish hostile tribes, and encourage alliances with groups willing to cooperate with Rome. Such a strategy would create a buffer zone beyond the Rhine without requiring the heavy administrative and military commitments that provincial incorporation demanded. If this interpretation is correct, the defeat of Varus takes on a somewhat different meaning. The destruction of three legions was undeniably a severe shock to Roman prestige and military confidence. Yet it may not represent the sudden collapse of a nearly completed conquest. Instead, it marked the failure of a frontier strategy that relied on cooperation with local elites—most notably Arminius, whose betrayal turned Roman expectations into catastrophe. Seen in this light, the aftermath of Teutoburg did not necessarily force Rome to abandon a viable plan of expansion. Rather, it exposed the limits of Roman influence in a region where political control depended on unstable alliances and difficult terrain. The Rhine frontier that emerged in the following decades may therefore reflect a strategic decision about where Roman power could most effectively be maintained, rather than the simple consequence of a single battlefield defeat. ("The Varus Episode" by W. A. Oldfather) In the end, the disaster of AD 9 ensured that Varus’ name would never escape the shadow of Teutoburg. Yet the surviving evidence reveals a figure far more complex than the incompetent governor portrayed in many ancient narratives. Before the ambush in the forests of Germania, Varus had risen steadily within the Augustan system, serving as consul, provincial governor, and trusted imperial official. When viewed within the broader trajectory of his life and the uncertain realities of Rome’s northern frontier, the Varian Disaster appears less as the failure of a single man and more as the violent collision between Roman expansion and the political landscape of Germania. ### Appian of Alexandria: The Greek Historian Who Explained Rome’s Empire URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/appian-of-alexandria-the-greek-historian-who-explained-romes-empire/ Last updated: 2026-02-27T22:58:50.000Z In the second century CE, long after the Roman Republic had vanished, a Greek official from Alexandria undertook an ambitious task: to write the history of Rome’s expansion and, above all, its internal collapse. Appian’s Roman History is not merely a chronicle of wars. It is the most sustained ancient account of the civil conflicts that transformed Rome from republic to empire. Without Appian, much of that story would be fragmentary, distorted, or lost. ### Appian of Alexandria – A Greek Historian of Rome’s Rise and Rupture Appian was a native of Alexandria in Roman Egypt, probably born around AD 95 and active into the reign of [Antoninus Pius](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-quiet-power-of-antoninus-pius-stability-and-prosperity-2/), dying sometime after the mid-second century. [What little is known about his life](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Appian/Introduction%2A.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com) comes from his own preface and from letters written by Fronto, tutor of [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/10-things-you-did-not-know-about-marcus-aurelius/). Appian records that he rose to prominence in Alexandria before moving to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/), where he worked as a legal advocate in the imperial courts and was eventually appointed procurator – a post that required Roman citizenship and equestrian rank. Fronto himself supported his appointment, describing him as a man of integrity and honour. Appian states that he had written an autobiography, now lost, but his historical works were still known in the ninth century. His Roman History was conceived not as a strict chronological narrative but as a series of thematic or ethnographic books, organised around [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s wars with individual peoples and, ultimately, its internal conflicts. ![Appian: Historia Romana. Printed in Venice 1477 by Erhard Ratdolt](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Appian-s-roman-history-1.jpg) Appian: Historia Romana. Printed in Venice 1477 by Erhard Ratdolt. Credits: Dierker, CC BY-SA 3.0 Originally comprising twenty-four books, only eleven survive in full or nearly complete form, including the Spanish, Hannibalic, Punic, Illyrian, Syrian, and Mithridatic Wars, along with five books of the Civil Wars. Fragments of other sections survive in later Byzantine compilations. Although writing long after the events he described, Appian drew on earlier [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) and Latin historians and, at times, documentary sources. He explicitly cites figures such as [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/), [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/), [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), and Asinius Pollio, while modern scholarship has long debated the precise nature of his sources. Yet beyond questions of borrowing, his work reveals a deliberate structure and interpretative purpose. Appian was less concerned with philosophical theorising than with narrating large historical processes – especially the destructive cycle of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s civil wars – in a way that emphasised causes and consequences. His style is generally plain, but in speeches and rhetorical passages he becomes vivid and forceful. The opening of the Civil Wars, which traces the tensions leading to the [Gracchi](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-gracchi-brothers-visionaries-or-socialist-revolutionaries/), stands among the most carefully constructed accounts of the late Republic. At times criticised for inaccuracies in detail, Appian nevertheless preserves indispensable narratives – including the only full ancient account of the Third Punic War and the destruction of [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spartan-who-saved-carthage-and-broke-a-roman-invasion/). ### From “Third-Rate” to Reconsidered – The Modern Rehabilitation of Appian For much of modern scholarship, Appian of Alexandria was burdened by a dismissive verdict. In 1863, Nissen famously labelled him “third-rate,” a judgement that German scholarship largely endorsed and that was reinforced by E. Schwartz’s influential entry in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Once fixed there, Appian’s reputation hardened for generations. English-language scholars followed suit. Earlier centuries had been more generous. In the sixteenth century, editions and translations of Appian circulated widely, and he was read with interest; even Shakespeare drew on him for [Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/) and [Cleopatra.](https://romanempiretimes.com/cleopatra-daughter-selene-ii-the-last-echo-of-a-dynasty/) Yet by the late nineteenth century, his standing had declined sharply. Although his works continued to be consulted, they were often mined for information rather than read as crafted history. This marginalisation served the priorities of the then-dominant discipline of Quellenforschung – the search for underlying sources. Appian was treated as a passive compiler whose value lay in preserving fragments of lost historians. Such an approach proved convenient: a supposedly unthinking transmitter of earlier material offered scholars freer scope for reconstruction than an author recognised as shaping his narrative with intention and design. ![A page of the Latin translation of Appian’s „Roman History“ by Pier Candido Decembrio in the manuscript Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/appian-history-of-Rome--1--1.jpg) A page of the Latin translation of Appian’s „Roman History“ by Pier Candido Decembrio in the manuscript Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. Public domain For decades, Appian research largely followed this path. In recent decades, however, attitudes have shifted. Broader changes in scholarly taste, along with renewed interest in underexplored authors, have encouraged a re-evaluation. Just as figures once dismissed – such as Diodorus, Josephus, Velleius Paterculus, and Florus – have been reconsidered as independent and reflective historians, so too has Appian. Modern scholarship increasingly presents him as a serious writer with rhetorical control, structural vision, and analytical purpose. His weaknesses remain acknowledged, but they no longer define his contribution. This reassessment is comparatively recent. The first full-length literary study of Appian’s work appeared only in 1988, prompting calls for a more substantial appraisal of his place in historiography. The 1990s brought further literary analyses and doctoral dissertations in both English and German, and subsequent studies have explored his language, narrative strategies, and compositional techniques – areas once neglected or dismissed by earlier philological traditions. A significant milestone came in 2015, when Kathryn Welch edited a volume devoted to exploring Appian’s originality. The question of originality has often centred on Appian’s use of sources. While it is clear that he relied on earlier[ Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) and Latin narratives, as well as documentary material, more recent scholarship emphasises something beyond compilation. The structure of his Roman History – organised on a broad, panoramic scale – and his sustained treatment of the Roman civil wars across five books suggest a historian seeking not merely to record events but to interpret them. In both design and declared purpose, Appian departs from conventional historiographical models, presenting himself as a writer concerned with explaining transformative moments in Roman history rather than simply recounting them. ### Writing the Roman Empire as World History Appian conceived his Roman History as a form of universal history. From [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/)’s early expansion in Italy to the campaigns of his own era, he traced the gradual extension of Roman power until it encompassed the inhabited world. For Appian, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s story was not simply one of conquest, but of sustained domination and long-term stability. He reflects a widely shared Roman perspective when he observes: > “Possessing the best part of the earth and sea they have, on the whole, aimed to preserve their empire by the exercise of prudence, rather than to extend their sway indefinitely over poverty-stricken and profitless tribes of barbarians …” (Roman History, Preface 7.26) The idea that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/) had achieved rule over the known world long predated Appian. [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-and-the-architecture-of-roman-power/) had already remarked that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-defeat-rome-never-forgot-teutoburg-forest-9-ce/) had conquered “nearly the entire inhabitable world.” Appian himself emphasises that most of the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) was acquired under the Republic, while the emperors largely maintained what had already been won. Roman history, once Rome dominated both western and eastern Mediterranean regions, effectively became world history. ![Ceiling of the entrance hall of the Provincial Council Palace of Palencia . The Vaccaei come out to defend Palencia from the troops of Lucius Licinius Lucullus (151 BC). Appian observes and records the episode.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Vaccaei-uprising-against-the-Romans--by-Eugenio-Oliva-1.jpg) Ceiling of the entrance hall of the Provincial Council Palace of Palencia . The Vaccaei come out to defend Palencia from the troops of Lucius Licinius Lucullus (151 BC). Appian observes and records the episode. Credits: Jl FilpoC, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### A Radically New Structure for Explaining Empire Greek historians had written universal histories since the fourth century BCE. Some attempted to narrate all human history from its beginnings; others, like Polybius, focused on a defined period during which world domination was achieved. Appian chose a different path. Rather than arranging his work strictly chronologically or geographically, he adopted an ethnographic structure. As he announces in his preface: > “I am going to write the part relating to each ethnos separately, omitting what happened to the others in the meantime, and taking it up in its proper place” (Roman History, Preface 13.49). Each book treats Rome’s conflict with a particular people – Spaniards, Carthaginians, Syrians, [Mithridates](https://romanempiretimes.com/mad-honey-warfare-how-king-mithridates-poisoned-pompeys-legions/), and others – narrating that struggle in chronological order, while largely avoiding synchronistic links with parallel events elsewhere. The result is not a seamless, continuous narrative of Mediterranean history, but a series of focused accounts that together form a panoramic history of empire. This approach sacrificed chronological interconnectedness in favour of analytical clarity. By isolating Rome’s encounters with different peoples, Appian sought to compare Rome’s conduct with that of its adversaries and to illuminate the distinct challenges posed by each. As he explains: > “… desiring to compare the Roman prowess with that of every other nation” > > and > > “desiring to learn the Romans’ relations to each, in order to understand the weakness of these nations or their power of endurance, as well as the bravery or good fortune of their conquerors or any other circumstance contributing to the result” (Roman History, Preface 12.48). In this way, Appian presents Roman expansion not as a uniform process, but as a sequence of varied encounters requiring different combinations of military skill, diplomacy, endurance, and fortune. The tribal societies of Spain and [Gaul](https://romanempiretimes.com/locusta-of-gaul-the-imperial-poisoner-of-ancient-rome/), the strategic brilliance of [Hannibal](https://romanempiretimes.com/hannibal-ad-portas-how-37-african-elephants-crossed-the-alps/), the organised monarchies of Antiochus and Mithridates, and the diplomatic complexities of the Greek cities all demanded different responses. Appian attributes Rome’s success to a unique blend of prudence, resilience, discipline, and fortune. He writes: > “Through prudence and good fortune (*δι’ εὐβουλίαν καὶ εὐτυχίαν*) has the empire of the Romans attained to greatness and duration in gaining which they have excelled all others in bravery, patience, and hard labor (ἀρετῇ καὶ φερεπονίᾳ καὶ ταλαιπωρίᾳ πάντας ὑπερῆραν)… through the doubtful struggles and dangers of seven hundred years, they achieved their present greatness, having enjoyed the favors of fortune through wisdom (διὰ τὴν εὐβουλίαν).” (Roman History, Preface 11.43–4) ### An Unprecedented Empire, An Unprecedented Form Earlier historians such as Polybius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Josephus offered their own explanations for Rome’s supremacy – whether constitutional stability, inherited Greek virtues, or divine providence. Appian, by contrast, embedded his explanation within the very structure of his history. His ethnographic organisation was designed to demonstrate, through comparison, that Rome alone possessed the range of qualities necessary to conquer and govern a vast and diverse world. He did not develop this theory through overt philosophical reflection or sustained polemic. Unlike Polybius, he rarely pauses to defend his method or to argue explicitly with predecessors. Instead, the explanatory force of his design is meant to emerge from the narratives themselves. For Appian, Rome’s empire was an unprecedented historical phenomenon – unmatched in size and endurance. To explain it required not simply recounting events, but reshaping the form of history itself. ("The Originality of Appian of Alexandria" by Jonathan J. Price) ### Mapping Power in Space and Time Appian structured his Roman History along two intersecting lines: time and space. The traditional chronological axis remains present, but he overlays it with a geographic one, organised around the peoples and regions Rome conquered and incorporated. From the outset, he makes this spatial perspective clear: > “Setting out to write the history of the Romans, I have considered it necessary to place at the beginning the boundaries of the peoples (*ethnē*) they rule” (Roman History, Preface 1–2). ![A page of the Latin translation of Appian’s „Roman History“ by Pier Candido Decembrio in the manuscript Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France,](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/appian-history-of-rome-in-latin---1--1.jpg) A page of the Latin translation of Appian’s „Roman History“ by Pier Candido Decembrio in the manuscript Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France. Public domain He then surveys those boundaries, occasionally noting lands beyond Roman control, such as Greater Armenia, “which the Romans do not control fiscally.” Geography, in other words, is not background detail but the foundation of his design. Appian’s history moves outward from Rome and Italy through the empire region by region – Celtic lands, Sicily, Spain, Carthage, and beyond – pausing for major conflicts such as the Hannibalic and Mithridatic Wars. The historian becomes a traveller across imperial space. Chronology, meanwhile, governs the internal structure of each section. Appian also frames Roman history within a vast temporal arc of more than nine centuries. He divides this span into three broad phases: roughly 500 years to secure Italy; 200 years to subdue most foreign nations; and a final 200-year imperial era in which emperors consolidated and defended what had already been won. His projected sequence of books follows this trajectory: wars in Italy, then wars against foreign peoples in order of their outbreak, followed by civil wars, and finally a concluding survey of Rome’s military forces, provincial taxation, and financial resources. Although Appian later modified elements of the plan – adding works on Egypt, the Dacians, and Arabs, while abandoning others such as a projected Parthian history and the final administrative survey – he largely adhered to his original framework. The arrangement was unusual. Chronological continuity was sometimes sacrificed, and Rome’s domestic political history often recedes behind the wider imperial canvas. Yet this design addressed a long-standing historiographical challenge: how to present coherently the growth of an empire that spanned continents. Earlier historians had grappled with similar tensions between geography and chronology. [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) and Diodorus followed largely annalistic structures; Polybius organised events by [Olympiads](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-greek-glory-to-roman-spectacle-the-olympic-games-evolution/) while moving geographically within each year. Others occasionally paused to survey the empire’s extent. Velleius Paterculus, for example, briefly catalogued the peoples and territories reduced to provincial status, remarking that by surveying them together > “what we have noted in stages will be more easily seen in its entirety all at once”. Josephus, in a speech he attributes to Agrippa II, similarly lists the nations under Roman rule and emphasises the tribute they pay, urging his audience to consider Rome’s strength and > “take the measure of your own weakness”. [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) and Florus likewise included panoramic surveys of Roman dominion, linking imperial geography to assessments of power and stability. Appian transforms what in these authors appears as episodic excursus into the organising principle of his entire history. His project resembles Florus in treating Rome’s expansion as world history and in suggesting that meaningful historical development culminated under Augustus. Yet where Florus frames his narrative as a compact panorama, Appian develops a sustained, region-by-region account of conquest and incorporation. This spatial ordering reflects a broader imperial mentality that conceived the empire not merely as territory on a map, but as a collection of peoples brought under Roman authority and obliged to contribute tribute. From [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/)’s triumphal displays of conquered nations to [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/)’ *Porticus ad Nationes* and the catalogues embedded in the Res Gestae, Roman political culture frequently expressed domination through lists of subdued peoples. Appian’s opening chapters, with their attention to fiscal control and boundaries, stand within this tradition. At the same time, Augustan ideology increasingly portrayed the empire as complete and stable – a unified whole secured by peace and sustained by revenues and standing armies. Augustus’ *breviarium totius imperii*, summarising [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/), provinces, fleets, and finances, provided a model for thinking about imperial resources in systematic terms. Appian’s own projected final book on Rome’s military forces and provincial revenues echoes this administrative vision. Thus Appian’s arrangement is neither arbitrary nor merely innovative for its own sake. It emerges from a long historiographical and political tradition of surveying empire in both temporal and spatial dimensions. By combining chronological progression with a systematic tour of conquered peoples, Appian sought to present the [Roman Empire ](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/)not simply as a sequence of wars, but as a structured and measurable world order – vast in extent, long in duration, and consciously organised under Roman rule. ("Breviarium Totius Imperii: he background of Appian's Roman History" by Josiah Osgood) Appian’s Roman History endures not because it is flawless, but because it confronts a problem few ancient historians attempted at such scale: how to explain the rise, consolidation, and internal fracture of an empire that reshaped the inhabited world. By organising his work around the peoples Rome conquered and the civil wars that nearly destroyed it, Appian transformed Roman history into a study of power across space and time. His design reveals a historian less interested in ornament than in comprehension. For readers seeking to understand how Rome became a world empire — and how it nearly collapsed under its own weight — Appian remains indispensable. ### How Greece Is Restoring a Roman Monument to Its Former Glory URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/how-greece-is-restoring-a-roman-monument-to-its-former-glory/ Last updated: 2026-02-24T16:48:35.000Z Beneath the southern slope of the Acropolis, one of [Athens](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrian-gate-in-downtown-athens-below-acropolis-a-gateway-to-history/)’ most recognisable landmarks is entering a new phase of renewal. The Odeon of [Herodes Atticus](https://romanempiretimes.com/herodes-atticus-a-bridge-between-greek-heritage-and-roman-power/) – the monumental Roman theatre built in 161 CE – is undergoing a carefully planned restoration designed to stabilise its structure, conserve its marble fabric, and recover aspects of its original architectural clarity. Nearly nineteen centuries after its construction, [Greece](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-romans-conquer-greece/) is working to ensure that this enduring symbol of Roman Athens continues to stand – and perform – with renewed strength and dignity. ![Herodes Atticus Odeon/Current situation](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/odeonherodetheatticuspresentcondition-1-1.jpg) Herodes Atticus Odeon/Current situation. Courtesy of the Greek Ministry of Culture. In July 2025, Greece’s Ministry of Culture, through its Directorate for the Restoration of Ancient Monuments, commissioned the National Technical University of Athens to undertake a comprehensive research programme focused on the protection and enhancement of the [Odeon of Herodes Atticus ](https://romanempiretimes.com/whispers-through-marble-the-enigmatic-acoustics-of-herodes-atticus-odeon/)on the southern slope of the Acropolis. The project centres on the preparation of interdisciplinary studies, bringing together specialists from multiple fields to ensure both the monument’s long-term preservation and its careful presentation to the public. ### A Comprehensive Restoration Strategy The Ministry of Culture’s objective is the full restoration of the monumental complex of the Odeon of Herodes Atticus, alongside the upgrading of its operational infrastructure so that it integrates harmoniously with both the natural landscape of the Acropolis and the surrounding built environment. ![Existing situation/Photorealistic rendering. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/irodeioallagiepemvaseis-1.jpg) Existing situation/Photorealistic rendering. Courtesy of the Greek Ministry of Culture. Minister of Culture Lina Mendoni emphasised that the Odeon is a major cultural asset for Athens, of profound historical importance and significance beyond the local level. These qualities, she noted, define the framework within which all studies and contemporary interventions must be carried out. The proposed works adhere to internationally recognised principles for the protection of monuments, while also respecting the demands of a living performance venue. The conservation, restoration, and infrastructure upgrades are expected to last at least three years from the start of works, during which time the monument will remain closed to the public. According to the Ministry, the Odeon currently faces structural challenges that require immediate attention. These include deterioration of the upper arcade of the façade, stone loss and cracking, minor deformations, and areas showing early signs of structural instability. ![Proposed removals of previous interventions at the monument](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/irodeio-allagi-epemvaseis4-1.jpg) Proposed removals of previous interventions at the monument. Courtesy of the Greek Ministry of Culture. In addition, biological erosion has been observed in several areas, caused by the growth of microorganisms in cavities where water accumulates, as well as root systems developing within joints. Some earlier restoration interventions have also proven inadequate and now require correction. The goal, once the works are completed, is to ensure that the monument is sufficiently protected against both natural and human-induced deterioration. At the same time, the restoration aims to improve the monument’s architectural legibility and fully upgrade its infrastructure to meet the functional requirements of contemporary cultural events – most notably those of the Athens Epidaurus [Festival](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/). Alongside the restoration and archaeological works, a new operational framework will be drafted by a designated team of scientists and artists. This regulation will take the form of a formal institutional document, ensuring both the high quality of future performances and the maximum protection of the monument. ![Proposal for the restoration of the southwestern slope of Koilos.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/irodeio-allagi-epemvaseis5-1.jpg) Proposal for the restoration of the southwestern slope of Koilos. Courtesy of the Greek Ministry of Culture. ### Preservation with Minimum Intervention The overarching restoration philosophy is grounded in safeguarding all surviving structural and architectural elements of the Odeon. Only strictly necessary reinforcements, additions, or reconstructions of lost sections will be carried out. The intention is not reconstruction for visual effect, but long-term protection: ensuring structural stability, durability, functionality, improved clarity of the monument’s form, and its continued educational value for future generations. ![Αddition of new sections to the Odeon of Herodes Atticus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/prosthikineontmimaton.jpg) Αddition of new sections to the Odeon of Herodes Atticus. Courtesy of the Greek Ministry of Culture. ### The Scope of the Studies and Technical Planning The restoration programme is supported by an extensive body of specialised studies. These include: - An architectural restoration study - A structural adequacy and structural rehabilitation study An architectural study for additional contemporary interventions (including upgrades to the stage building area, infrastructure for the Athens Epidaurus Festival, renovations of dressing rooms and sanitary facilities, works in the forecourt, ticketing areas, refreshment facilities, and related spaces): - Structural design for all architectural interventions - A mechanical engineering study (external water supply and drainage networks) - A dedicated acoustic study Together, these studies form the technical backbone of the project, ensuring that conservation, functionality, and safety are addressed in a coordinated and scientifically grounded manner. ### Structural Rehabilitation and Anastylosis The structural restoration works include the removal of incompatible modern materials, consolidation and bonding of [stone](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-used-more-than-stone/) elements, replacement of severely deteriorated components, filling of voids, and correction of minor deformations. ![Restoration proposal](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/protasinastilosis-1.jpg) Restoration proposal. Courtesy of the Greek Ministry of Culture. Anastylosis interventions are also planned. These involve the partial recovery of walls and structural elements, restoration of the vault and staircases, conservation and repositioning of architectural members, stabilization of the south wall of the stage building, and reconstruction of the *logeion* (stage platform) together with its surrounding wall. In addition, the structural stability of sections restored during the 1950s – along with subsequent repair works – will be reassessed to ensure long-term safety. ### Revealing Hidden Architectural Elements Particular emphasis is placed on the unveiling and presentation of the stage building and its [mosaic floors](https://romanempiretimes.com/asarotos-oikos-mosaic-unswept-floor-roman-elite/), which are currently not visible to the public. ![Stage Restoration Proposal.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/protasianastilosisskinis-1.jpg) Stage Restoration Proposal. Courtesy of the Greek Ministry of Culture. The project also includes an evaluation of the monument’s exposure to acoustic stress caused by performances. Rainwater drainage across the monument and its surrounding area will be redesigned, electrical and mechanical networks reorganised, fire protection systems studied, and the sewage infrastructure upgraded. ### Architectural Interventions for Clarity and Function The architectural study proposes targeted reconstructions and masonry completions intended to clarify the monument’s structural logic and restore its functional coherence. ![New additions compared to the original volume of the monument](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/neesprosthikessygkritikametonarxikoogkotoumnimeiou.jpg) New additions compared to the original volume of the monument. Courtesy of the Greek Ministry of Culture. **Planned interventions include:** - Stage Hall (*Skene*): Partial restoration of its outline to a height sufficient to re-establish its three-dimensional presence, while accommodating temporary stage structures used during performances. - *Proscenium*: Interventions to ensure safety and accessibility, and to render its architectural form legible and educational. - *Parodoi* Arches: Structural and conservation works. - Central Façade Wall: Protective additions to safeguard the wall and unify fragmentary surviving elements of the façade. - Eastern and Western Façade Walls: Targeted conservation and structural interventions. ![Αddition of new sections.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/prosthikineontmimaton2-ezgif.com-webp-to-jpg-converter-1.jpg) Αddition of new sections. Courtesy of the Greek Ministry of Culture. - Eastern Staircase: Restoration to re-establish circulation between the Odeon, the Stoa of Eumenes, and the ascending route toward the *Peripatos* walkway. - Curved Perimeter Wall: Reconstruction of its original outline and geometry, highlighting authentic architectural features and reactivating movement along the *Peripatos*, while supporting performance operations. - Cavea (Seating Area): Continued conservation of original marble seating blocks and selective completion of damaged seats affected by audience use. - The restoration of the Peripatos walkway aims to redirect visitor movement away from vulnerable archaeological remains west of the Asclepieion. ![Proposal for the restoration of the Proscene and the eastern aisle. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/protasianastilosisproskiniou-1.jpg) Proposal for the restoration of the Proscene and the eastern aisle. Courtesy of the Greek Ministry of Culture. Reinstating the eastern staircase and ascending pathway restores the monument’s original functional connection with the Stoa of Eumenes. ### Reorganising the Forecourt and Surrounding Grove Interventions in the forecourt and the landscaped area surrounding the Odeon aim to free the plaza from temporary support uses and improve both functionality and aesthetics. The project includes expansion of the forecourt through the creation of an elevated platform with a covered substructure housing refreshment facilities, ticket offices, and electromechanical installations. Renovation of sanitary facilities at the western end is also planned, alongside redesign of the *parodoi* entrances and the construction of discreet masonry and sheltered support spaces within the grove. ![Proposal for the restoration of the eastern Staircase.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/protasianastilosisanatolikouklimakostasiou-1.jpg) Proposal for the restoration of the eastern Staircase. Courtesy of the Greek Ministry of Culture. All architectural interventions are designed to balance functionality, visual harmony, and respect for both the monument and its natural environment. Mechanical installations will be discreetly integrated, and interventions will remain reversible wherever possible. ### Lighting, Infrastructure, and Acoustic Protection A new independent, semi-circular lighting and technical support structure will replace existing scaffolding systems. The design seeks both aesthetic integration with the monument and rational organisation of stage lighting. The water supply system will be fully upgraded and connected to dressing rooms and sanitary facilities, while the external sewage network will be completely reconstructed. ![Restoration proposal](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/protasianastilosis-1.jpg) Restoration proposal. Courtesy of the Greek Ministry of Culture. The acoustic study focuses particularly on whether the south wall of the Odeon is affected by both natural and amplified sound during performances. Because there are no widely established methodologies or universally accepted safety thresholds for assessing the “acousto-structural” behaviour of such a monument, a tailored and original research methodology was developed and implemented to allow objective and reproducible evaluation of potential impacts. ![Restoration proposal.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/protasianastilosis2-1.jpg) Restoration proposal. Restoration proposal. Nearly nineteen centuries after Herodes Atticus commissioned the theatre in memory of Regilla, the Odeon remains both monument and stage. The current restoration does not seek to reinvent it, but to stabilise, clarify, and safeguard it. When the works are completed, the Herodion will stand more resilient – structurally secured, architecturally legible, and prepared to continue its role in Athens’ cultural life for decades to come. ### The Spartan Who Saved Carthage – and Broke a Roman Invasion URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spartan-who-saved-carthage-and-broke-a-roman-invasion/ Last updated: 2026-02-19T11:03:11.000Z Before [Hannibal](https://romanempiretimes.com/hannibal-ad-portas-how-37-african-elephants-crossed-the-alps/) became Rome’s most famous enemy, another foreign commander forced the Republic to confront an uncomfortable truth. In North Africa, at a moment when victory seemed within reach, Rome’s legions met a battlefield they did not understand – and a strategist who understood them all too well. ### From Treaties to Messana – How Rome and Carthage Collided In the early centuries of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)’s expansion, Carthage and Rome were not natural enemies. Treaties signed as early as 508 BCE and again in 348 BCE regulated trade and recognised separate spheres of influence. At the time, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) was still a regional Italian power, and the agreements largely favoured Carthage, whose commercial reach far surpassed [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/)’s modest interests. As [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) consolidated control over Italy in the third century BCE, the strategic distance between the two powers narrowed. External pressures accelerated this shift. Agathocles of Syracuse operated in southern Italy in 293 BCE, and soon after, Pyrrhus of Epirus entered Italy and later Sicily, briefly challenging both Roman and Carthaginian interests. Despite these tensions, neither state sought direct confrontation with the other. The turning point came in 264 BCE, when Rome intervened at Messana in Sicily. What had previously been a Carthaginian-aligned city became the flashpoint of a broader struggle. Roman confidence, opportunism, and fears of Carthaginian influence in Italy combined with Carthaginian concern over shifting power balances in Sicily. The result was the First Punic War – a conflict neither side appears to have originally intended, yet one that escalated into the largest war the Mediterranean had yet seen. !["The Naval Battle Near Ecnomus (256 BC)'' by Gabriel de Saint-Aubin](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/The-Naval-Battle-Near-Ecnomus--1--1.jpg) "The Naval Battle Near Ecnomus (256 BC)'' by Gabriel de Saint-Aubin. Public domain The war was marked by massive losses and unexpected reversals. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/), inexperienced at sea, rapidly built fleets and achieved naval victories at Mylae (260 BCE) and Cape Ecnomus (256 BCE), yet also suffered catastrophic storm losses. On land, the Roman legions failed to expel [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/) from Sicily. In 256 BCE, Rome carried the war into Africa, winning at Adys and capturing Tunis, but failed to consolidate revolts among Carthage’s Numidian subjects. In 255 BCE, [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) turned to a [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) mercenary commander – Xanthippus – whose tactical reforms led to the destruction of the [Roman army](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) in Africa. The conflict dragged on until 242 BCE, when Rome defeated the Carthaginian fleet at the Aegates Islands. Cut off from supply, Carthage accepted peace, surrendered Sicily, and paid a heavy indemnity. What began as a dispute over a single Sicilian city had become a struggle that reshaped the western Mediterranean. (“General history of Africa II. Ancient civilizations of Africa” Editor: G. Mokhtar) ### A Century of Rivalry – The First Punic War as Prolonged Strategic Competition The three Punic Wars (264–146 BCE) formed a century-long struggle between Rome and Carthage, but the First Punic War (264–241 BCE) set the pattern. It began as a regional dispute over Sicily and developed into a prolonged contest between a rising land power and the dominant maritime state of the western Mediterranean. Rome’s consolidation of Italy in the fourth and early third centuries BCE brought it into closer contact with Sicilian trade routes and power politics. Carthage, long engaged in rivalry with Syracuse for influence on the island, viewed Roman intervention at Messana in 264 BCE as a dangerous shift in the balance of power. What followed was not a short campaign but a drawn-out strategic competition shaped by fluctuating fortunes, costly innovation, and shifting alliances. The war moved across Sicily, North Africa, and the open sea. Rome, inexperienced at naval warfare, built fleets from scratch and achieved early victories, including the capture of Agrigentum and major successes at sea. Yet storms destroyed entire Roman fleets, and Carthage regained momentum through maritime supply lines and the hiring of experienced mercenaries such as Xanthippus. Sicily became a theatre of siege, counter-siege, and stalemate, while both powers rebuilt, adapted, and endured repeated reversals. Only in 241 BCE, when a privately financed Roman fleet destroyed a Carthaginian relief force at the Aegates Islands, did the stalemate break. Isolated and exhausted, Carthage accepted peace, surrendering Sicily and paying a heavy indemnity. Yet the rivalry was not resolved. The interests that had driven both states into conflict remained intact, ensuring that competition would resume in later decades. ("Polybian Warfare The First Punic War as a Case Study in Strategic Competition and Joint Warfighting" By Casey B. Baker) The African campaign was the moment Rome learned that the war could reach beyond Sicily – and it was also the moment a single outsider briefly reshaped Carthage’s battlefield decisions ### Xanthippus – The Outsider Who Took Command at Carthage Carthage relied heavily on hired soldiers, but it still tended to reserve the highest commands for its own citizens. Senior posts often clustered in established families, forming something like a lasting military aristocracy. That pattern appears to have held until the First Punic War – and then, in 255 BCE, it briefly broke. For that single moment in the conflict, Carthage placed a foreigner in overall command. His name was Xanthippus. ![The Greek historian polybius. Models made of gypsum of statues, reliefs etc. from the time of Historicism and Art Nouveau (late 19th and early 20th century) for buildings at Ringstraße in Vienna, Austria, stored in the former wine cellar of Hofburg Palace (Leopold Wing).](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/the-greek-historian-polybius--1--1.jpg) The Greek historian polybius. Models made of gypsum of statues, reliefs etc. from the time of Historicism and Art Nouveau (late 19th and early 20th century) for buildings at Ringstraße in Vienna, Austria, stored in the former wine cellar of Hofburg Palace (Leopold Wing). Credits: TsuiCC BY-SA 3.0 Ancient writers agree on only one firm point about him: he was a mercenary from Lacedemonia (Sparta). Beyond that, his background and career are uncertain. The sources disagree on how he arrived, what status he held before reaching Africa, and what exactly led to his sudden promotion – and they are equally unclear about what became of him after his victory. Still, even with these gaps, there is enough surviving material to set his appearance in context and to compare the different traditions that try to explain who he was. By the time Xanthippus enters the narrative, the war had already produced major Roman successes. Rome had taken Akragas in 262 BCE and won its first great naval victory at Mylae in 260 BCE. Yet even after securing Syracuse as an ally under Hiero II, Rome could not drive Carthage out of Sicily or force a decisive end to the fighting. > “Just about this time there arrived at Carthage one of the recruiting-officers they had formerly dispatched to Greece, bringing a considerable number of soldiers and among them a certain Xanthippus of Lacedaemon, a man who had been p91 brought up in the Spartan discipline, and had had a fair amount of military experience. > On hearing of the recent reverse and how and in what way it occurred, and on taking a comprehensive view of the remaining resources of the Carthaginians and their strength in cavalry and elephants, he at once reached the conclusion and communicated it to friends that the Carthaginians owed their defeat not to the Romans but to themselves, through the inexperience of their generals. > Owing to the critical situation Xanthippus's remarks soon got abroad and reached the ears of the generals, whereupon the government decided to summon him before them and examine him. > He presented himself before them and communicated to them his estimate of the situation, pointing out why they were now being worsted, and urging that if they would take his advice and avail themselves of the level country for marching, encamping and offering battle they could easily not only secure their own safety, but defeat the enemy. > The generals, accepting what he said and resolving to follow his advice, at once entrusted their forces to him” Polybius, The Histories The Roman solution, as the sources present it, was to shift the war’s centre of gravity to Africa – a move that echoes the earlier precedent of Agathocles, who had attacked Carthage’s home territory to relieve pressure on Sicily. [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/) highlights the scale of Roman adaptation at this stage, noting reforms and reorganisation that made the expeditionary force ready to fight both at sea and on land. After a Roman victory near Cape Tyndaris, the Roman fleet could cross the Mediterranean, and Carthage faced a new danger: the war had reached its own territory. The Romans did not immediately attempt to blockade Carthage itself. Instead, they took Aspis, turned it into a base, and used the surrounding countryside to supply their operations. ![Tindari Lagoon in the municipality of Patti in Sicily, Italy. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Tindari-Lagoon-in-the-municipality-of-Patti-in-Sicily--Italy_jpg-1.jpg) Tindari Lagoon in the municipality of Patti in Sicily, Italy. Credits: Clemensfranz, CC BY-SA 3.0 The sources emphasise the speed with which the campaign became destructive: raids and plundering brought in livestock and prisoners and widened the crisis beyond the battlefield. At this point, Rome split its army. One part returned home; the remainder stayed in Africa under the consul Gaius Atilius Regulus. [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-and-the-architecture-of-roman-power/) reports that Regulus besieged Adys, defeated the Carthaginians again, and then moved toward Tunis, close enough to sharpen the sense of immediate threat. The situation worsened further as [Numidian](https://romanempiretimes.com/numidia-rome-african-frontier-and-the-soldiers-who-changed-an-empire/) groups exploited the moment, raiding the countryside and intensifying the supply crisis. In this picture, Rome’s advance and Numidian unrest combine to strain Carthage’s ability to feed both city and rural populations. It is against this backdrop – military defeats, territorial pressure, internal instability, and failed negotiations – that Xanthippus becomes visible. But the sources cannot agree on how. Polybius claims Carthage had already sent recruiters to [Greece](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-romans-conquer-greece/), and that Xanthippus arrived among other mercenaries. Hearing the situation, he is said to have analysed Carthaginian failures aloud, spoke with such confidence that his comments reached the generals, and was then summoned, consulted, and ultimately placed in command. Appian instead describes a more formal request: Carthage sent to Sparta specifically for a commander, and Sparta sent Xanthippus. Diodorus presents him as a soldier who pressed the generals to fight and offered himself as commander. [Cassius Dio ](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/)goes even further, portraying his rise as an assumption of authority not only over the army but almost over the city itself. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/), meanwhile, compresses the story into a brief label, calling him a Spartan commander serving under Hamilcar Barca. Because his earlier life is undocumented, later writers and modern scholars are left to infer what kind of man he might have been. Polybius and Cassius Dio both hint that he was not aristocratic, describing him as emerging from the mercenary ranks and, in Dio’s case, explicitly calling him low-born and implying Carthaginian contempt for a Greek outsider. Nothing reliable can be said about when he was born, where he was raised, or whether he held citizen status at Sparta. The text also stresses the problem of timing: Xanthippus lived in the Hellenistic period, when Sparta’s society and military system were no longer identical to the older classical model, and when mercenary service had become increasingly common across the Greek world. Even so, whatever his origin, the fact that Carthage trusted him with supreme command suggests experience and credibility. He does not read as a newly trained recruit. The narrative assumes a man already practised in warfare and capable of directing troops. The sources also associate him with active battlefield leadership, including movement on horseback. Diodorus describes him riding across the field, rallying men and even physically intercepting fugitives to send them back into the fight. > “During the battle Xanthippus, the Spartan, rode up and down, turning back any foot-soldiers who had taken flight. But when someone remarked that it was easy for one on horseback to urge others into danger, he at once jumped down from his horse, handed it over to a servant, and going about on foot, begged his men not to bring defeat and destruction upon the whole army.” Diodorus Siculus, Library of History,Fragments of Book XXIII That raises practical questions the tradition cannot answer – whose horse he rode, whether he had cavalry training, and how common such skills were for a Spartan or Greek mercenary commander of this period. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/The-Capture-of-Carthage--1.jpg) Giovanni Battista Tiepolo: The Capture of Carthage. Metropolitan Museum of Art. Public domain The discussion expands naturally into the wider evolution of warfare: hoplite equipment was changing, Macedonian influence had reshaped infantry tactics, and cavalry had become increasingly important across Hellenistic battlefields. The text also points out that Carthage had access to highly distinctive cavalry in its Numidian allies, and the ability to combine such forces with elephants and mixed infantry made its armies unusually complex to command. That complexity matters for understanding why Xanthippus could be presented as decisive. Polybius has him training the army before battle, which implies not just tactical knowledge but an ability to work quickly with a multi-ethnic force – Balearic slingers, Numidian cavalry, elephants, and Greek mercenaries among others – each with different roles. > “Now even when the original utterance of Xanthippus got abroad, it had caused considerable rumour and more or less sanguine talk among the populace, but on his leading the army out and drawing it up in good order before the city and even beginning to manoeuvre some portions of it correctly and give the word of command in the orthodox military terms, the contrast to the incompetency of the former generals was so striking that the soldiery expressed their approval by cheers and were eager to engage the enemy, feeling sure that if Xanthippus was in command no disaster could befall them. > Upon this the generals, seeing the extraordinary recovery of courage among the troops, addressed them in words suitable to the occasion and after a few days took the field with their forces. These consisted of twelve thousand foot, four thousand horse and very nearly a hundred elephants.” Polybius, The Histories Zonaras adds a key tactical detail: Xanthippus avoided fighting in broken or higher ground and brought the battle onto plains, where cavalry and elephants could operate most effectively. This choice of terrain becomes part of the explanation for Carthage’s reversal of fortunes. The battle itself is framed as an interaction between numbers, formation, and conditions. Polybius gives Carthage 12,000 infantry, 4,000 cavalry, and close to 100 elephants, while Rome has 15,000 infantry but only about 500 cavalry. Rome’s infantry advantage could not compensate for Carthage’s overwhelming mounted superiority and its elephant corps. Xanthippus placed elephants at the front, heavy infantry behind, and cavalry and light troops on the wings. Regulus positioned light infantry forward, heavy infantry behind, and cavalry on the wings, trying to blunt the elephant threat. Polybius suggests the Roman formation could absorb elephants but at the cost of exposing itself to encirclement by cavalry. In this reading, cavalry becomes the decisive instrument, not necessarily because Carthaginian riders were inherently superior, but because Rome had too few to resist them. That interpretation has consequences. It undercuts the idea that Carthage’s own commanders were uniquely incompetent. The text insists that Carthage had long produced effective generals and continued to win battles in Sicily and elsewhere. It also reminds the reader that Carthaginian tactics after Mago’s reforms had already moved closer to Greek-style methods, so Xanthippus’ approach was not alien in principle. His appointment, then, may require an explanation beyond simple “foreign genius replacing failed locals.” The passage proposes several possibilities: perhaps he was unusually well-known among mercenary circles; perhaps his value lay in morale and confidence at a crisis point; perhaps Polybius’ narrative shape elevates him for moral and literary reasons (the arrogance of Regulus, the reversal of fortune, the lesson about seizing opportunities). ![Benjamin West: The Departure of Regulus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Benjamin-West-the-departure-of-Regulus--1--1.jpg) Benjamin West: The Departure of Regulus. Public domain Another possibility is more administrative: Xanthippus may have been an already influential subordinate whose name only surfaced because the story needed a recognisable agent for the victory. After the battle, the sources present dramatic results: Carthage suffered relatively light losses, Rome was shattered, prisoners were taken, and Regulus himself was captured. Xanthippus is credited with saving Carthage from immediate danger and helping force Rome’s retreat from Africa – though the text also stresses that Roman logistical difficulties and shortages were already a major threat to the expedition. Then the tradition fractures again. Polybius says Xanthippus left Carthage soon afterward, judging the decision sensible because success would provoke envy and he lacked the social protection of family and allies in a foreign city. Polybius hints at other versions but never returns to them. Diodorus offers a more elaborate tale: Xanthippus goes back to Sparta, recruits more men, travels to Sicily, wins again, and is then drowned through treachery. Cassius Dio preserves two similar ship stories: either Carthaginians pursued and sank him, or they supplied a defective ship that he avoided by switching vessels. Appian also reports deception at sea, claiming the Carthaginians disposed of him and his companions by throwing them overboard. Across these versions, jealousy is the recurring explanation – the victorious outsider becomes a liability. That raises an obvious puzzle: why would Carthage eliminate a commander who had saved the city, rather than retain him for the rest of the war? The text offers practical pressures. Mercenary commanders could be dangerous, and Mediterranean history supplied plenty of examples of mercenary bands turning into threats. Carthage also faced financial strain, and later events (including the Mercenary War) suggest serious difficulties in paying troops. Some accounts imply that non-payment or the need to discharge mercenaries may have contributed to Xanthippus’ removal, whether by dismissal, deception, or violence. Finally, the passage turns to a striking possibility: a later cuneiform chronicle from the Ptolemaic world mentions a commander named Xanthippus active in Mesopotamia in the 240s BCE, serving Ptolemy III. The chronology could, in theory, fit a survivor of the African campaign who later sought employment in the eastern Mediterranean. But the identification cannot be proven. The name may be coincidental, and even if it is the same man, there remains a long gap where nothing is known. ('Xanthippus of Laecedemonia: a foreign commander in the army of Carthage" by Dantas, Daniela) Xanthippus enters the record at a moment of crisis, reshapes a battlefield, captures a Roman consul, and then recedes into uncertainty. Whether dismissed, betrayed, or simply pragmatic enough to leave before envy turned dangerous, he remains one of the most elusive figures of the First Punic War. For a brief interval, Carthage entrusted its survival to a foreign commander — and Rome learned that even its legions could be undone when cavalry, elephants, terrain, and leadership converged against them. What endures is not a biography, but an episode: a single campaign in which the balance of the Mediterranean shifted because an outsider understood how to use the army before him. ### The Forbidden Dionysian Mysteries: Why did the Roman Empire Persecute Christianity? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-forbidden-dionysian-mysteries-why-did-the-roman-empire-persecute-christianity/ Last updated: 2026-02-16T23:49:33.000Z The cause of the Christian persecution is a subject that has been a debate for centuries. How is it possible that such a vast and ethnically as well as religiously diverse empire like the Roman one with so much tolerance for all other religions could impose such persecutions, showing immense cruelty to a seemingly harmless religion? From [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-romes-most-infamous-ruler-part-1/)’s scapegoat of the Christians as responsible for the Great Fire to Decius’ persecution as well as with the Great Persecution of [Diocletian](https://romanempiretimes.com/diocletian-architect-of-the-roman-empires-renewal/), various [Roman emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) used many pretexts at different periods of the [Roman empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) to impose their terror to the Christian community. But what was the main reason for this religion being so specifically targeted? ## The ban on nocturnal meetings and the fear of Dionysian cults in Rome The early Romans would worship a deity equivalent to Dionysus. The worship of ‘’ Liber Pater’’ was inserted in the Roman Republic thanks to cultural contact with the Etruscans and South Italians. It was however mainly associated with the [plebeians](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/) and was always viewed as suspect and degenerate by the Patrician elite. The Roman aristocratic ideal demanded sober characters who respected norms and rules and their minds would dominate over emotions and instincts. And this ideal would be incompatible with the the cult of Liber Pater. ![A Bacchanalian Revel Before a Term, Nicolas Poussin, 1632–1633](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Nicolas_Poussin_-_Bacchanale_devant_une_statue_de_Pan.jpg) A Bacchanalian Revel Before a Term, Nicolas Poussin, 1632–1633\. Public domain Nonetheless the Patricians tolerated it while at the same time associate it with the plebeians who apart from wine would most commonly consider this God to represent their liberties. What however the Roman Patrician elite would never tolerate would be the Dionysian mysteries and most specifically nightly occult rites. The Romans in all their history always had a fear for all nightly secret associations. That was a law already established by [Romulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-romulus-kill-remus-the-tragic-tale-of-the-founders-of-rome/) in his [Twelve Tables](https://romanempiretimes.com/foundations-of-justice-romes-twelve-tables/) and would remain and make it to the imperial period. According to David Irving : ‘’ The causes and the pretexts of persecution may have varied at various periods; but there seems to have been one general cause which will readily be apprehended by those who are intimately acquainted with the Roman jurisprudence. From the most remote period of their history, the Romans had conceived extreme horror against all nocturnal meetings of a secret and mysterious nature. A law prohibiting nightly vigils in a temple has even been ascribed, perhaps with little probability, to the founder of their state. The laws of the twelve tables declared it a capital offence to attend nocturnal assemblies in the city.’’ *(Observations on the Study of the Civil Law, by Dr. Irving, Edin. 1820\. p. 11.)* Accordingly, he adds that in the spirit of that law, the nocturnal assemblies of the early Christians must have made them objects of unusual suspicion, and exposed them to the scrutiny of the authorities. It was at night that they generally conducted their most solemn and sacred gatherings. In this respect, therefore, the Romans incurred no penalties unique to adherents of a new faith, but only such as were equally imposed on those who, while professing the public religion of the state, were nevertheless guilty of this clear breach of its laws. ## Bacchus against Rome But apart from the obvious reason that was the fear of the Romans for conspiracies, it was precisely its religious nature and the Dionysian elements that would trigger this hostility. Dionysus stands apart among the gods as the power of ecstasy, instinct, and emotion—the god who dissolves boundaries rather than enforcing them. As protector of [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/), he presides not merely over intoxication but over transformation itself. [Wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-tavern-inn-wine-bar-the-hospitality-business-of-an-ancient-roman-city/) is water transfigured: water, the primordial liquid from which all generation and corruption arise, mixed with etha-nol, a warm, fiery principle. In this sense wine mirrors blood, itself a fusion of water and fire, the substance through which life sustains and animates itself. To drink wine is therefore not simply to escape sobriety but to participate in a cosmological process, a controlled descent into flux. As Nietzsche observed, in frenzy nature “uncovers its secrets”—revealing what remains invisible to the sober, Apollonian eye. This is why Heraclitus could identify Dionysus with Hades: both rule over transformation, dissolution, and return. In Dionysian vision, the dead may appear not as ghosts but as truths—what lies beneath form, order, and daylight reason. The mysteries of Dionysus, including the myth of Dionysus Zagreus that also played a central role in the Eleusinian rites, enacted this truth with terrifying consistency. What occurred in these rites was the loss of personality and personal consciousness, surrendered to the ecstatic, unifying power of the god. Ethics, dignity, identity, and honor—pillars of civic life—were temporarily stripped away, and each initiate submitted to the rule of his or her *daimones*, his/her instincts. In that dissolution came illumination: the light of Dionysus, where all distinctions collapsed. All became water, all became Dionysus; men and [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/), children and elders, [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) and free, poor and rich, kings and workers were rendered equal in the same sacred frenzy. This was precisely what the Romans feared and despised. It was equality through dissolution, the annihilation of hierarchy, law, and stable identity, that made Dionysian occultism intolerable to a civilization built on order, control, and fixed roles. Dionysus threatened not morality, but the very structure of power itself. In historical times, the figure of Dionysus lies at the heart of most socio-political and religious transformations. Dionysus is the god who not only guides individuals beyond customs, hierarchies, and social barriers, but, as “*Dionysus Eleutherios*,” provides the foundation for liberation from human constraints and the ascent of man to Olympus, as in the myth, achieving his “divinization.” These characteristics influenced both democracy and monarchy—both political systems that, at least during the Republican period, were regarded with suspicion or even hostility by Rome. It is no coincidence that the democratic reforms in [Athens](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrian-gate-in-downtown-athens-below-acropolis-a-gateway-to-history/) began with the blessings of the Eleusinian priesthood, promoting Cleisthenes to the leadership of the city, who established Democracy in Athens in 507 B.C. ![Statue of Bacchus, 1496–1497, Michelangelo](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Michelangelo_Bacchus-1.jpg) Statue of Bacchus, 1496–1497, Michelangelo. Public Domain ## Monarchy and Democracy: The Roman Republic's Worst Enemies Here it’s worth to note the difference between Republic and Democracy as polities. In essence, the difference between a democracy and a republic lies in both participation and orientation of governance. A democracy, in the Aristotelian sense, is a system in which political power is exercised primarily in the interest of the poor, regardless of the numerical or moral virtues of its citizens. In contrast, a republic—or “polity,” as Aristotle terms it—is a mixed form of government in which citizens from all social classes participate, and laws are designed to serve the common good rather than the advantage of a particular group. For the Romans, this distinction was particularly meaningful: the democratic principle, if applied in Rome, would resemble a “plebocracy,” where the plebeians held predominant influence, whereas the *Res Publica* ensured that both patricians and plebeians had rights and responsibilities, maintaining a balance between social classes for the benefit of the entire citizen body. Within this framework, Republican [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/)’s deep hostility toward monarchy can be understood as a reaction not only to political absolutism but also to its Dionysian dimensions. Monarchy in the Hellenistic world often carried sacral and ecstatic elements that clashed sharply with Roman ideals of restraint, civic order, and collective rule. [Mithridates](https://romanempiretimes.com/mad-honey-warfare-how-king-mithridates-poisoned-pompeys-legions/) VI of Pontus, one of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)’s most formidable enemies, explicitly noted in his letter this Roman aversion to kingship in his correspondence, portraying Rome as ideologically opposed to monarchic power itself: > ‘’ Once vagabonds with fatherland, with parents, created to be the scourge of the while world, no laws, human or divine, prevent them(the Romans) from seizing and destroying allies and friends, those near them and those afar off, weak or powerful, and from considering every government which does not serve them, especially monarchies, as their enemies.’’ *Sallust, Histories 4.69.* Significantly, Mithridates styled himself *Dionysus Eupator*, a title that openly invoked the god associated with excess, liberation, and divine kingship. This self-identification was not incidental but reflected a broader Hellenistic tradition in which rulers claimed Dionysian attributes to legitimize their authority. The Seleucid kings, also persistent adversaries of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/), similarly aligned themselves with Dionysus, presenting their rule as both divine and transgressive of ordinary civic limits. To Republican [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/), such Dionysian monarchy represented everything it feared: the fusion of political power with religious ecstasy, personal charisma, and unchecked authority. ## *Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus* The Romans consistently perceived Dionysian mysticism as a direct threat to the moral and political foundations of their state and opposed it wherever it appeared. They regarded it as a subversive force imported from Greece and the Hellenistic East, capable of undermining Roman discipline, hierarchy, and civic virtue. This fear helps explain the brutal suppression of the [Bacchanalia ](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/)in 186 BCE. According to [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/), the rites were introduced by a > “Greek of humble origin, versed in sacrifices and soothsaying,” who transformed them into nocturnal gatherings marked by wine, ecstatic ritual, and communal feasting. These secret ceremonies attracted large numbers of followers, both women and men, and spread rapidly beyond elite control. Particularly alarming to Roman authorities was the prominent role of women within the cult, which inverted [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s rigid patriarchal order and challenged traditional male authority. Livy further claims that around seven thousand cult leaders and initiates were arrested in the aftermath of the scandal, and that most of them were executed. To the Roman mind, Dionysian worship fused religious frenzy with social disorder, dissolving boundaries between genders, classes, and moral norms. As a result, the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) treated the Bacchanalia not as a harmless foreign cult but as a political and cultural threat that demanded ruthless repression. ![The reproduction of the inscription of the senatorial decree concerning the Bacchanalia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Senatus_consultum_de_bacchanalibus.jpg) The reproduction of the inscription of the senatorial decree concerning the Bacchanalia. Public Domain ## The Political Causes of the Christian Persecution Politically speaking, according to the philosopher Dimitris Liantinis, the Christians were persecuted precisely for the value system that they represented which stood in total contrast with that of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-defeat-rome-never-forgot-teutoburg-forest-9-ce/). While the Romans glorified might and military strength, [Jesus](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-romans-kill-jesus/) would propose passive stance towards violence and anti-militarism(which was also the main reason that Marcus Aurelius committed persecutions). Rome also glorified wealth and hard labour for slaves while Jesus would condemn the accumulation of wealth, favour distribution and propose that labour isn’t something important for God will take care of the believer through nature. ![The Christian Martyrs' Last Prayer by Jean-Léon Gérôme](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/The_Christian_Martyrs-_Last_Prayer_GA-C.jpg) The Christian Martyrs' Last Prayer by Jean-Léon Gérôme (1863–1883, Walters Art Museum). Public domain Also Rome glorified philosophy, science and knowledge while Christians glorified the common people and the less intelligent ones, furthermore Rome adhered to strict obedience to laws(*Dura lex sed lex*) while Jesus would forgive all people who committed crimes like thievery, robberies or prostitution but would condemn the strong ones, whether in wealth or intelligence. At the same time, Jesus challenged the sacralization of imperial authority by declaring, > “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” *Mark 12:17* thereby separating divinity from the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/the-year-of-the-four-emperors/). Finally, he condemned both the hedonistic excesses of Roman life and, in certain teachings, relativized traditional family bonds—elements that, from a political perspective, were considered essential for procreation and demographic stability within the Roman state. Moreover, in a society whose institutions—from the Senate to the provinces, local assemblies, and [aristocracy](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/)—were grounded in political polytheism or at least henotheism, combined with patriotic loyalty to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/), Christianity proposed a strict, personal, and universal rejection of worldly attachments. Christians proclaimed that the true fatherland lay in the Kingdom of Heaven and often discouraged active participation in military defense or civic cults tied to the state. ## The Difference between Roman and Christian Values Edward Gibbon, in The History of the Decline and Fall of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/), examined the connection between Roman polytheism and its political institutions, arguing that the abandonment of pagan religion weakened social cohesion and made the empire more vulnerable to internal instability and external invasion. Furthermore, the figure of Jesus himself could appear socially disruptive within the family-centered Roman culture. Born without a human father according to Christian belief, and teaching that spiritual kinship could surpass biological ties—as in Matthew 12:46–50, where he states that those who follow God’s will are his true family—Jesus relativized traditional familial structures. In a society that regarded the patriarchal family as the foundation of legal, social, and political order, such teachings could easily be perceived as radical or even revolutionary. Furthermore Jesus believed in the equality of a free-man and a slave before God. The connection between early Christianity and the Jewish communities of the first and second centuries cannot be overstated. In its formative period, Christianity emerged from within Judaism and remained closely intertwined with Jewish religious life and identity. During this same era, Rome fought three major Jewish wars and suppressed repeated Jewish revolts, often with extreme severity. The Jews were regarded by many Roman authorities as a particularly suspect ethno-religious group, and Roman repression of Jewish uprisings reached some of its most violent expressions in Judea. ![The Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/-Venice-_La_distruzione_del_tempio_di_Gerusalemme_-Francesco_Hayez_-_gallerie_Accademia_Venice.jpg) The Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem (Francesco Hayez, 1867). Public Domain The Roman historian [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) reflects this perceived clash of value systems between Rome and both Jews and Christians. Notably, he does not clearly distinguish Christians from Jews, often treating them as part of the same religious category. In Histories 5.2–5, he writes: > “Among the Jews all things are profane that we hold sacred; on the other hand, they regard as permissible what seems to us immoral.” He further adds: > "The other practices of the Jews are sinister and revolting… Proselytes to Jewry adopt the same practices, and the very first lesson they learn is to despise the gods, shed all feelings of patriotism, and consider parents, children, and brothers as readily expendable.” He also remarks that > “their kings are not so flattered, the Roman emperors not so honored.” ## The association of the Jewish and Christian God with Sabazios Tacitus also notes that some writers perceived similarities between the worship of “Liber” (Dionysus) and the God of the Jews. At first glance, certain symbolic parallels between Jesus Christ and Dionysus appear striking. Both are associated with wine: Jesus transforms water into wine at Cana (John 2:1–11), and wine holds ritual significance within Jewish tradition as well (Psalm 104:15). Dionysus, too, was regarded as a savior figure (*soter*) in some traditions and was linked to themes of transformation, ecstasy, and renewal, even symbolic death and rebirth (as in the epithet Bromios). Moreover, both Bacchic and Christian worship involve a ritual consumption of wine and a sacred element—meat in certain Dionysian rites and [bread](https://romanempiretimes.com/panis-quadratus-the-ancient-bread-that-fed-an-empire/) in Christianity—understood symbolically as participation in the divine presence. Tacitus however notes that he sees a difference between the god Liber Pater and the god of the Jews: > "Their priests used to perform their chants to the flute and drums, crowned with ivy, and a golden vine was discovered in the Temple; and this has led some to think that the god thus worshipped was Liber, the conqueror of the East. But the two cults are very different. Liber founded a festive and happy cult: the Jewish belief is paradoxical and degraded.’’ Nonetheless the Romans would still associate the Jewish (and Christian) God with Sabazios, the ‘’barbaric’’ Dionysus. According to Valerius Maximus: > "Gnaeus Cornelius Hispalus, praetor peregrinus in the year of the consulate of Marcus Popilius Laenas and Lucius Calpurnius, ordered the astrologers by an edict to leave Rome and Italy within ten days, since by a fallacious interpretation of the stars they perturbed fickle and silly minds, thereby making profit out of their lies. The same praetor compelled the Judeans, who attempted to infect the Roman custom with the cult of Jupiter Sabazius, to return to their homes.’’ [Strabo](https://romanempiretimes.com/strabo-mapping-the-world-of-rome/), in the first century BC, already connects Sabazios with Dionysus Zagreus, the son of Zeus and Persephone, who represents the chthonic or underworld manifestation of Dionysus. The followers of the cult of Sabazios were believed to maintain a close relationship with the spirits of Hades, and many of their rituals involved invocations intended to offer protection against evil spirits—what the Romans would call Lemures. The association between the Dionysian mysteries and magical or apotropaic practices is therefore particularly striking: > "The picture that Heraclitus sketches suggests at first glance a world in which holy men who characterized themselves as acolytes of Dionysus or as Iranian magoi offered initiation into mysteries that were suspect in the eyes of Heraclitus and no doubt of others.’’ *Matthew W. Dickie, Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World p. 26* > "When the attendant who has been sent to arrest the ecstatic followers of Dionysus, the maenads and Dionysus himself, comes back with Dionysus in bonds but without the maenads, he also brings with him a report of the miracles (thaumata) that have attended the arrival of Dionysus in Thebes.’’ *p. 73* ## Christianity and Magic ![Julian the Apostate presiding at a conference of sectarians, by Edward Armitage, 1875](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Edward_Armitage_-_Julian_the_Apostate_presiding_at_a_conference_of_sectarian_-_1875.jpg) Julian the Apostate presiding at a conference of sectarians, by Edward Armitage, 1875\. Public domain It was precisely this part of the Dionysian mysteries that the Romans opposed so much. They basically opposed the cult that would cause a man to abandon reason, to give himself up to his instincts and what they would regard as ‘’lower daemons’’ in exchange for powers. This for them was dangerous to humanity and most especially for human nature, which for most Romans was social and political while they would drive them to isolation. This was the precise accusation that Julian the Apostate gave against the Christians: > "Some men there are also who, though man is naturally a social and civilized being, seek out desert places instead of cities, since they have been given over to evil demons and are led by them into this hatred of their kind. > > And many of them have even devised fetters and stocks to wear; to such a degree does the evil demon to whom they have of their own accord given themselves abet them in all ways, after they have rebelled against the everlasting and saving gods.’’ *Julian the Apostate: Fragment of a letter to a priest* He also advises pagan priests to abstain from the Dionysian theaters of his time: > "No priest must anywhere be present at the licentious theatrical shows of the present day, nor introduce one into his own house; for that is altogether unfitting. > > Indeed, if it were possible to banish such shows absolutely from the theatres so as to restore to Dionysus those theatres pure as of old, I should certainly have endeavoured with all my heart to bring this about; but as it is, since I thought that this is impossible, and that even if it should prove to be possible it would not on other accounts be expedient, I forebore entirely from this ambition. > > But I do demand that priests should withdraw themselves from the licentiousness of the theatres and leave them to the crowd. Therefore, let no priest enter a theatre or have an actor or a chariot-driver for his friend; and let no dancer or mime even approach his door. > > And as for the sacred games, I permit anyone who will to attend those only in which women are forbidden not only to compete but even to be spectators.’’ ### Rome wages war against the Christian ''superstition'' One of the most common accusations brought by the Romans against Christians was that of “superstition.” [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) refers to Christians as *genus hominum superstitionis maleficae*—“a class of men given to a malignant superstition.” [Pliny the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/), in describing his investigations and prosecutions of Christians, explains that he felt compelled to examine whether the rapidly spreading movement posed any conspiratorial threat. As part of his inquiry, he ordered the torture of two female slaves who were called deaconesses. He concludes, however, that he found nothing beyond what he describes as a “depraved and excessive superstition” (*superstitio*). The Greek term *deisidaimonia* (superstition) etymologically signifies fear of, or excessive reverence for, daemons. Thus, when Roman authorities accused Christians of superstition, the charge should not be understood in the modern sense of believing in something imaginary or irrational. Roman society was deeply religious and firmly believed in divine providence. With the exception of certain philosophical schools—such as the Epicureans, and in different ways some Peripatetics—that questioned or rejected the existence of lower daemons and divine intervention, most Romans and Greeks accepted the reality of both benevolent and malevolent spiritual beings who exercised influence over human affairs. It was therefore common to suspect that individuals who performed miracles or acts of sorcery—especially when such acts appeared to produce tangible benefits—were operating under the influence of malevolent daemons. Within this framework, labeling Christianity as superstitio implied not disbelief in its spiritual claims, but rather the conviction that its power derived from dangerous or impious spiritual forces. The Neopythagorean Apollonius of Tyana—whose life was often compared by both Christians and pagans to that of Jesus—was likewise accused of practicing sorcery and of being under the influence of evil daemons. According to Philostratus, even the priests of the Eleusinian Mysteries were initially hesitant to initiate him, precisely because of suspicions surrounding his alleged magical practices. ## Jesus the ''possessed'' magician Accusations of involvement in magic were so widespread in antiquity that they became a recurring theme in pagan polemics against Christianity. Christian miracle-working, exorcisms, and prophetic claims were frequently interpreted not as signs of divine authority but as evidence of illicit magical arts. In this context, the charge of sorcery functioned as a powerful tool for discrediting religious rivals within the broader spiritual and philosophical landscape of the Roman world. Celsus would accuse Jesus of learning magic art for his miracles in Egypt: > "Hence, in consequence of being expelled by her husband, becoming an ignominious vagabond, she was secretly delivered of Jesus, who, through poverty being obliged to serve as a hireling in Egypt, learnt there certain arts for which the Egyptians are famous. Afterwards, returning from thence, he thought so highly of himself, on account of the possession of these \[magical\] arts, as to proclaim himself to be a God.’’ *Arguments Of Celsus, Porphyry, And The Emperor Julian, Against The Christians, by Thomas Taylor p. 5* He even went as far as to claim that the miracles coming from incantations are in fact demonic and not real ones. In the end Porphyry would not only claim that Jesus derives his miraculous powers from demons but that he himself is descended from evil spirits of the lowest order: > "There are terrene spirits of the lowest order, who in a certain terrene place are subject to the power of evil demons. From these were derived the wise men of the Hebrews, of whom Jesus also was one; as you have heard the divine oracles of Apollo above mentioned assert. > > From these worst of demons therefore, and lesser spirits of the Hebrew, the oracles forbid the religious, and prohibit from paying attention to them, but exhort them rather to venerate the celestial gods, and still more the father of the gods. > > But the unlearned and impious natures, to whom Fate has not granted truly to obtain gifts from the gods, and to have a knowledge of immortal Jupiter,—these not attending to the gods and divine men, reject indeed all the gods, and are so far from hating prohibited demons, that they even choose to reverence them. > > But pretending that they worship God, they do not perform those things through which alone God is adored." *Augustin: De Civit. lib. xix. cap. 23* Taken together, the accusations of Celsus, Porphyry, and even Julian and other Roman writers reveal that the conflict between Rome and Christianity was not merely political, but also metaphysical. ### Vitellius: The Emperor Rome Raised – and Destroyed URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/vitellius-the-emperor-rome-raised-and-destroyed/ Last updated: 2026-02-15T14:04:22.000Z In the chaotic year of 69 CE, Rome did not merely change emperors – it exposed the fragility of imperial power. Amid the rapid succession of claimants who rose and fell with the loyalty of legions, one figure would be remembered less for military strategy or political vision than for appetite. Aulus Vitellius entered Rome as emperor carried by the momentum of civil war; he would leave it dragged through the streets. Between those two moments lies a reign that later writers reduced to excess and indulgence – yet beneath the caricature stands a more complex story of authority in collapse. ### A Tyrant by Tradition – Or a Casualty of Narrative? The surviving ancient portraits of Vitellius are overwhelmingly hostile. In the works of [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/), [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/), and [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/), he appears as indolent, self-indulgent, and politically incapable – a ruler defined by excess rather than authority. Such uniform negativity reflects the shadow cast by the victorious Flavian dynasty, whose rise depended on the discrediting of their predecessor. These authors drew on a shared historical tradition about the collapse of [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-romes-most-infamous-ruler-part-1/)’s regime, the civil wars of 68–69 CE, and the emergence of [Vespasian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/). Earlier scholarship sought a single lost source behind their similarities; more recent work recognises a broader network of parallel accounts. What matters is not merely common origin but narrative shaping. Each historian moulded inherited material to serve his own literary and ideological purposes. The case of Cassius Dio is especially revealing. His account of Vitellius survives only in Byzantine epitomes and excerpts – through Xiphilinus, Zonaras, and the *Excerpta Constantiniana* – yet enough remains to reconstruct its structure. Dio certainly preserved the familiar accusations of luxury and debauchery. But unlike Tacitus or Suetonius, he also recorded moments of clemency, legislative moderation, and constructive relations with senate and people. These passages complicate the standard image. Where Tacitus often treats similar anecdotes with irony, casting Vitellius’ gestures as hollow pretence, Dio isolates them as evidence of qualities expected of a *civilis princeps* – the “good emperor.” His narrative method, shaped by character sketches rather than strict chronology, allowed room for selective commendation within an otherwise negative reign. The result is not rehabilitation but tension. Vitellius remains flawed, yet he is not reduced entirely to caricature. In Dio’s hands, the emperor becomes a figure through whom competing standards of imperial behaviour are tested – a ruler whose brief principate exposes how history itself could magnify vice, soften virtue, or rearrange both according to the needs of narrative and memory. ### Clemency in a Time of Civil War – Dio’s Unexpected Vitellius Book 65 opens with familiar invective: Vitellius is introduced as devoted to > “extravagance and licentiousness” (τῇ τε τρυφῇ καὶ τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ προσκείμενος), followed by anecdotes of gambling, monumental banquets, and the infamous million-sesterce dish. Administrative detail is minimal, a consequence of Dio’s biographical method, which separates character flaws from deeds worthy of praise. The tone shifts in 65.6: > “Οὕτω δὲ βιοὺς οὐκ ἄμοιρος ἦν παντάπασι καὶ καλῶν ἔργων.” Vitellius, though morally compromised, was > “not completely without good deeds.” He retained the coinage of Nero, Galba, and Otho, confirmed their grants, forgave tax arrears, refrained from confiscations, spared most of Otho’s supporters, respected their families’ property, honoured the wills of fallen enemies, and barred senators and equestrians from degrading performances. > “And he was praised on account of these things.” These gestures align with [the ideal of *clementia*](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-continence-of-scipio-a-legacy-of-clemency-in-roman-history-and-art/) – the virtue of the *ἀγαθὸς αὐτοκράτωρ*. Tacitus recounts similar episodes but undermines them, casting mercy as weakness or self-interest; Suetonius largely omits or subverts them. Dio, by contrast, isolates such acts as evidence of imperial restraint. The difference reflects perspective. Writing after witnessing the brutal purges of [Septimius Severus](https://romanempiretimes.com/septimius-severus-founder-fighter-and-father-of-a-new-rome/) and the confiscations following [Geta](https://romanempiretimes.com/brothers-divided-the-tragic-tale-of-emperors-caracalla-and-geta/)’s murder, Dio recognised in Vitellius’ leniency something conspicuously absent in his own age. By distinguishing *βίος* from *ἔργα*, he preserved space for measured praise within an otherwise negative reign. ![Emperor Vitellius on horseback](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/vitellius-on-horseback--1--1.jpg) Emperor Vitellius on horseback. Public domain ### Arena, Theatre, and Imperial Dignity – Performing the *civilis princeps* Public entertainment was not mere diversion. The theatre, [circus](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-circus-maximus-and-why-there-is-nothing-left-of-it/), and [arena](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/) formed a political stage on which the emperor displayed – and risked – his authority. Although Dio disapproved of the games, he recognised that attendance was part of imperial duty: at such events a princeps could exhibit *comitas*, receive acclamations, and be judged by the people. Yet enthusiasm had limits. To participate personally, rather than observe with dignified restraint, was a breach of imperial decorum. Vitellius’ passion for chariot racing earned predictable censure, especially for > “rubbing down the racing horses in the clothes of the Blues.” These charges echo the hostile tradition preserved by Tacitus and Suetonius. Yet Dio distinguishes between indulgence and conduct befitting a ruler. Under the heading of his “good deeds,” Vitellius is said to have forbidden senators and equestrians from fighting as [gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/) or appearing on stage in public spectacles. The account concludes simply that “for these things he was praised.” At a time when [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-rome-most-infamous-ruler-part-2/) had forced members of both orders to perform in the arena – conduct Dio describes elsewhere as utterly shameful and shocking – this decision signalled a restoration of proper social boundaries. For a senator like Dio, who had personally witnessed [Commodus](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-commodus-truly-the-megalomaniac-gladiator-emperor/) fight as a gladiator and [Caracalla](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/) race [chariots](https://romanempiretimes.com/fury-on-wheels-the-legendary-chariot-races-of-ancient-rome/) in public, such restraint mattered. Dio also notes that Vitellius attended the theatre regularly and that the crowd became attached to him as a result. The same wording is used for Otho and Didius Julianus, but in those cases frequent theatre attendance is presented as flattery and weakness. Here, however, the tone is more balanced. Tacitus, by contrast, treats the very same behaviour as hollow performance: actions that might have seemed pleasing and popular are dismissed as vulgar and undignified because of Vitellius’ earlier life. Dio further notes that Vitellius *“Ἐπεφοίτα… τοῖς θεάτροις συνεχῶς,”* and that the crowd became attached to him. Similar phrasing is used of Otho and Didius Julianus, yet in those cases theatre attendance signals flattery and weakness. Here, the tone is measured. Tacitus, by contrast, undermines the same behaviour as theatrical pretence: actions “*grata sane et popularia*” are dismissed as “*indecora et vilia*” because of Vitellius’ past. The divergence is revealing. Tacitus exposes performance; Dio assesses propriety. In Dio’s reconstruction, Vitellius attended, observed, and refrained from degrading participation. Even an emperor notorious for excess could, in the arena and theatre, act in accordance with the standards of a civilis princeps. ### Dining as Equals – Vitellius and the Senate in Dio’s Account Dio’s final positive assessment of Vitellius concerns his relationship with the [Roman elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/), especially the senatorial order. In one passage, Vitellius is shown dining with the most powerful men without arrogance, honouring former companions, and not distancing himself from those who had known him before his rise. Unlike rulers who, once elevated, despised their earlier associates, Vitellius treated senators as social equals. For Dio – who had personally experienced humiliation under Caracalla and had seen emperors favour freedmen and soldiers over senators – such behaviour mattered. Dining practices, in his view, revealed an emperor’s character. A second episode reinforces this impression. When the senator Helvidius Priscus openly challenged him in the senate, Vitellius did not retaliate. Instead, he told the fathers of the senate not to be disturbed if “two men of your order” disagreed. The incident was interpreted as an act of magnanimity. Where Tacitus portrays the same exchange as arrogance and self-serving comparison with Thrasea Paetus, Dio presents it as restraint and respect for senatorial dignity. For him, this quality – clemency and measured conduct toward fellow aristocrats – was a defining feature of good imperial rule. Yet Dio’s praise is limited. After noting these acts of affability and moderation, he returns to a largely negative portrait: imitation of Nero, extravagant banquets, and behaviour that sensible observers regretted. The shift reflects his method – separating character assessment from narrative – and allows Vitellius to emerge not as a simple caricature of vice, but as a ruler whose conduct, at moments, met the standards Dio believed an emperor ought to uphold. *(The Conduct Of Vitellius In Cassius Dio's Roman History" by Franz Steiner Verlag)* ### The Survivor at Court: Vitellius and the Fall of Messallina The execution of [Valeria Messallina](https://romanempiretimes.com/messalina-was-she-really-the-most-dangerous-woman-of-the-roman-empire/) in 48 CE is usually told as the triumph of the freedman Narcissus over a reckless empress. In Tacitus’ account, Lucius Vitellius appears only briefly, depicted as hesitant and politically timid. Yet the timing of events invites closer scrutiny. If Messallina’s affair with Gaius Silius had been as public and dangerous as reported, why did Narcissus wait nearly a year before acting? ![Messalina bearing Britannicus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Messalina-bearing-Britannicus---1--1.jpg) Messalina bearing Britannicus. Public domain The delay suggests that isolating [Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/) was not enough. Messallina’s allies – especially Vitellius – had to be neutralised first. His earlier role in the forced prosecution of his friend Valerius Asiaticus in 47 CE may have altered his loyalties. Compelled to participate in the destruction of a long-standing associate, Vitellius likely emerged embittered but cautious. Rather than openly opposing Messallina, he may have waited for a moment when silence would be more powerful than intervention. When Narcissus finally moved against the empress, Vitellius did nothing. That absence of defence proved decisive. His later portrayal as passive and fearful may not reflect weakness, but deliberate self-preservation. By minimising his involvement in her fall, he avoided provoking Agrippina and protected himself against possible revenge from Messallina’s children. In a court governed by shifting alliances, survival often depended less on bold action than on knowing precisely when to withdraw. ("The Role of Lucius Vitellius in the Death of Messallina" by David Woods) ### The Crowd Didn’t Change – Power Did Vitellius’ rise and fall is often used to repeat the old cliché of *inconstantia plebis* – the “unreliable crowd.” Tacitus captures the brutality of the turnaround with one unforgettable line: > “The mob reviled the dead man with the same heartlessness with which they flattered him when he was alive.” The same people who cheered him at the start applauded his death when Antonius Primus’ men entered [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/). Yet the reversal wasn’t driven first by the masses. The sharper pivot came from above. Otho’s leading officers hurried to Vitellius and claimed they had secretly opposed Otho all along. The Arval Brothers quietly rewrote their public loyalty, altering names on an inscription as the political wind shifted – and later erasing Vitellius’ name after his fall. When the *primores civitatis* saw the Flavian advance becoming inevitable, they were quickest to abandon Vitellius and attach themselves to Flavius Sabinus. The crowd followed the reality that the elite had already accepted: the regime was collapsing. Vitellius’ early success also helps explain the speed of the later disaster. He rose with startling ease – a classic “military Caesar,” acclaimed by the Rhine legions in early January 69 and carried into power on consensus and army loyalty. His entry into Italy, the defeat of Otho at Bedriacum (14 April 69), and Rome’s formal recognition created a sense that the struggle was over when it was not. Crucial forces – especially the Danube armies – remained intact, and the new ruler behaved like a victor securing a settled throne rather than a contender still balancing an empire of rival armies. ![Statue of Vitellius in Saint-Germain-l'Auxerrois, Paris, France](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/statue-of-Vitellius--1--1.jpg) Statue of Vitellius in Saint-Germain-l'Auxerrois, Paris, France. Credits: Nick Thweatt, CC BY-SA 3.0 From that misread situation, the narrative turns to a pattern: strategic sluggishness, political inconsistency, and a failure to bind defeated factions into a workable settlement. The result wasn’t simply “fickle people.” It was a ruler who repeatedly looked in two directions at once, lost the confidence of the upper orders first, and then discovered – too late – that popular enthusiasm cannot survive a collapse of credibility. Tacitus’ earlier description of the crowd during civil war, tense and listening for every sound, fits the mood perfectly: > “There was no uproar, no quiet, but such a silence as accompanies great fear and great anger.” *("Vitellius and the "Fickleness of the Mob" by Z. Yavetz)* The emperor who entered the capital on the strength of military consensus misread the fragile geometry of power that sustained him. His leniency toward former enemies, his gestures toward the senate, and even his restraint in the arena reveal a ruler capable of acting within recognised standards of imperial conduct. Yet these moments of moderation were undermined by hesitation, inconsistency, and a failure to understand that civil war does not end with a single battlefield victory. When the Danube legions advanced and elite confidence shifted, Vitellius discovered what every ruler of 69 CE would learn: legitimacy in a civil war is never stable. The upper orders recalculated first. The inscriptions changed. The allegiances adjusted. The crowd, far from initiating the reversal, responded to a political reality already decided elsewhere. Tacitus’ image of a mob that flatters in life and insults in death remains unforgettable. But the sharper lesson lies beneath it. Popular enthusiasm could not survive a ruler who appeared uncertain at the decisive hour. Once Vitellius hesitated between abdication and resistance, between private survival and public command, he ceased to be an emperor and became, in Tacitus’ words, merely “a cause of war.” History remembered him as a glutton. Yet the deeper failure was not appetite, but instability – the inability to align gesture, policy, and power at a moment when the empire demanded coherence. In that sense, Vitellius was less an aberration than a symptom: a ruler exposed by the very civil conflict that had elevated him. Suetonius’ description of the events that led to his assassination is horrifying: > "The foremost of the army had now forced their way in, and since no one opposed them, were ransacking everything in the usual way. > > They dragged Vitellius from his hiding-place and when they asked him his name (for they did not know him) and if he knew where Vitellius was, he attempted to escape them by a lie. > > Being soon recognised, he did not cease to beg that he be confined for a time, even in the prison, alleging that he had something to say of importance to the safety of Vespasian. But they bound his arms behind his back, put a noose about his neck, and dragged him with rent garments and half-naked to the Forum. > > All along the Sacred Way he was greeted with mockery and abuse, his head held back by the hair, as is common with criminals, and even the point of a sword placed under his chin, so that he could not look down but must let his face be seen. > > Some pelted him with dung and ordure, others called him incendiary and glutton, and some of the mob even taunted him with his bodily defects. He was in fact abnormally tall, with a face usually flushed from hard drinking, a huge belly, and one thigh crippled from being struck once upon a time by a four-horse chariot, when he was in attendance on Gaius as he was driving. > > At last on the [Stairs of Wailing⁠c](https://romanempiretimes.com/gemonian-stairs-rome-spot-mourning-execution-scalae-gemoniae/) he was tortured for a long time and then despatched and dragged off with a hook to the Tiber." (*Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars. The Life of Vitellius)* ### If You Were Overweight in Ancient Rome, You Were Judged URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/if-you-were-overweight-in-ancient-rome-you-were-judged/ Last updated: 2026-02-11T23:29:34.000Z In the Roman world, the body was never merely physical. It was read, judged, and interpreted as evidence of character. Flesh could signify abundance or indulgence; thinness could suggest discipline, illness, or poverty. Moralists, physicians, satirists, and philosophers all treated the body as a visible register of virtue and vice. To speak of fatness or thinness was rarely to describe physiology alone. It was to speak about luxury, self-control, power, weakness, and the delicate balance the Romans called moderation. ### Framing Fatness and Thinness – Modern Questions, Ancient Evidence Debates in contemporary society about obesity – including proposals such as charging airline passengers for extra seats – reveal how body size can be treated not merely as a medical issue but as a matter of social functionality and moral judgment. While physical impairments associated with excess weight may be acknowledged, the cultural perception of personal responsibility often shapes public attitudes in ways distinct from other recognized disabilities. At the same time, modern Western emphasis on health, fitness, and bodily perfection has also produced anxieties about extreme thinness, both in affluent societies and in contexts of undernourishment elsewhere. From a historical perspective, these debates offer an opportunity rather than a platform for judgment. The study of Graeco-Roman antiquity allows scholars both to examine ancient societies with present-day questions in mind and to reconsider modern assumptions in light of ancient attitudes. The subject of fatness and thinness in classical antiquity remains relatively underexplored. A comprehensive survey of [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) and Latin literature from the fifth century BCE to the sixth century CE reveals scattered but significant references to individuals described as overweight or emaciated. These references open questions about social class, gender, age, and the practical effects of body size on daily life. The evidence operates on several levels. Literary texts reflect popular reactions – mockery, pity, admiration, or disgust – while medical and philosophical writings address bodily weight within broader discussions of self-control, health, and moral character. In some contexts, obesity is linked to excess and [indulgence](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/), while thinness may be associated with restraint, poverty, or ascetic virtue. ![Roman Mosaic with a Symposium scene](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Roman-Mosaic-with-a-Symposium-scene--Ch--teau-de-Boudry-1.jpg) Roman Mosaic with a Symposium scene. Public domain Christian authors introduce further nuances, especially in discussions of bodily discipline and spirituality. Distinguishing between lived reality and literary construction is not always straightforward, since mythological or rhetorical descriptions of bodies can illuminate cultural perceptions as much as they reflect actual conditions. Recent scholarship has begun to address these issues more directly. Studies of philosophical discourse have emphasized themes of moderation and self-restraint, though they often focus more on moral behavior than on physical fatness itself. Research into Roman visual culture has examined representations of corpulence and emaciation in art, while anthropological approaches have highlighted how the material qualities of fat – softness, heaviness, visibility – shape perception across cultures. Given the fragmentary and dispersed nature of the ancient evidence, a broad survey of genres and periods is necessary to avoid overly narrow conclusions. Finally, the longue durée perspective is essential. Greek and Roman elites perceived their literary and medical traditions as part of a shared continuum, stretching from early classical texts through late antiquity. Although regional and chronological differences undoubtedly existed, they are often difficult to isolate in the surviving sources. The history of fatness and thinness in antiquity was neither static nor uniform, yet it formed part of a durable cultural conversation about the body, health, morality, and social belonging – a conversation whose echoes extend far beyond the ancient world. ### Food, Bones, and the Limits of Measuring Ancient Bodies Any discussion of fatness and thinness in the Graeco-Roman world must begin with basic material conditions: average body size and access to [food](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/). Yet such questions have often been neglected in favour of literary or ideological analysis. Osteological research suggests an average height of roughly 1.67 metres for the Graeco-Roman population. From skeletal remains, scholars can estimate stature, frame, and in some cases muscular development linked to heavy labour. Weight itself, however, leaves no direct trace. Body fat does not fossilise, and a small-framed individual might once have been heavy, just as a large-boned skeleton might have belonged to someone very lean. Recent osteoarchaeological research has identified indirect indicators that may correlate with body mass, such as degenerative joint changes in the spine, hips, knees, and feet, as well as measurements of the femur in subadults. Obesity-related joint disease can sometimes offer clues. ![Doryphoros of is the perfect visual expression of the Greeks' search for harmony and beauty. Cast at the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Doryphoros-of-Polykleitos--1--1.jpg) **Doryphoros* of Polykleitos is the perfect visual expression of the Greeks' search for harmony and beauty. Cast at the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts. Credits: Shakko, CC BY-SA 4.0 Even so, no reliable estimates of obesity rates in classical antiquity exist. In contrast to studies of the Middle Ages, including skeletal analyses sometimes associated with monastic communities, antiquity remains largely unquantified in this respect. Attempts to diagnose obesity retrospectively through[ art ](https://romanempiretimes.com/this-surprising-theme-spawned-300-paintings-heres-why-artists-couldnt-quit-it-roman-charity-caritas/)are equally uncertain. Some scholars have suggested that statuettes and terracottas display features consistent with specific medical conditions – ranging from endocrine disorders to fluid retention or forms of dwarfism. While such pathologies certainly existed in antiquity, identifying them confidently in artistic representations is methodologically precarious and rarely yields firm conclusions. Similar caution applies to images of extreme thinness, particularly in Hellenistic art. Evidence for undernourishment, by contrast, appears more substantial. Osteological studies indicate cases of severe mobility impairment caused by insufficient nutrition, especially during childhood. Many researchers argue that calorie and protein shortages affected a large portion of the Roman population, likely increasing the prevalence of lean and even emaciated bodies. Some estimates suggest that a significant share of adult men may have lacked the sustained physical capacity for heavy labour throughout the day – a claim sometimes supported by comparative data from early modern Europe. At the same time, overly optimistic reconstructions of ancient nutritional abundance have been criticised, and more balanced assessments emphasise methodological limits and regional variation. Although it is impossible to assign Body Mass Index values to the ancient Mediterranean, broad comparisons suggest that the Graeco-Roman world more closely resembled modern societies with high rates of underweight populations rather than contemporary Western countries marked by widespread overweight and obesity. Corpulent individuals likely existed, but they were probably uncommon. Thinness – sometimes moderate, sometimes severe – would have been a far more familiar sight in everyday life. ### Fat Kings and “Barbarian” Bodies: Between Admiration and Exoticism Modern discussions of body size often rely on sharp contrasts: “western contempt versus non-western admiration,” or the supposed celebration of fatness in traditional societies set against contemporary Western ideals of slenderness. In popular imagination, this has produced the assumption that pre-modern cultures naturally admired corpulent rulers – the “fat, fertile and opulent king” as a symbol of abundance and power. For the ancient Mediterranean, such ideas are often linked to prehistoric figurines, such as the so-called “Fat Lady” statues from Neolithic [Malta](https://romanempiretimes.com/domus-romana-the-roman-villa-of-rabat-malta/) or the Venus of Willendorf, as well as Egyptian depictions of the god Hapy with sagging breasts and a large belly. These images have been interpreted as symbols of [fertility](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/), prosperity, prestige, or even hope for a blessed afterlife. ![South Temple, Fat Lady Statue in Malta. This large statue is of the familiar "obese" type. It would be somewhat over six feet when complete. It is usually considered to represent a goddess of fertility.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/fat-lady-statue-in-Malta--1--1.jpg) South Temple, Fat Lady Statue in Malta. This large statue is of the familiar "obese" type. It would be somewhat over six feet when complete. It is usually considered to represent a goddess of fertility. Credits: Michael Gunther CC BY-SA 4.0 Female figurines in particular have been associated with fertility, motherhood, femininity, and sexual appeal – although some of these readings have been challenged, especially by feminist scholarship. Even in societies sometimes described as admiring fatness, distinctions were often made between a “comfortable” amount of bodily fat and extreme overweight that impaired social functioning. Strikingly, ancient literary evidence for deliberately fattened kings is extremely sparse. When fatness does appear in Greek and Roman sources, it is typically attributed not to admired rulers within the classical world, but to “strange and exotic” peoples. Xenophon, for example, describes the Pontic Mossynoecians – whom he calls the “most barbarious nation” his soldiers encountered – as engaging in unfamiliar and shocking customs. Among these, he uniquely mentions the deliberate fattening of wealthy children: > “And when the Greeks, as they proceeded, were among the friendly Mossynoecians, they would exhibit to them fattened children of the wealthy inhabitants (παῖδας τῶν εὐδαιμόνων σιτευτούς), who had been nourished on boiled nuts and were soft and white to an extraordinary degree, and pretty nearly equal in length and breadth, with their backs adorned with many colours and their fore parts all tattooed with flower patterns.” (Xenophon, Anabasis 5.4.32; transl. C. Brownson) Here, corpulence is not presented as a normative Greek or Roman ideal, but as part of a catalogue of foreign oddities. A similar tone appears in the pseudo-Plutarchan On the Proverbs of the Alexandrians, which gathers examples under the maxim, “Each region has its own habits.” Among various exotic customs, we find: > “One finds different customs among different people – customs which are particular to one people. The inhabitants of Gordium elect the fattest among them (τὸν παχύτατον αὑτῶν) as king.” (ps.-Plutarch, De proverbiis Alexandrinorum 10) To the best of our knowledge, these two passages are the only ancient references to fatness deliberately cultivated for royal or aristocratic prestige. Even when access to abundant food is portrayed as a sign of prosperity, or when Hellenistic kings and [Roman emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) are depicted with large, well-fed bodies symbolising wealth and stability, this does not amount to an endorsement of deliberate fattening. Instead, such practices are consistently framed as foreign. For Greek and Roman authors, corpulent rulers belonged to the realm of the exotic and the “barbarian,” a category often associated with weakness, excess, or lack of discipline. Fatness, in these texts, is not a stable symbol of prestige within classical culture, but part of a broader discourse about otherness. ### Naming Fatness and Thinness: Vocabulary, Description, and the Problem of “Normality” More than two centuries of classical lexicography, combined with digital research tools, make it relatively easy to assemble long lists of Greek and Latin words denoting fatness and thinness. For his study, “Writing the story of fatness and thinness in Graeco-Roman antiquity” Christian Laes examined roughly a thousand passages containing relevant search. Yet the apparent clarity of this vocabulary is deceptive. Modern language about body size is often medicalised. Terms such as “overweight” or “obese” refer to technical definitions that can shift with changing standards – as demonstrated when revised medical guidelines in 1998 reclassified millions of people overnight. By contrast, ancient terminology belonged to a descriptive rather than a diagnostic sphere. Greek and Roman physicians knew nothing of the Body Mass Index, and no fixed quantitative threshold defined corpulence or emaciation. Words such as “fat” or “slender” reflected relational judgments about bodily proportion rather than measurable categories. Greek vocabulary for corpulence includes terms such as *γαστρώδης* or *γαστροειδής,* *μεγαλόκοιλος, παχύς/παχύτης, πίειρα/πίων, πιμελώδης, πολύσαρκος/πολυσαρκία, προγάστωρ, σάρκινος, and ὑπέρσαρκος/ὑπερσάρκωμα*. For thinness, words such as *ἄσαρκος/ἀσαρκία, ἰσχνός/ἰσχνότης, λεπτός/λεπτότης, ὀλιγόσαρκος/ὀλιγoσαρκία*, and *σκληφρός* appear. Latin equivalents include *adeps, crassus/crassitudo, obesus, (prae)pinguis, subcrassulus, and ventriosus for fat bodies, and macer/macritudo, macilentus*, and *strigosus* for thin ones. ![Vitellius, Emperor of Rome. Line engraving, after A. Sadeler after Titian Iconographic Collections](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Vitellius-emperor-of-Rome--1--1.jpg) Vitellius, Emperor of Rome. Line engraving, after A. Sadeler after Titian Iconographic Collections. Credits: Wellcome collection, CC BY-SA 4.0 Yet many occurrences of these words do not describe human bodies at all. Soil can be called “fat,” cattle are described as corpulent, and even sounds or voices may be termed “fat” or “thin.” Certain medical terms, such as *ὑπέρσαρκος* (“covered with flesh”), often refer not to obesity but to scars, excess tissue, or pathological growths. Even words like *βαρύς* *or gravis* rarely signify bodily heaviness. Context is therefore crucial. Ancient authors themselves occasionally reflected on bodily terminology in revealing ways. [Galen](https://romanempiretimes.com/galen-of-pergamon-rome-most-famous-physician-galenus/), for example, articulates an ideal of proportion: > “Such a body is precisely in the middle of all excesses, so that the other types of bodies are understood and named in correlation with it. The body which is fat (τὸ παχὺ σῶμα) in comparison with this, is called fat (παχὺ), and in the same way the thin body (τὸ λεπτὸν) is named, the fleshy one and the one with little flesh (πολύσαρκόν τε καὶ ὀλιγόσαρκον), the fatty and the unyielding (καὶ πιμελῶδες, καὶ σκληρὸν) the weak, the hairy and the bare. None of these bodily types is in due proportion. But the body which equals the canon of Polycleites reaches the summit of complete symmetry. People who touch it do not sense experience anything weak nor harsh, neither hot nor cold; those who watch do not sense it as hairy or bare, fat or skinny (μήτε παχὺ, μήτε ἰσχνὸν), or with any other sort of asymmetry.” (Galen, Ars Medica 14) In another passage, he distinguishes between healthy flesh and excess: > “Such as there exists both a proper disposition of the flesh in the human body (εὐσαρκία) and an excess of flesh (πολυσαρκία), there is a goodness of blood and fullness of blood.” (Galen, De Plenitudine 10) These statements reflect the broader ideal of the *aurea mediocritas* – a preference for balance rather than extremes. Although ancient physicians lacked modern quantitative standards, they clearly regarded certain bodily states as preferable. Instead of speaking of “normality” in a statistical sense, they spoke of *εὐσαρκία* – a well-conditioned, properly proportioned body. Other terms, such as *ἔμμετρος* (“in due measure”) or *προσῆκον* (“appropriate”), conveyed conformity to an ideal of proportion rather than deviation from a measurable norm. Latin authors also grappled with bodily terminology. Aulus Gellius (Roman author and grammarian) observed that *obesus* originally carried the sense of “wasted away, lean, thin,” citing an archaic poetic usage. Grammarians debated whether *pinguetudo* was correct Latin. [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) even speculated that the name Galba might once have meant “enormously fat” (*praepinguis*) in a Gaulish context. Taken together, the evidence reveals a vocabulary shaped less by medical classification than by ideals of symmetry, balance, and proportion. Fatness and thinness were not fixed categories defined by numbers, but relational descriptions anchored in broader cultural notions of harmony and excess. ### Banqueting with Bodies: Athenaeus and the Moral Theatre of Fatness and Thinness A remarkable concentration of anecdotes about unusually fat and unusually thin individuals appears in the *Deipnosophistae* (The Learned Banqueters) of Athenaeus of Naucratis. The temptation to treat these stories as straightforward social evidence is strong: they are vivid, detailed, and often irresistibly comic. Yet they must be read within the literary architecture of the work as a whole. Significantly, stories about obese figures do not occur in Books 3 or 10, where gluttony and its socially destructive consequences are treated directly. Instead, corpulent rulers appear in Book 12, devoted to *τρυφή* – luxury, extravagance, and the moral incapacity to restrain desire. Athenaeus was not describing his own society but acting as an antiquarian compiler, gathering earlier anecdotes and embedding them within a moralised discourse on excess. ![Dionysius of Heraclea, an obese man applying leeches to his arms in order to lose weight. Reproduction of a woodcut.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Dionysius-of-Heraclea--an-obese-man-applying-leeches-to-his-body--1--1.jpg) Dionysius of Heraclea, an obese man applying leeches to his arms in order to lose weight. Reproduction of a woodcut. Credits: Wellcome collection, CC BY 4.0 The portrait of Dionysius of Heraclea, tyrant from 337/6 to 306/5 BCE, illustrates this method. Athenaeus, quoting Nymphis, writes: > “Dionysius the son of Clearchus, who was the first tyrant of Heraclea, and who was himself afterwards tyrant of his country, grew enormously fat without perceiving it (*ἔλαθεν ὑπερσαρκήσας*), owing to his luxury and to his daily gluttony; so on account of his obesity (*διὰ τὸ πάχος* ) he was constantly oppressed by difficulty of breathing and a feeling of suffocation. On which account his physicians ordered thin needles of an exceedingly great length to be made, to be run into his sides and chest whenever he fell into a deeper sleep than usual… And he used to give answers to people who came to him, holding a chest in front of his body so as to conceal all the rest of his person, and leave only his face visible.” (Athenaeus) Luxury and gluttony are presented as causes; breathlessness and immobility as consequences. The grotesque medical detail – long needles piercing insensitive flesh – heightens the sense of degeneration. Comic poets reinforce the image. One fragment describes him as a “fat pig,” another fantasises about lying fat and flat on one’s back – in pleasure. Yet Athenaeus also notes that Dionysius ruled gently for thirty-three years. The juxtaposition invites reflection: does the mention of his humanity complicate expectations about the obese tyrant? The same moralising pattern appears in the account of Ptolemy VIII Physcon. His nickname *Physcon* (“Potbelly”) encapsulates bodily mockery. Athenaeus stresses his long, effeminate sleeves, his difficulty walking, and the punning contrast between *Euergetes* (“Benefactor”) and *Cacergetes* (“Malefactor”). A witticism records that he > “never went abroad on foot except on Scipio’s account,” a phrase that also suggests walking with a staff. Corpulence becomes inseparable from decadence, ridicule, and political failure. Other rulers follow: Ptolemy X, leaning on attendants yet dancing energetically at drinking parties; Magas of Cyrene, whose peaceful reign ended in breathlessness from indulgence. The Spartan Nauclides, is rebuked as useless in war – reinforcing the topos of incompatibility between obesity and military virtue. Even the orator Python jokes that although he is enormous, his wife is bigger than him and that when they quarrel > “the whole house is not big enough for us.” The pattern is clear: fatness is repeatedly tied to *τρυφή*, self-indulgence, softness, and political or moral failure. Even when Athenaeus remarks that it is > “better to be poor and thin than to be excessively rich” and monstrous, this is not a blanket praise of thinness. It remains embedded in the ethical discourse on luxury. Thinness, too, is filtered through literary and moral lenses. Names such as Leotrophides and Thumantis become proverbial for emaciation: > “the poor… are sacrificing… skinnier than Leotrophides or Thumantis.” Comic [poets](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/) mock playwrights sent to Hades as thin men already halfway to death. Cinesias is so tall and thin that he supposedly fastened a linden board to himself to prevent bending. The poet Philetas, required lead weights on his feet so that the wind would not carry him away. Such stories often originate in wordplay on poetic *λεπτότης* – fineness or subtlety – and transform stylistic criticism into bodily caricature. Some anecdotes border on absurdity. Archestratos was so lean that he weighed “one obol.” Panaretus was yet free from illness, an explicit exception to the usual link between thinness and frailty. Hipponax, was paradoxically strong. Philippides became so synonymous with leanness that *πεφιλιππιδῶσθα*ι meant “to be very thin,” almost dead. ![Roman Floor Mosaic of Banquet; from Palestrina Praeneste, Sanctuary of Fortuna, c. 80 BC ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Roman-Floor-Mosaic-of-Banquet-from-Palestrina-Praeneste--Sanctuary-of-Fortuna--1--1.jpg) Roman Floor Mosaic of Banquet; from Palestrina Praeneste, Sanctuary of Fortuna, c. 80 BC. Public domain The final moralising twist returns to excess: > “This fellow, then, because of his drunken habits and his fat body is called ‘Wineskin’ by all the natives.” Throughout these anecdotes, bodily states mirror moral or social evaluation. Fatness signals luxury, softness, or tyranny; thinness signals insignificance, ridicule, or frailty. Yet both are literary constructions shaped by genre, satire, and inherited stereotypes. Athenaeus’ banquet of bodies therefore offers less a statistical portrait of ancient physiques than a moral theatre in which flesh becomes metaphor. Obesity and emaciation are not neutral descriptions but narrative devices – ways of staging excess, weakness, ridicule, or irrelevance within a deeply literary culture. ### Epigrammatic Extremes: Thinness as Spectacle in the Anthologia Palatina Book 11 of the Anthologia Palatina preserves a striking cluster of epigrams on bodily “defects of stature,” where thin people – and sometimes dwarfs – are treated as comic curiosities. Compiled in the tenth century but preserving much earlier material, especially from the first century CE, these poems connect literary wit with contemporary medical discourse on *λεπτοσύνη* (thinness). The epigrams exaggerate leanness into absurdity. Thin Stratonicus hangs himself from a reed spike. Lean Gaius is “the thinnest of the skeletons” in Hades, his bier nearly empty. Lean Marcus passes through one of Epicurus’ atoms and even disappears down a trumpet when blowing it. Chaeremon, “lighter than a straw ” is carried off by a breeze and caught in a spider’s web. Another trio of thin men compete in vanishing acts, one boasting: > “for I lose it if I am seen, since I am nothing but air”. Behind the hyperbole lies a recognizable stereotype: the worn-out intellectual whose excessive study weakens the body. Medical writers such as Celsus had already linked bookish life to physical debility, and Athenaeus associated the *λεπτός* with poor diet and lack of strength. Thinness could signal not merely frailty but effeminacy, a deviation from the masculine ideal of muscular balance. ### Patterns of Stigma: How “Fatness” Gets Used in Ancient Sources Rather than building a simple list of “fat” individuals, it is necessary to group the evidence to show how overweight (and, less often, extreme thinness) functions as a label – a way to categorise, ridicule, moralise, or mark people as socially suspect. Everyday identification (rare in papyri): bodily description appears often in documentary texts, but “fat” turns up only once – a suspect is described as “the shoemaker the fat one”. Ethnic stereotyping: some groups are characterised as fleshy, soft, or “worthless-bodied,” while others are praised for policing belly-size. These “ethnic” claims likely blend observation with stereotype (for example, Albanians are linked to “fleshiness and weakness”, while Celts beyond the Alps supposedly punished young men who became big-bellied). Fatness vs. military virtue: corpulence is repeatedly framed as incompatible with war-readiness. The sharpest formulation is preserved in a pseudo-Plutarchan anecdote: > “Therefore he hated fat men, and dismissed one of them, saying, that three or four shields would scarcely serve to secure his belly…”(Ps.-Plutarch, Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata 192c) This sits in a wider tradition (Plato, Lucian and others) that prefers lean, sun-hardened fighters to bodies “bred in the shade.” Athletes and “useful” bulk: wrestlers/boxers are sometimes treated as prone to weight gain and breathlessness; doctors warn that athletic regimes and retirement can produce fatness. A memorable Christian contrast appears in Basil, opposing the well-fed athlete to the ascetic ideal: > “contrary to the well fed and smoothly skinned athletes, the Christians… must be noticeable by… thin bodies.” Political invective: fatness can be weaponised (Demades, [Cato](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-younger-the-last-roman-of-the-republic/) vs. Veturius, [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) on Cassius/Antony, [Juvenal](https://romanempiretimes.com/juvenal-the-poet-who-held-a-mirror-to-rome/) on Montanus), yet it is relatively scarce compared with broader charges like luxury, gluttony, and drunkenness – overweight often appears as a consequence rather than the core accusation. [Emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/69-ce-the-year-of-the-four-emperors/) and moral portraiture: “bad” rulers are frequently described with corpulent markers ([Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-romes-most-infamous-ruler-part-1/), Vitellius, [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/)), while some “good” or moderate emperors are only “a little fat.” The text rightly flags the tension between moralising physiognomy and realistic portraiture – these can overlap rather than cancel each other out. ![Emperor Nero, oil on canvas, by Abraham Janssens](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Nero-portrait--1--1.jpg) Emperor Nero, oil on canvas, by Abraham Janssens. Public domain Comedy’s mixed body of old age: satire and comedy repeatedly pair potbelly with age, even though age is also linked to emaciation. Aristophanes makes the contrast explicit through Poverty: > “With him they are gouty, big-bellied (γαστρώδεις)… with me they are thin (ἰσχνοὶ), wasp-waisted…”(Plutus 559–561) Notable individuals and self-fashioning: fatness is attached to figures from Aeneas and Aristotle to Aesop and Horace. Suetonius preserves the most quotable vignette – Augustus teasing Horace: > “you seem to me to be afraid that your books may be bigger than you are yourself… it is only stature that you lack, not girth… like that of your own belly”. (Suetonius, De poetis) ### Monstrous Bodies and Cruel Spectacle Late antique biographical fiction, especially the notoriously unreliable *Scriptores Historiae Augustae,* preserves a disturbing blend of sadistic humour and fascination with bodily excess. In anecdotes about emperors such as [Commodus](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-commodus-truly-the-megalomaniac-gladiator-emperor/) and [Heliogabalus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-divine-chaos-of-elagabalus-romes-most-unconventional-emperor/), corpulence is treated not as a human condition but as a spectacle – bordering on monstrosity. Commodus is said to have collected “monstra”: men with artificially induced deformities, hunchbacks, and even > “a fat man (*pinguem hominem*), whose belly he cut open down the middle, so that his intestines gushed forth.” The obese body appears here on the same level as physical anomalies deliberately produced for amusement. Whether historically credible or not, the story reveals a cultural logic in which excessive flesh becomes something grotesque, suitable for display or mutilation. Heliogabalus allegedly staged grotesque banquets by inviting groups defined by bodily peculiarity – bald men, one-eyed men, the gout-ridden, the deaf, and “eight fat men,” whose size made them physically incapable of reclining on a single couch. Laughter is central. Fatness is framed as visual excess, awkward and comic, stripped of dignity. ![The Banquet of Heliogabalus (Overall Sketch), Leo Reiffenstein, circa 1890, oil on canvas, private collection](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/The-feast-of-Elagabalus--1--1.jpg) The Banquet of Heliogabalus (Overall Sketch), Leo Reiffenstein, circa 1890, oil on canvas, private collection. Public domain In these narratives, neither obesity nor emaciation evokes pity. Instead, extreme bodies are treated as curiosities. Yet a different tone emerges in a handful of anecdotes where corpulence becomes a source of self-aware humour or even pride. The story of the fat orator Python of Byzantium and his equally large wife parallels rabbinic tales in which corpulent rabbis deflect mockery with wit. When doubts are cast on their virility, they reply: “as the man, so is the virility.” Corpulence here becomes a rhetorical reversal rather than a stigma. Another anecdote tells of a “fat young man (*νεανίαν … πίονα*)” who boasts of his ability to out-eat all others. Called “a glutton (*ὁ γαστριζόμενος*),” he delights in being stared at and compared to Heracles. Apollonius’ response is cutting: > “There is nothing left for you but to burst, if you want to be stared at.” The young man’s pride in excess borders on self-exhibition; admiration and grotesque spectacle collapse into one another. Across these stories, bodily extremes occupy a space between ridicule and wonder. Whether staged by emperors, mocked in literature, or embraced ironically by individuals themselves, fatness – like extreme thinness – could be framed not as pathology but as spectacle: a body that provokes laughter, curiosity, and moral commentary all at once. ### Diet, Discipline, and the Medical Management of Weight From the Hippocratic corpus onward, ancient medicine offered systematic advice for both fatness and thinness. Obesity and emaciation were not moral abstractions alone; they were conditions to be treated through regimen. For those wishing to lose weight, recommendations included vigorous exercise – walking, jogging, even running in a cloak to induce heavy sweating – along with controlled diet and, at times, induced vomiting. Dry foods were thought especially suitable for “the fat, the effeminate, and persons of cold and humid constitution.” The underlying logic was humoral balance: excess flesh resulted from imbalance, and regimen restored proportion. Conversely, the slender were instructed to follow the opposite course. To gain weight meant reversing the habits prescribed for the corpulent. Thus, ancient therapy for body size was symmetrical: deficiency and excess were mirror conditions requiring contrary treatments. Galen advocated a balanced combination of intellectual activity and physical exercise. Ball games in particular promoted a body that was “not too fat, neither too thin,” embodying the ideal of measured proportion. More exotic remedies also circulated. Plutarch reports the belief that dew possessed erosive properties capable of dissolving excess fat; “fat women” were said to soak cloths in dew in hopes of reducing their flesh. Therapies for extreme thinness (*atrophia*) are outlined in the *Anonymous Parisinus*, where restorative walking, warm [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), massage, anointing, breathing exercises, and vocal training were prescribed. Weight gain, like weight loss, required structured bodily management. The fullest surviving account appears in the fifth-century physician Caelius Aurelianus. In his Chronic Diseases (*Tardarum passionum* 3.90–95 on atrophia; 5.129–141 on *polysarcia*), he synthesised earlier medical traditions and offered detailed therapeutic programs for both emaciation and obesity. His treatments reflect centuries of accumulated medical thought – rational dietetics alongside older popular beliefs, including the supposed dissolving power of dew. ![Caelius Aurelianus. De morbis acutis & chronicis libri VIII. Ηerbs given to the sick.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Caelius-Aurelianus--herbs-given-to-the-sick--1--1.jpg) Caelius Aurelianus. De morbis acutis & chronicis libri VIII. Ηerbs given to the sick. Wellcome Collection, CC BY 4.0 ### Body, Not Mind: The Absence of Psychological Explanations Ancient medical writers explained fatness and thinness almost exclusively in physical terms. Even in the key discussions of *atrophia* and *polysarcia*, mental states appear only as consequences of bodily imbalance – never as causes. The conditions themselves are grounded in material processes, humoral theory, and regimen. The very idea of a “mental disease” in this context remains foreign to the framework of ancient medicine. Only one passage approaches what modern readers might consider a psychological dimension. Soranus notes that girls at puberty sometimes grow fatter because they are kept in seclusion, deprived of movement and exercise. Yet even here, the explanation remains environmental and physical rather than emotional; no inner distress or trauma is invoked. Likewise, bulimia and anorexia never emerged as distinct diagnostic categories. The *Anonymus Parisinus* explains bulimia – literally “ox-hunger” – through physiological causes alone, and its therapies contain nothing resembling psychological intervention. Terms such as *gastrimargia* (gluttony) or *licheia* (compulsive craving for sweets) occur, but they are not medicalised in a modern sense, nor explored as mental disorders. Cases that modern observers might retrospectively interpret as eating disorders – such as extreme ascetic fasting – were framed differently in antiquity. Ascetic practices were understood as religious and communal acts directed toward God, not as individual psychological conditions. Even when behaviour appears extreme, it was never isolated, named, or theorised as a separate mental pathology. In short, ancient discourse treated weight as a matter of bodily balance and regimen, not of psyche. The categories through which modern societies interpret eating disorders simply did not exist. *(“Writing the story of fatness and thinness in Graeco-Roman antiquity” by Christian Laes)* --- Across medical treatises, satire, philosophy, political invective, and biography, fatness and thinness functioned as more than physical descriptions. They became shorthand for moral balance or imbalance, strength or softness, self-control or indulgence. Yet the ancient evidence resists simplification. Corpulence could signal luxury, but also prosperity; thinness could imply weakness, but also discipline. What emerges is not a single ideal body, but a cultural language in which flesh itself carried meaning. In that language, the Roman body stood at the intersection of health, morality, and social identity – visible, interpretable, and never entirely neutral. ### Shadows, Not Numbers: The Roman and Greek Experience of Time URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/shadows-not-numbers-the-roman-and-greek-experience-of-time/ Last updated: 2026-02-09T22:45:39.000Z Time in the Roman world did not tick forward in equal units. It lengthened and contracted with the seasons, expanding in summer and shrinking in winter, following the sun rather than the clock. Nowhere was this system more visible than in the Roman sundial. Set into walls, placed in forums, or carried in portable form, sundials translated the movement of the sun into daily rhythm. They did not measure minutes, nor even fixed hours, but offered a changing structure of time that shaped how Romans worked, rested, and understood the passing of the day. ### The Gnomon: The First Instrument of Time The *gnomon* was the earliest known device used to measure [time](https://romanempiretimes.com/marking-the-hours-the-roman-way-of-measuring-time/). Rather than tracking duration, it indicated a specific moment by the length of a shadow, not its direction. The term itself comes from Greek, meaning “pointer.” Unlike mechanical clocks, the gnomon could not measure intervals; it simply marked where the sun stood at a given point in the day. ![Gnomon of a former sundial on the west tower of St Peter's parish church, Kineton, Warwickshire, seen from the west](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/gnomon-1.jpg) Gnomon of a former sundial on the west tower of St Peter's parish church, Kineton, Warwickshire, seen from the west. Credits:Motacilla, CC BY-SA 4.0 Because of its extreme simplicity, identifying gnomons archaeologically is difficult. Finds are rare and geographically scattered, forcing historians to rely heavily on written sources and cautious interpretation of objects whose original purpose is not always clear. ### Egypt and the Earliest Sundials Written evidence shows that by around 1450 BCE, Egypt was already using gnomons—often in the form of obelisks—to measure time and regulate calendars. Even earlier, during the reign of Thutmose III, portable sundials appear to have been in use, though their exact form remains uncertain. The oldest known sundial from this period is an L-shaped stone device, operating on the same principle as a gnomon. Oriented toward the sun, it used etched markings along its length to divide the day into hours based on the sun’s height. These hours were necessarily unequal, changing in length throughout the year as the sun’s declination shifted. ### Precision and Innovation in China [China](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/) developed gnomon use to a remarkably high level of precision, as early as the first millennium BCE—and possibly much earlier. Chinese astronomers employed gnomons not only to measure time but to determine the astronomical meridian, identify solstices, and calculate the inclination of the ecliptic with striking accuracy. To improve precision, Chinese engineers introduced a pierced gnomon, placing a disc with a circular hole at the top of the instrument. This eliminated the ambiguity caused by the sun’s penumbra, producing a sharp circular image whose centre could be accurately identified. By around 500 BCE, the height of gnomons was standardised by law, underscoring their importance in state-regulated astronomy. ### The Gnomon Across Cultures Beyond Egypt and China, evidence suggests widespread use of gnomons across the ancient world. In India, gnomons surrounded by concentric circles—later known as “Hindu circles”—were used to determine true south. In Mesopotamia, Babylonian and Chaldean astronomers were renowned for their expertise, and their knowledge influenced [Greek ](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/)practice. Herodotus records that the Greeks learned from the Babylonians the use of the gnomon, the polos, and the division of the day into twelve parts, indicating a transmission of both technical and conceptual knowledge across cultures. ### Gnomon and Polos: Two Different Principles Ancient sources distinguish between the gnomon, which stands vertically, and the polos, whose style is aligned with the Earth’s axis. This distinction is crucial. Vertical gnomons cannot produce consistent hour measurements throughout the year, since the sun’s changing declination alters shadow length daily. ![Gnomon Sundial, Beijing Ancient Observatory](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Gnomon-Sundial-Beijing-Ancient-Observatory--1--1.jpg) Gnomon Sundial, Beijing Ancient Observatory. Credits:EditQ, CC BY-SA 4.0 Polos-type dials, by contrast, allow for uniform hour measurement across seasons. Although little archaeological evidence survives, Herodotus’ reference suggests that such instruments may already have existed in Egypt by his time. ### Unequal Hours and the Limits of Early Timekeeping All early gnomon-based systems shared a fundamental limitation: they reflected a world of unequal hours. The same “hour” differed in length from day to day, especially between summer and winter. Only with the development of axis-aligned styles did sundials begin to offer consistent readings across the year. These limitations highlight an important point: early timekeeping was not about precision in the modern sense, but about structuring daily life in harmony with the sun’s movement. ### Egyptian Portable Sundials and Mesopotamian Influence Contemporary with Herodotus, Egypt employed small portable sundials of distinctive design. These instruments cast the shadow of a straight edge onto a horizontal surface marked with hour divisions, sometimes onto stepped planes resembling miniature staircases, or even onto both surfaces simultaneously. The stepped form of some examples strongly recalls Mesopotamian ziggurats, suggesting a possible Chaldean origin or influence. One Egyptian portable dial from the sixth century BCE displays this stepped structure clearly, while later examples show increasing sophistication. A fourth-century BCE dial represents a major technical advance: instead of a flat surface, the shadow fell on an inclined plane, marked with hour lines adjusted for different months. This design marks the first known attempt in gnomonics to account explicitly for solar declination, recognising that the sun’s height changes throughout the year. ### Accounting for the Sun’s Seasonal Movement These later Egyptian dials represent a significant conceptual shift. Earlier instruments required careful orientation toward the sun before use, but they did not correct for seasonal variation. By contrast, the inclined-plane dial incorporated monthly scales, allowing more accurate readings across the year. This development shows that ancient timekeeping was evolving beyond simple shadow measurement toward a deeper understanding of the sun’s motion. While still bound to unequal hours, these devices reveal an increasing awareness of astronomical regularity and a growing ambition to reconcile daily timekeeping with the broader rhythms of the solar year. ### Berossos and the Birth of the Hemispherical Sundial In the third century BCE, the priest Berossos introduced one of the most conceptually sophisticated sundials of antiquity. Working in Egypt, he designed a dial carved as a hemisphere hollowed into a stone block, with a gnomon positioned so that its tip lay at the exact centre of correspondence between the celestial dome and the hollowed surface. The hemisphere functioned as a miniature image of the sky itself: every point on its interior mirrored a point on the celestial vault. As the sun traced its daily arc across the sky, its shadow described a corresponding arc inside the hemisphere. Berossos marked within the dial the solar paths of the equinoxes and solstices, then divided the resulting bands into twelve seasonal hours, following the Chaldean convention. This allowed the dial to reflect changing solar declination across the year rather than relying on a single, fixed scale. The result was an instrument that translated celestial motion into readable time with remarkable precision. This design, later known as the *hemispherium*, was conceived as a portable object and stripped of unnecessary mass. Berossos soon refined it further: since the lower portion of the hemisphere never received sunlight, it was removed entirely, and the vertical gnomon was replaced with a horizontal one. This lighter, more economical variant became known as the *hemicyclium*. Both forms spread rapidly throughout the ancient world. In Greece they were called heliotropes, while around 250 BCE Aristarchus of Samos developed a related hollow dial known as the *scaphion*, a term that later came to denote hollow sundials more generally. The longevity of the design is striking: according to the Arabic mathematician al-Battani, hemispherical dials of this type were still in use in the Islamic world as late as the tenth century CE. ![Sundial - Roman 2nd century BC-1st century AD](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/roman-sundial--1--1.jpg) Sundial - Roman 2nd century BC-1st century AD. Bühler-Brockhaus Collection, Braga, Portugal. Credits: Joseolgon, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### Rome Learns to Live by the Sun Rome encountered the sundial relatively late. The first public example appeared in 293 BCE, when a scaphion was set up near the temple of Jupiter Quirinus. Around thirty years later, during the First Punic War, another sundial was brought to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/) as spoils from Catana, a city of Greek foundation. The dial was almost certainly Greek in origin and was erected in a public space, where it drew attention as a striking novelty. The instrument, however, had been calculated for the latitude of Sicily. In [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/), it could not mark the hours correctly. Despite this, the error went unnoticed for nearly a century. [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) later reported the episode with pointed irony, remarking on [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/acta-diurna-how-rome-made-news-public/)’s readiness to adopt a technical device without fully grasping the science on which it depended. Only under Marcus Philippus, whose duties included supervision of public timekeeping, was the problem properly recognised. He understood that a sundial had to be designed for the specific latitude in which it stood if it was to function accurately. Even then, the spread of sundials did not displace older methods. In the Field of Mars, the great obelisk set up by [Augustus ](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/)continued to operate as a monumental gnomon, and traditional shadow-casting devices remained in use for centuries. In [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/niche-perfumes-in-ancient-rome-how-did-emperors-smell-like/), innovation rarely erased habit. > “M. Varro says that the first sun-dial, erected for the use of the public, was fixed upon a column near the Rostra, in the time of the first Punic war, by the consul M. Valerius Messala, and that it was brought from the capture of Catina, in Sicily: this being thirty years after the date assigned to the dial of Papirius, and the year of Rome 491\. The lines in this dial did not exactly agree with the hours; it served, however, as the regulator of the Roman time ninety-nine years, until Q. Marcius Philippus, who was censor with L. Paulus, placed one near it, which was more carefully arranged: an act which was most gratefully acknowledged, as one of the very best of his censorship. The hours, however, still remained a matter of uncertainty, whenever the weather happened to be cloudy, until the ensuing lustrum; at which time Scipio Nasica, the colleague of Lænas, by means of a clepsydra, was the first to divide the hours of the day and the night into equal parts: and this time-piece he placed under cover and dedicated, in the year of Rome 595; for so long a period had the Romans remained without any exact division of the day.” That said, sundials multiplied rapidly enough to provoke irritation. A comic passage, probably by Plautus, preserves the voice of popular resentment at the new tyranny of measured time: > “Let the gods damn the first man who invented the hours, the first man who set up a sundial in this city! For our misfortune he has chopped up the day into slices. When I was young, there was no other clock but my belly. It was the best and most accurate clock; at its call we ate, unless there was nothing to eat. Now, even when food is plentiful, we eat only when it pleases the sun. The city is full of sundials, and yet most people crawl about half dead with hunger.” Behind the humour lies a serious point. Roman sundials did more than measure daylight. They imposed an external rhythm on daily life, replacing bodily need with abstract hours. Time, once felt and negotiated, had become something observed, regulated, and obeyed. (“Sundials. History, theory and Practice” by Rene R.J.Rohr) ### Time, Language, and the Shared Habits of Empire By the second century CE, at the height of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)’s longest stretch of peace and prosperity, an educated observer moving through the empire would quickly notice several unifying features beneath its enormous diversity. A relatively small but influential elite—drawn from an empire of some sixty million people—shared two principal languages: Latin in the West and Greek in the East. These languages shaped administration, literature, education, and intellectual life, creating a common cultural framework that stretched from [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-leave-britain/) to Syria. ![A sundial near the northern entrance to the ancient Thamugadi, in Batna province.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/roman-sundial--2--1.jpg) A sundial near the northern entrance to the ancient Thamugadi, in Batna province. Credits: Hamza-sia, CC BY-SA 3.0 This elite also shared a strong and deeply rooted concern with measuring, recording, and controlling time. Romans and Greeks alike paid close attention to long-term cycles—days, months, years, even centuries—as well as to the finer divisions of day and night, especially hours. Through a combination of custom and imperial authority, the Julian calendar, introduced at Rome in 45 BCE, came to be used across the empire. Yet this standardisation never fully erased older or regional traditions. Roman systems coexisted with alternative practices, including those inherited from Egyptian culture, allowing multiple temporal frameworks to operate side by side. Shorter-term timekeeping was especially visible. Devices for measuring intervals—such as oil lamps designed to burn for set periods, or water clocks (Greek *κλεψύδρα*, Latin clepsydra)—were widely used. Most prominent of all, however, were sundials. Known in Greek as *ὡρολόγιον* and in Latin as *horologium* or solarium, these instruments were usually fixed stone installations rather than portable objects. They appeared in a wide variety of forms—spherical, conical, or flat—and were placed in highly visible settings: marketplaces, [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), gymnasia, [theatres](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-epic-roman-theater-of-philadelphia-amman/), shrines, private houses, and even [tombs](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/). Public sundials were often installed at the initiative of magistrates, priests, or wealthy benefactors, who used them to display civic generosity and status. Beyond their practical role, many sundials were deliberately decorative, and some were monumental. A striking example is the large sundial erected at Aphrodisias in honour of [Caracalla](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/) and his mother Julia Domna in the early third century CE. In Italy, inscriptions reveal that the port city of Puteoli possessed a sundial originally funded by an [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) and later repaired at public expense—a reminder that these instruments were both functional and symbolic markers of urban identity. ### Designing Time: How Roman Sundials Actually Worked The underlying principles behind sundials in the Roman world were inherited from classical Greece, though their precise origin cannot be pinned to a single place or individual. At heart, the concept was deceptively simple: a vertical rod (*gnomon*) cast a shadow across a curved surface marked with lines, allowing the passage of the sun [from dawn to dusk ](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/)to be translated into divisions of the day. As the shadow moved, so too did time become visible. Yet beneath this simplicity lay a far more sophisticated understanding. A sundial could only function properly if its design matched the specific location where it was installed. The height of the sun changes depending on where one stands on the earth’s curved surface – what later thinkers, and we today, call latitude. For accurate timekeeping, the geometry of the dial had to account for this variation. In practice, however, such precision was difficult to achieve. Many fixed sundials in the Roman world were not adjusted exactly to the latitude of their location. Even so, this rarely caused concern. Minor discrepancies were hard to notice in everyday use, and only significant differences in latitude would have produced errors obvious enough to attract attention. As a result, sundials were not normally inscribed with the place or latitude for which they had been designed. ### Seasonal Hours and the Roman Day Romans and Greeks divided daylight according to a convention inherited from Babylon: the day was split into twelve “hours,” beginning at sunrise, with noon marking the start of the sixth hour. These were not hours of fixed length, as we understand them today. Instead, they were seasonal hours – twelve equal divisions of daylight, regardless of how long the day actually was. ![Roman sundial (scaphe): In the case of the scaphe, the dial is in a half hollow sphere with a horizontal edge. Between the rising and setting of the sun, the shadow thrower of the scaphe shows 12 equal sections on the clock face regardless of the season. Since the sunny days are shorter in winter and longer in summer, the Roman hours displayed only correspond to the current hour on the equinoxes (March 21 and September 23)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/roman-sundial--3--1.jpg) Roman sundial (scaphe): In the case of the scaphe, the dial is in a half hollow sphere with a horizontal edge. Between the rising and setting of the sun, the shadow thrower of the scaphe shows 12 equal sections on the clock face regardless of the season. Since the sunny days are shorter in winter and longer in summer, the Roman hours displayed only correspond to the current hour on the equinoxes (March 21 and September 23). Credits: W. Bulach, CC BY-SA 4.0 Because the length of daylight changes with both latitude and season, the length of an hour also changed. While water clocks (*clepsydrae*) could measure fixed intervals, there was no empire-wide standard for defining an hour, let alone subdividing it. Most sundials simply reflected the changing rhythm of the sun. At Rome, this variation was striking. Around the winter solstice, daylight shrank to just over nine modern hours; at the summer solstice, it expanded to more than fifteen. As a result, a single “hour” could last as little as three-quarters of a modern hour in winter, or stretch to roughly one and a quarter hours in summer. Further north, these contrasts became even more pronounced. For Roman users, this fluidity was not a flaw but a feature. Time was understood as something shaped by nature, place, and season – not as a fixed, mechanical quantity. Sundials made this visible every day, reminding their users that the passing of time was inseparable from the movement of the sun itself. Well before the first century BCE, timekeeping in the Roman world was no longer tied exclusively to fixed stone monuments in forums and sanctuaries. As [Vitruvius ](https://romanempiretimes.com/vitruvius-the-roman-who-shaped-modern-architecture/)makes clear, portable sundials were already familiar objects, discussed as practical instruments suitable for travel rather than as novel inventions. Although the technical treatises he alludes to have not survived, Vitruvius’ casual references suggest that such devices were well established by his lifetime. These portable sundials took a surprising variety of forms. Some were designed for use at a single latitude, others could be adjusted for different regions, reflecting an advanced understanding of how the sun’s path changes across the earth’s surface. Archaeological finds confirm this diversity. Compact cylindrical sundials, sometimes made of bone, combined portability with precision. One example from northern Italy, discovered in the tomb of a Roman oculist, was carefully calibrated for the local latitude and marked with the months of the Julian calendar and seasonal hours. Its correct identification as a sundial only in the late twentieth century overturned the long-held assumption that such instruments were a medieval invention. Other portable designs were equally ingenious. Small bronze “pillbox” sundials used a pinhole to project sunlight onto an internal scale, while more complex suspended models allowed users to adjust for both latitude and season by rotating internal discs marked with geographic names and solar markers. These instruments required the user to know where they were and roughly what time of year it was, but rewarded that knowledge with remarkably accurate readings. ### Reading Time in Stone: Deciphering Portable Sundials with Modern Imaging Recent advances in reflectance transformation imaging (RTI) have transformed the study of Roman portable sundials. Where erosion and surface damage once rendered inscriptions unreadable, RTI now allows scholars to recover names, letters, and [numerical details](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-roman-numerals-endure-in-watchmaking-and-the-curious-case-of-iiii/) with a high degree of confidence. By stripping away colour and enhancing surface relief through specular imaging, this technique reveals incised lettering as stark, high-contrast forms, making even minute traces of carving visible where the naked eye fails. This technological breakthrough has clarified how geographic names and latitude figures were recorded on sundials whose inscriptions lack an obvious reading order. For consistency, modern tables arrange these names from lowest to highest latitude, even when the original sequence may have followed a different logic. Scholarly conventions are used to mark uncertainty: damaged or missing letters, ambiguous numerals, and apparent engraving errors are all carefully noted rather than silently corrected. The recovered data are then set alongside ancient and modern reference systems. Latitude figures preserved on the sundials are compared with those recorded in Geography, compiled in the second century CE, while also being translated into modern degrees and minutes for comparison. This process highlights both the sophistication and the limits of ancient geographical knowledge. ![Parmenion's portable sundial, Kotsanas Museum of Ancient Greek Archaeology](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Parmenion-s-portable-sundial--Kotsanas-Museum-of-Ancient-Greek-Archaeology--1--1-1.jpg) Parmenion's portable sundial, Kotsanas Museum of Ancient Greek Archaeology. Credits: Aga39memnon, CC BY 4.0 Ptolemy’s fractional system, expressed in proportions rather than minutes, requires cautious conversion, and some regional latitude ranges reflect inference rather than precise measurement. Finally, the lettering itself offers little help in dating these objects. Greek and Latin letterforms on portable sundials are remarkably consistent and deliberately classical, whether used as letters or numerals. The result is a body of evidence that resists easy chronological classification but gains clarity through careful imaging and comparison. RTI, in this context, does not merely enhance inscriptions – it restores lost connections between Roman timekeeping, geography, and the technical knowledge embedded in these deceptively small instruments. ("Roman Portable Sundials. The Empire in Your Hand" by Richard J. A. Talbert) Roman sundials never promised precision in the modern sense, nor were they meant to. They translated the movement of the sun into a shared rhythm of work, rest, and expectation, tying human activity to season and place. In this world, time was not counted but observed, not abstracted but embedded in stone, shadow, and public space. Long before hours became numbers, they were lengths of light—experienced differently each day, yet familiar to all who lived by the sun. ### Tertullian: Rome’s Most Uncomfortable Christian URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/tertullian-rome-most-uncomfortable-christian/ Last updated: 2026-02-07T00:40:02.000Z Christianity did not enter the Roman world quietly. It arrived argued, contested, and judged – in courts, in pamphlets, and in the language of Roman law itself. Few figures embody that confrontation more sharply than Tertullian. Writing from Roman Carthage at the turn of the third century, he spoke as an insider trained in rhetoric and law, yet as a believer increasingly unwilling to accommodate the assumptions of Roman society. His works do not seek compromise. They press, accuse, and unsettle – exposing the tension between a faith that demanded absolute loyalty and an empire that expected obedience above all else. More than any other early Christian writer, Tertullian forced Rome to confront Christianity on its own legal and moral terms. ### Tertullian and the Discipline of Belief Tertullian of Carthage stands out as the first Christian thinker to develop theology in a systematic and intellectually self-aware way. Gifted with sharp wit and rhetorical force, he emerged as a formidable apologist, defending [Christians](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/) against the hostility of Roman authority. Within the Christian community, his attention turned to the rule of faith as the standard by which truth could be recognised, a standard he believed was grounded firmly in the Gospel itself. ![Ruins of Carthage](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Tunisie-Carthage-Ruines--1--1.jpg) Ruins of Carthage. Credits: Calips, CC BY-SA 3.0 For Tertullian, theology could never be separated from conduct; failure of discipline was evidence of deeper spiritual error. For him, the coherence of the divine plan of salvation reached its fulfilment in [Jesus Christ](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-romans-kill-jesus/), the Son of God and crucified saviour. Yet when this theological vision was measured against the lived conduct of believers, he was struck by what he saw as moral weakness and compromise. From this disappointment followed a renewed emphasis on original sin, the necessity of fearing God, and an expectation of imminent judgement. As a result, Tertullian has proved difficult for modern readers to accommodate. Both liberal Christianity and its secular critics have tended to set him aside, shaped as they were by Enlightenment assumptions that reason should culminate in orderly, almost mathematical systems of thought. The erosion of that confidence in reason by later thinkers has reopened the possibility of reading Tertullian on his own terms: as a writer drawn to tension rather than harmony, to contingency rather than system, and to argument sharpened by paradox rather than resolved by abstraction. ### Simplicity as the Mark of Truth For Tertullian, simplicity is not intellectual weakness but the primary sign of divine truth. Against accusations that Christians were secretive or sinister, he insisted that what appeared hidden was, in fact, plain. Christian faith possessed a simplicity that stood in contrast to the elaborate rituals and speculative excesses of pagan religion. By “simplicity,” Tertullian meant not ease, but undiluted truth – belief stripped of philosophical ornament. Drawing on the Pauline language of the mystery of salvation, Tertullian argued that God’s wisdom is not concealed through complexity but revealed through clarity. Truth, when left undistorted, is simple; it becomes confused only when human opinion intervenes. This simplicity is most clearly expressed in baptism. For Tertullian, baptism marks the beginning of life itself – a decisive break with original blindness and the entrance into salvation. Its outward plainness is precisely what provokes scepticism: water, words, and immersion appear inadequate to achieve eternal life. Yet this very simplicity reveals divine power. God achieves the greatest transformation through the least ostentation, confounding worldly expectations. Still, Tertullian warned that simplicity without understanding could become vulnerability; faith required instruction and discipline to guard it from distortion. ### Divine Power Revealed Through Weakness Tertullian repeatedly returned to the paradox that God’s strength operates through what appears weak or foolish. Drawing on Pauline and [Stoic](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/) traditions, he argued that divine wisdom takes form in opposition to human standards of power. Christians, whom he famously described as “little fishes,” survive only within the waters of baptism. ![Basel edition of Tertullian's works, 1521, with glosses and underlinings by Thomas Müntzer](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Tertulian-s-work--1--1.jpg) Basel edition of Tertullian's works, 1521, with glosses and underlinings by Thomas Müntzer. Public domain Faith contracts itself into the simplest confession – Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour – yet this reduction contains the fullness of salvation. Repetition, brevity, and restraint reinforce truth rather than diminish it. Christian simplicity did not require withdrawal from society. Believers lived, worked, married, traded, and served alongside others while refusing participation in public cults. Their daily conduct mirrored their faith: modest dress, restrained behaviour, and rejection of [luxury](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/). This simplicity reflected acceptance of the created world as God’s work, not contempt for it. Christians followed a new aesthetic rooted in moral clarity rather than social display. Tertullian recognised that a passion for simplicity could lead to excess. His polemical style sometimes sacrificed nuance for force, and his insistence on conscience over institutional authority led to conflict within the Church. His account of divine justice leaned heavily on retribution, and his arguments could appear severe. Theology, like philosophy, risks distortion when complexity is cut too aggressively. Debate requires argument, not merely silencing opposition, and simplicity must not become rigidity. ### One God and the Unity of Salvation Against Marcion, Tertullian defended the unity of God and the continuity of creation and redemption. God’s simplicity meant oneness, not division. Any attempt to separate the creator from the saviour fractured that unity and multiplied contradictions. Salvation that redeemed only the soul but not the body was, in his view, incomplete. True goodness must save wholly. The same God who created the world also restored it, and divine justice served divine goodness rather than opposing it. All simplicity finds its fulfilment in Christ. The confession Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour condensed the entire economy of salvation into a single formula. In Christ, creation is corrected, history fulfilled, and death overcome. His victory was not military but spiritual, achieved through humility and the cross. What appeared dishonourable became the means of perfection. Salvation unfolded as a continuation of creation, not its negation, culminating in the recapitulation of all things in Christ. ### Brevity, Paradox, and Continuity Tertullian valued brevity because truth did not require ornament. Scripture, Stoic philosophy, and Christian proclamation converged in their preference for concision. Paradox was not a flaw but a necessary form of expression for divine realities. Though his arguments could appear fragmented, they were held together by a single concern: the perfection of God’s saving economy. Montanism, for Tertullian, was not the cause of this concern but its consequence. In the end, Tertullian rejected borrowed authority and philosophical systems in favour of a faith built on its own foundation. Christ entrusted the gospel to fishermen, not sophists, and Tertullian embraced that inheritance. Faced with verbal excess and speculative confusion, he applied a single criterion: truth is simple. God, once known, cannot be uncertain; salvation, once revealed, cannot be divided. What appears plain is, in fact, complete. ("Tertullian, First Theologian of the West" by Eric Osborn) ### Tertullian and the Case for Toleration With the stark formulation > “Let one man worship God, another Jove” (Colat alius Deum, alius Iovem), ![Tertullian's Prescription Against Hereticks](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Tertullian-s-Prescription-Against-Hereticks-1.jpg) Tertullian's Prescription Against Hereticks. Public domain Tertullian articulated one of the earliest Christian pleas for religious toleration. Writing in the late second century, when Christians still faced legal insecurity and periodic persecution, he joined other Christian apologists in arguing that tolerance posed no threat to Roman order. On the contrary, it could be justified through principles of reason that Romans themselves claimed to value. Early Christian appeals for toleration sit uneasily beside the later reality of Christian intolerance once the Church gained power in the fourth century. Christianity moved from a *religio illicita* seeking legal recognition to an established religion unwilling to extend the same tolerance to pagans or internal dissenters. This shift has often been explained as a moral failure brought about by power – a loss of early virtue rather than a theological problem. Such explanations oversimplify a more complex development. An uneasy relationship with toleration was already present in Christianity’s formative centuries. While Christian intellectuals of the second and third centuries argued forcefully for tolerance, they struggled to accept its core premise: religious relativism. Toleration was defended as a practical necessity, not as a recognition of equal truth claims. Tertullian offers a revealing case study of this tension. In works such as *De idololatria*, he explored how Christians might live within a pagan society while remaining uncompromisingly distinct. His arguments show how calls for toleration could coexist with rigid boundaries around Christian identity. Toleration, for Tertullian, did not require a rethinking of fundamental assumptions about truth, error, and false worship. ### Polemic and the Limits of Tolerance A fierce and gifted polemicist, Tertullian never treated tolerance as a central virtue. His writings are filled with sharp attacks not only against pagans and Jews, but also against fellow Christians whose theology diverged from his own, including figures such as Praxeas, Hermogenes, Marcion, and Valentinus. His work exposes how contradictory impulses – the demand for toleration and the rejection of doctrinal pluralism – could coexist within a single intellectual framework, shaping both Christian self-definition and its long-term historical consequences. ### The Early Empire as a Religious Marketplace Modern scholarship has described the religious world of the early [Roman Empire ](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/)as fundamentally pluralistic. John North has famously captured this transformation with the image of a “market-place of religions”, a setting in which a wide range of cults, practices, and beliefs competed across the Mediterranean. This open religious environment forms the social and intellectual backdrop to Tertullian’s thought. For perhaps the first time in antiquity, religious identity was no longer simply inherited as part of one’s civic or ethnic belonging, but could be actively chosen by individuals. ### Choice, Conversion, and Christian Advantage North emphasises that under the early Empire religion had become a matter of personal commitment rather than unquestioned tradition. In this competitive landscape, Christianity held a distinct advantage. More than any other religious group, Christians developed a language of conversion and articulated their faith as possessing a superior truth value. ![Portrait of Tertullian](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Tertullian-1.jpg) Portrait of Tertullian. Public domain This mode of religious argument, rooted in Jewish tradition, was initially foreign to pagan religion and only began to be adopted by non-Christian groups later, largely under Christian influence during the third and fourth centuries. Tertullian’s plea for religious toleration must be read against this broader context. Writing in late second-century Roman Africa, he sought to persuade pagan elites that Christianity deserved a place within this crowded religious arena. Yet toleration, in such a setting, also meant rivalry. Coexistence implied competition for allegiance, moral authority, and intellectual credibility. As a result, Tertullian’s appeals to tolerance are inseparable from sustained efforts to undermine the legitimacy of pagan religion on ethical, intellectual, and theological grounds. This tension lies at the heart of Tertullian’s discourse. He appealed to the ruling authorities for acceptance while simultaneously challenging the religious foundations of their power. His ambivalence reflects a broader strategy developed by early Christian intellectuals: learning how to live as Christians within a pagan society without conceding the truth claims that defined Christian identity. In this way, Tertullian’s writings reveal not only an argument for toleration, but also the limits beyond which toleration could not go. ### Idolatry as Absolute Incompatibility For Tertullian, idolatry is not merely a mistaken or inferior form of religion. It is the gravest possible offence against God and represents a realm fundamentally opposed to true worship. Pagan religion is therefore not simply erroneous but illegitimate, both theologically and ethically. In *De idololatria*, written before his Montanist phase, Tertullian sets out to define idolatry precisely because this definition determines how Christians can live within a pagan world. From the outset, he insists on an absolute incompatibility between the sphere of Christ and that of idols. One cannot serve both Christ and [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/); the camps of light and darkness are mutually exclusive. This opposition is expressed through stark imagery: [Athens](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrian-gate-in-downtown-athens-below-acropolis-a-gateway-to-history/) and Jerusalem share nothing in common, and allegiance to Christ excludes participation in the political and military structures of the Roman state. Military service, civic oaths, and ritual loyalty to the emperor all belong to the domain of idolatry. ### Idolatry Beyond Images: Demons, Mediation, and Ubiquity Tertullian’s understanding of idolatry goes far beyond temples and statues. Idols are not merely physical objects but anything that functions as an intermediary between humans and demons. Idolatry is therefore the worship of demons, even when it is not visibly recognisable as such. Pagan gods are exposed as *daimones*, and idolatry becomes a pervasive condition rather than a limited set of cultic acts. ![Triumph of Faith over Idolatry Theodon. Work of Jean-Baptiste Théodon](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Triumph-of-Faith-over-Idolatry-statue--1--1.jpg) Triumph of Faith over Idolatry Theodon. Work of Jean-Baptiste Théodon. Public domain Because idolatry is ubiquitous, it permeates daily life and cannot be avoided through spatial or ritual separation alone. All sin, whether overt or concealed, reflects idolatry in some form. This breadth makes vigilance essential: Christians must assume that idolatry can appear in ordinary social practices, professions, and moral compromises. ### Daily Life Under Scrutiny: Professions, Practices, and Limits The core of *De idololatria* is devoted to drawing practical boundaries for Christian life. Tertullian catalogues professions that must be avoided because they are directly linked to idolatry, including idol-making, astrology, teaching, and certain forms of trade. He then turns to indirect participation in pagan society, analysing social interactions, public events, and economic necessity. Here, Tertullian develops a detailed moral casuistry, weighing principle against feasibility. The struggle against demons is not abstract or symbolic; it is concrete and ongoing, fought in workshops, marketplaces, [festivals](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/), and households. Roman greatness itself is reinterpreted as the product of irreligiosity, rooted in violence and war, which Tertullian treats as incompatible with true worship. ### Cult, Truth, and the Expansion of *Latreia* Underlying Tertullian’s rigor is a distinctive Christian understanding of *latreia* (worship). For him, worship is not confined to ritual acts but includes words, beliefs, and conduct. Christianity is defined by the proclamation of truth as much as by cultic practice. As a result, idolatry can occur wherever false affirmations about divinity are made, whether through speech, action, or accommodation. This expansive conception sharply contrasts with rabbinic Judaism, where worship is more narrowly defined around temple sacrifice and prayer. Jewish idolatry remains largely tied to explicit pagan cult, allowing greater practical interaction with non-Jews. For Tertullian, by contrast, the breadth of Christian *latreia* leaves little room for tolerating alternative religious expressions. ### Christianity, Judaism, and the Limits of Toleration The comparison with Mishnah Avodah Zarah (highlights both parallels and divergences. While both traditions seek to regulate interaction with idolaters, Christianity’s broader definition of worship produces a stricter stance. Structural differences reinforce this contrast: Judaism remained a legally recognised religion, had largely ceased active proselytism, and possessed strong ethnic markers of identity. Christianity lacked these protections and markers, defining itself almost exclusively in religious terms. 💡 Mishnah Avodah Zarah is a rabbinic legal tractate dealing with idolatry and Jewish interaction with non-Jews in the Greco-Roman world. More precisely: \- It is part of the Mishnah, the foundational compilation of Jewish oral law redacted around 200 CE. \- Avodah Zarah (literally “foreign worship”) addresses how Jews should live among idolaters without violating the prohibition against idolatry. Because Christians shared language, dress, territory, and social space with pagans, identity could not be preserved through separation alone. Stricter moral boundaries became necessary to prevent assimilation. Tertullian’s severity reflects this vulnerability rather than simple polemical excess. ### Intolerance as Virtue and the Ambivalence of Early Christianity Tertullian’s rejection of religious toleration is not an aberration but part of a deeper ambivalence within early Christianity. While Christians demanded toleration for themselves, they often regarded intolerance as a sign of fidelity, even as a preparation for martyrdom. Readiness to suffer rather than compromise could be praised as a virtue. ![ "Martyrdom of St. Paul", from an 1887 copy of Foxe's Book of Martyrs illustrated by Kronheim.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Martyrdorm-of-st-paul--1--1.jpg) "Martyrdom of St. Paul", from an 1887 copy of **Foxe's Book of Martyrs* illustrated by Kronheim. Public domain This tension — between appeals for toleration and theological intolerance — helps explain why a robust concept of religious freedom failed to emerge in late antiquity. In Tertullian’s thought, the demand for truth ultimately outweighs the coexistence of competing religious claims. His work illuminates the intellectual conditions that later made the restriction of religious freedom not only possible, but justifiable, within Christian discourse. ("Tertullian on idolatry and the limits of tolerance" by Guy G. Stroumsa) ### A Marketplace of Religions in the Early Empire By the second and third centuries CE, religion in the Roman world was no longer a fixed inheritance tied automatically to birthplace or civic identity. Instead, the Mediterranean had become what John North famously described as a “marketplace of religions,” a space in which multiple cults, philosophies, and religious practices competed openly for adherents. (In such a marketplace, toleration was never neutral; it shaped who could compete and how.) For the first time in antiquity, individuals could choose their religious affiliations rather than simply inherit them as part of their ethnic or civic identity. Religious identity thus became a matter of preference and commitment rather than tradition alone. This pluralism formed the essential background to Tertullian’s apologetic project. Christianity did not emerge into a stable religious order but into a competitive environment in which novelty, persuasion, and legitimacy were constantly negotiated. ### Conversion and the Redefinition of Religious Identity Building on earlier insights, North argued that conversion represented a new and decisive category in religious history during the Hellenistic and early imperial periods. Religion was no longer merely something one practiced; it became something one consciously adopted. This shift altered the relationship between religion and identity in fundamental ways. Christians benefited more than any other group from this transformation. Unlike most pagan traditions, Christianity articulated conversion as a necessary and meaningful act, framing religious change as a movement from error to truth. This discourse, inherited from Judaism, allowed Christians to present their faith as uniquely authoritative rather than simply one option among many. ### Christian Advantage in a Plural Religious Landscape Within this competitive environment, Christianity possessed several structural advantages. Most importantly, Christians claimed exclusive access to truth and framed their religion in universal terms. While pagan cults typically coexisted without asserting doctrinal superiority, Christian writers openly challenged the legitimacy of rival traditions. ![Codex Balliolensis, Tertullian's "Apologetics"](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Tertullian-Codex-Balliolensis-1.jpg) Codex Balliolensis, Tertullian's "Apologetics". Public domain Pagan religions lacked an established language of conversion and truth claims. Only under Christian influence, and relatively late—during the third and fourth centuries—did pagan intellectuals begin to develop comparable discourses. By then, however, Christianity had already gained a decisive foothold. ### Tertullian and the Politics of Tolerance Tertullian’s plea for religious tolerance must be understood within this competitive context. Writing in late second-century Roman Africa, he addressed a pagan audience that controlled political and legal power. His argument sought to secure Christianity a place within the religious “marketplace,” insisting that it should be permitted to exist alongside other cults. At the same time, Tertullian fully understood that coexistence implied competition. His defense of tolerance therefore operated alongside a systematic effort to delegitimize pagan religion. Drawing on intellectual, ethical, and historical arguments, he attacked the coherence and credibility of Roman religious traditions while simultaneously appealing to Roman ideals of justice and legal fairness. ### The Ambivalence of Early Christian Apologetics This dual strategy produced a fundamental ambivalence in Tertullian’s discourse. On one hand, he argued for peaceful coexistence and legal recognition. On the other, he portrayed Christianity as the sole bearer of truth and depicted pagan religion as historically, morally, and intellectually flawed. This tension reflects a broader challenge faced by early Christian intellectuals: how to live as Christians within a pagan society while asserting the superiority of their faith. Tertullian’s apologetic writings reveal not only a defense of Christianity but also an evolving strategy for negotiating identity, authority, and survival within a plural religious world. *("Christianity in the Roman Forum: Tertullian and the Apologetic Use of History" by Mark S. Burrows)* --- Tertullian never offered Rome reassurance. He exposed the cost of conviction in a world built on accommodation, and he refused to soften Christianity’s claim to truth for the sake of coexistence. His writings reveal why early Christianity could demand toleration while remaining deeply intolerant of rival beliefs. In doing so, he helps explain how a persecuted faith could later become a persecuting one — not through betrayal of its origins, but through tensions already present at the beginning. ### The Defeat Rome Never Forgot: Teutoburg Forest, 9 CE URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-defeat-rome-never-forgot-teutoburg-forest-9-ce/ Last updated: 2026-02-04T21:12:58.000Z In the late summer of 9 CE, Roman authority in the north appeared secure. The frontier along the Rhine was heavily garrisoned, alliances had been negotiated, and the language of administration—courts, censuses, taxation—was already being spoken deep beyond the river. To contemporaries in Rome, Germania no longer looked like an active war zone, but a region in the process of becoming orderly, legible, and obedient. What followed, however, would expose how fragile that confidence was. Somewhere in the wooded interior of the north, Roman power encountered a form of resistance it did not understand—and the consequences would echo through imperial memory for generations. ### The Clades Lolliana and Rome’s Sense of Humiliation Toward the end of the summer of 17 BC, a coalition of Germanic tribes – the Sugambri, Usipetes, and Tencteri – crossed the Rhine, raided into Gaul, and crucified Roman citizens. Such frontier violence was not unusual, but the incident escalated when the raiders ambushed a Roman cavalry detachment and surprised Marcus Lollius, the senior Roman commander in Gaul. The encounter ended with the capture of a legionary standard, the [eagle](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-has-the-eagle-become-the-roman-symbol/) of Legion V Alaudae. The loss of an eagle carried symbolic weight far beyond the military reality. Although the tribes quickly withdrew and offered hostages, the episode entered Roman memory as the *clades Lolliana*. Later writers inflated it into a disaster comparable to Varus’ defeat, transforming a minor frontier reverse into a moral and political affront. As [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) later insisted – implausibly – Augustus was portrayed as a ruler who > “never invaded any country nor sought to extend the empire’s boundaries”, a claim that sat uneasily with events on the Rhine. [Poetry](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/) amplified the sense of outrage. Crinagoras celebrated the recovery of the eagle in language that elevated humiliation into heroic sacrifice, while later historians retrospectively framed the incident as a turning point. In reality, it provided [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) with something more useful than a military lesson – a justification. ### Germany Before Germania: Rome’s First Encounters Beyond the Rhine Roman awareness of the peoples beyond the Rhine long predated [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/). [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/)’s [campaigns in Gaul](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/) brought the Germans into written history, and his assessments sharply distinguished them from the Gauls. They were poorer, harder, and more warlike. Caesar noted that the Gauls no longer dared compare themselves to German bravery and regarded German life as simpler and more austere. ![Cast of the Dying Gaul, Gallery of Sculptures and Casts, Versailles.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Cast-of-the-Dying-Gaul--Gallery-of-Sculptures-and-Casts--Versailles-2.jpg) Cast of the Dying Gaul, Gallery of Sculptures and Casts, Versailles. Credits: Burkhard Mücke, CC BY-SA 4.0 His two crossings of the Rhine in 55 and 53 BC were brief and punitive, intended less to conquer than to intimidate. Their practical effect was limited, but symbolically they mattered enormously. They demonstrated that the Rhine was not an absolute barrier and that Roman arms could reach even the edge of the known world. After Caesar’s [assassination](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/), his reputation lingered in Germania. His sword was reportedly preserved in Cologne, a mark of respect that did not translate into submission. Gaul was broken after Alesia; Germany was not. ### From Intimidation to Ambition: The Hardening of Roman Policy Under [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/), Germany ceased to be merely an extension of Gallic security policy. Although no fixed northern frontier can be credited to long-term planning, Roman strategy hardened into expansion. What began as intimidation evolved into conquest, and conquest gave way to an attempt at administration. Roman confidence grew steadily. Propertius could celebrate the > “enslavement of the marsh-dwelling Sugambri”, while Horace asked who could fear Parthians or Germans while Caesar lived. The assumption was not whether Germany would be subdued, but when. ### The Rhine as Frontier: Camps, Commerce, and Control Augustan policy combined force with relocation and trade. Loyal tribes such as the Ubii were resettled west of the Rhine, forming buffer communities that shielded Gaul. Their move laid the foundations for Cologne, which developed into an urban and commercial centre. Trade followed [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/). Roman merchants penetrated deep into German territory, supplying [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/), metal goods, and prestige items. Linguistic traces survive: the German verb *kaufen* derives from the Latin *caupo*, “wine merchant”. Archaeology confirms long-distance exchange reaching as far as the Baltic. Yet stability was fragile. Rebellions flared repeatedly, and Roman authority east of the Rhine remained provisional. The frontier was porous, reactive, and vulnerable. ### Drusus Takes Command: Exploration, Engineering, and War In 13 BC Augustus entrusted the German command to his stepson [Drusus](https://romanempiretimes.com/drusus-the-elder-rome-most-successful-germanic-commander/). Young, popular, and politically reliable, he embodied the new generation of imperial leadership. His early campaigns focused on reconnaissance and infrastructure as much as combat. Naval expeditions traced the North Sea coast, while canals – notably the *Fossa Drusiana* – connected the Rhine to northern river systems, opening routes to the Ems, Weser, and Elbe. These works transformed logistics and allowed Roman forces to strike deep into Germania with unprecedented speed. ![In 9 BC, Drusus, attempting to advance along the Elbe River , is prevented from continuing his journey by a supernatural Great Seeress and forced to return. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Drusus-at-Elbe-1.jpg) In 9 BC, Drusus, attempting to advance along the Elbe River , is prevented from continuing his journey by a supernatural Great Seeress and forced to return. Public domain Drusus’ advances were hard-fought. Campaigns along the Lippe and toward the Weser exposed the army to ambush and attritional warfare. [Cassius Dio ](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/)records moments when Roman forces were trapped in narrow passes and narrowly avoided destruction. Semi-permanent camps such as Oberaden reveal both ambition and insecurity. Towers, heavy defences, and vast supply stores point to a long-term presence, yet also to constant fear. Even so, Roman logistics delivered Mediterranean foodstuffs – and even Indian pepper – to soldiers deep in Germany. ### Death on the Frontier and the Making of a Roman Hero In 9 BC, after reaching the Elbe, Drusus’ campaign halted. Ancient sources speak of a prophetic apparition warning him to turn back; modern scholars suggest mutiny and exhaustion. Shortly afterward, a riding accident left him mortally injured. [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/) raced across the empire to his brother’s side. Ancient writers turned the journey into a moral exemplum of fraternal devotion. Drusus died shortly after, his body returned to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/) and interred in Augustus’ mausoleum. He was posthumously granted the title Germanicus. Poetry and monuments transformed him into a martyr of expansion. Yet his achievements were limited: Germany was probed, mapped, and intimidated – not conquered. ### Withdrawal Without Defeat: Tiberius and Strategic Recalibration Tiberius inherited an unstable frontier. Camps such as Oberaden were abandoned and deliberately destroyed, not in panic but as part of a controlled withdrawal. Roman policy shifted from bold advance to consolidation. For nearly a decade, sources fall silent. Commanders changed, rebellions continued, and Roman control remained shallow. The illusion of pacification persisted, sustained by triumphs and rhetoric rather than facts on the ground. ### The Illusion of Pacification By AD 6, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/) believed Germania secure enough to attempt a major campaign against Maroboduus, whose powerful confederation threatened the Danube frontier. Plans collapsed when a massive revolt erupted in Illyria, forcing Rome to divert troops on an unprecedented scale. The shock exposed the fragility of imperial control. Augustus required a steady administrator in Germany – someone who could govern, tax, and pacify without provoking revolt. The choice fell on Publius Quinctilius Varus. ### A Reputation Forged After Defeat Publius Quinctilius Varus has long been remembered as an inept and unsuitable governor, an image shaped largely by hostile ancient commentators and reinforced by modern caricature. Contemporary authors describe him as cruel, naive, or sluggish, with Velleius Paterculus offering the most damaging portrait: > “A man of mild character and quiet disposition, somewhat slow in mind as he was in body.” Yet this judgement reflects post-disaster scapegoating rather than Varus’ actual standing before AD 9\. It is implausible that Augustus would have entrusted the Rhine armies to an incompetent at a moment of instability. Until Teutoburg, Varus’ career had been consistently successful. Born in the late 40s BC into a long-established patrician family, Varus belonged to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/)’s governing class by pedigree rather than celebrity. His father, Sextus Quinctilius Varus, had backed the losing side in the civil wars and committed suicide after Philippi, but this did not impede his son’s advancement under the Augustan regime. ![ Detail of the figure of Publius Quinctilius Varus after the defeat, in Haltern del Lago, Germany](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/statue-of-Varus--1--1.jpg) Detail of the figure of Publius Quinctilius Varus after the defeat, in Haltern del Lago, Germany. Credits: JordiCuber, CC BY-SA 4.0 Varus followed a conventional but notably accelerated *cursus honorum*. By 22 BC he had been selected as quaestor to accompany Augustus on an extended eastern tour, a rare mark of imperial confidence. In Asia he gained direct experience in taxation, civic administration, and provincial governance—skills that would define his later career. His advancement continued. In 13 BC he reached the consulship alongside his brother-in-law Tiberius, firmly aligning his fortunes with the imperial household. His political standing at this moment is reflected in his association with the dedication of the *Ara Pacis*, where he likely appeared among the senior figures of the Augustan elite. Marriage further consolidated his position. His second wife, Vipsania, was a daughter of [Marcus Agrippa](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/), binding Varus directly into the imperial family, while other familial alliances tied him to influential senatorial houses. These connections placed him securely within Augustus’ inner circle. ### Governor of Africa: Securing Rome’s Granary Varus’ first major provincial command came in Africa (8–7 BC), one of Rome’s most sensitive regions due to its role as a primary grain supplier. Although formally a senatorial province, Africa still housed a legion, requiring both political tact and military oversight. Varus maintained stability, ensured uninterrupted grain shipments, and avoided serious unrest—an achievement that confirmed his reliability in a post where failure carried empire-wide consequences. ### Governor of Syria: Authority at the Empire’s Edge In 6 BC Varus was appointed governor of Syria, among the most demanding commands in the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/). He oversaw four legions, volatile client kingdoms, and the Parthian frontier, operating at great distance from Rome with substantial autonomy. His tenure was dominated by events in Judaea following the death of Herod the Great. Varus attempted mediation in the succession crisis and responded decisively when unrest erupted. According to Josephus, revolt was suppressed swiftly and harshly, culminating in mass crucifixions but restoring order without prolonged instability. From [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s perspective, Varus had acted efficiently and within expectations. He left Syria with his reputation intact. ### Appointment to Germany By AD 6–7, Varus was appointed to command in Germany, entrusted with five legions and extensive auxiliary forces. Whether Germany was formally a province or a territory in transition mattered less than the authority he exercised there, which was effectively absolute. His remit was administrative as well as military: security, taxation, legal adjudication, and cooperation with local elites. Ancient critics later portrayed these measures as naive or provocative, but they were standard instruments of Roman consolidation. Archaeology now confirms that Roman civilian and administrative presence east of the Rhine was more advanced than once assumed. Sites such as Waldgirmes and Haltern show forums, workshops, water systems, and mixed Roman–German populations. Cassius Dio’s claim that Germans were adapting to Roman civic life is no longer dismissed as rhetorical exaggeration. Varus was overseeing a transition already underway—from conquest to direct rule. ### The Man Before the Disaster Before Teutoburg, Varus embodied the qualities Cicero once said defined a great commander: > “Military experience, bravery, prestige, and luck.” ![The reconstructed ramparts on the Varus battlefield near Kalkriese](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/The-reconstructed-ramparts-on-the-Varus-battlefield-near-Kalkriese-1.jpg) The reconstructed ramparts on the Varus battlefield near Kalkriese. Credits: Markus Schweiß, CC BY-SA 3.0 He had governed Africa and Syria successfully, managed rebellion, administered complex provinces, and maintained imperial confidence. Far from being an obvious failure, Varus was regarded as a safe and capable choice for Germany — a governor trusted precisely because the region seemed already secured. What followed in September AD 9 would redefine his reputation entirely. ### Arminius: Roman Officer Turned Enemy To Rome,[ Arminius](https://romanempiretimes.com/arminius-from-friend-of-rome-to-german-leader-at-the-teutoburg-forest-battle/) was not only a rebel but a mutinous Roman-trained officer. A Cheruscan noble born around 18 BC, he served as an auxiliary commander, earned Roman citizenship and equestrian rank, and mastered [Latin](https://romanempiretimes.com/contrary-to-what-you-think-not-all-romans-spoke-latin-heres-what-they-actually-spoke/). [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) credits him with unusual intelligence and courage. That background mattered more than any myth – he learned [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) well enough to fight it. ### The Cherusci and Their Society The Cherusci lived between the Weser and the Elbe (roughly Lower Saxony). Roman writers mocked Germania as wild and unproductive, yet archaeology and environmental evidence point to a settled, agrarian landscape with cereal farming, livestock, ironworking, and surplus storage. This was a functioning countryside, not an empty wilderness. Rome advanced through elite management as much as force – rewarding chiefs, promoting cooperation, encouraging towns, markets, courts, and cult sites. Tacitus frames the process with irony: > “They called it civilisation, when it was but a part of their slavery.” Gifts, subsidies, and trade drew elites into dependency. Roman silver circulated widely beyond the frontier, helping shift exchange away from pure barter. Cheruscan politics were fractured. Arminius led the anti-Roman faction; Segestes remained pro-Roman; Inguiomerus shifted with events. The survival of strong pro-Roman support shows AD 9 was not a unified national revolt but a coalition held together by success and fear. Cassius Dio gives two drivers: Germans were treated > “as if… slaves”, and Varus imposed taxation, > “exacting money as he would from subject nations.” The move from allied partner to near-province brought taxes, courts, and a permanent army presence. For elites, this meant loss of autonomy and rising financial pressure – practical grievances, not abstract slogans. Germanic warfare favoured speed, light weapons, and terrain. Tacitus describes spears and javelins as dominant; “naked” likely meant without armour. Arminius did not copy Roman methods – he used Roman knowledge (routine, confidence, logistics) against them, shaping conditions where Roman strengths became liabilities. AD 9 may reflect a moment when taxation and control felt irreversible, and when Arminius had consolidated enough support. His goal was not “Germany” as a nation – Tacitus’ “liberator of Germany” is hindsight – but more plausibly preventing a Roman province east of the Rhine. Cassius Dio notes Arminius stayed close to Varus, “often shared his mess,” while preparing the betrayal that would follow. ### A Province That Looked Quiet By late summer AD 9, Quinctilius Varus appears to have treated Germany as a province in the making rather than a frontier still in flux. The season had been dominated by administration – diplomacy, local dispute-handling, routine patrols – the kind of work that signals a region is being normalised. Into that atmosphere came Segestes’ warning: Arminius, the Cheruscan leader who had served Rome, was plotting revolt. Varus dismissed the report, reading it as exaggeration or as a move in tribal politics rather than the early signal of a coordinated strike. The failure was not ignorance – it was interpretation. ![Arminius after the defeat of the Romans in Teutoburg Forest. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/arminius-after-the-teutoburg-battle--1--1.jpg) Arminius after the defeat of the Romans in Teutoburg Forest. Public domain Arminius was able to act precisely because he was trusted. He had spent the summer close to Varus and moved within the Roman camp as an ally. When he and his auxiliaries rode off under the pretext of gathering support and reconnaissance, the Romans accepted it as procedure – and handed their advance intelligence to the man organising the ambush. The force marched as if through cooperative territory. Its length, its baggage, and the presence of camp followers made it an impressive machine of movement but a poor instrument for sudden combat. Once weather and difficult ground slowed progress, order became dislocation – and dislocation made the army vulnerable to repeated blows. ### Kalkriese – Where Movement Becomes Confinement Later sources disagree on details of route and sequence, but a consistent logic emerges: the Romans were pressured into terrain that restricted their ability to regroup. Near Kalkriese, a narrow corridor between higher ground and wet lowland offered attackers what they needed – confinement, surprise, and the ability to strike against separated elements of the column. Archaeological traces of ramparts along the corridor add force to the picture, suggesting the space was shaped to narrow movement and channel troops into the most difficult ground. In those conditions, Roman advantages were blunted. Formations were hard to assemble; cavalry became difficult to use; fighting turned into exhaustion and confusion under sustained attack. The end was not a single decisive clash but a breaking of cohesion. Wounded and surrounded, Varus chose suicide rather than capture, and the remaining resistance unravelled. The result was catastrophic – the legions were destroyed and the standards taken. Roman positions east of the Rhine were abandoned or overwhelmed, and the political meaning was immediate: Germany could not be treated as a settled province. Later tradition preserves the story of a lone stronghold holding out long enough to contain the shock, a final reminder that after Teutoburg, Rome’s priority was no longer expansion, but survival and boundary. ### Rediscovering the Battlefield For centuries, the location of[ Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/)’s greatest defeat remained uncertain. Ancient authors gave no precise coordinates, and northern Germany offered countless plausible landscapes. By the nineteenth century, more than six hundred proposed sites had been put forward, ranging from cautious reconstructions to pure speculation. A decisive suggestion was made by Theodor Mommsen, who noted the concentration of Augustan coins found near Kalkriese, at the edge of the Great Moor below the Wiehen Hills. The topography matched the ancient descriptions: a narrow corridor between high ground and marsh, ideally suited to ambush. Lacking physical evidence of combat, however, Mommsen’s conclusion was largely dismissed. ![Cache of silver dinarii discovered in 1987 on the site of the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, Museum und Park Kalkriese, Germany](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/coins-discovered-in-the-battlefield-of-teutoburg-forest--1--1.jpg) Cache of silver dinarii discovered in 1987 on the site of the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, Museum und Park Kalkriese, Germany. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 Confirmation came only in 1987, when Tony Clunn, a British army officer and metal-detector enthusiast, uncovered Roman silver denarii along an ancient roadway at Kalkriese. What initially appeared to be a dispersed hoard soon proved otherwise. The discovery of Roman sling bullets in 1988 established the site as military rather than commercial, prompting systematic excavation. Archaeology provided cumulative proof rather than a single decisive find. Thousands of artefacts—weapon fragments, armour fittings, [coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/), medical instruments, and personal items—were recovered across a wide area, consistent with a prolonged, mobile engagement rather than a single pitched battle. Almost all finds were Roman, reflecting ancient accounts that the victors stripped the dead. The absence of Germanic equipment reinforced this pattern. The numismatic evidence proved crucial. All coins recovered date to the reign of Augustus, with none later than AD 1\. Many were countermarked, a practice associated with military pay, and among these appeared stamps reading VAR, used only during the governorship of Publius Quinctilius Varus. No other known conflict in his tenure could account for material on this scale. ![Damaged wine strainer made of bronze found on the site of the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, Museum und Park Kalkriese, Germany](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/wine-strainer-found-in-Teutoburg-forest--1--1.jpg) Damaged wine strainer made of bronze found on the site of the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, Museum und Park Kalkriese, Germany. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 Together, terrain, artefact distribution, and coinage establish Kalkriese as a principal battlefield of the Varian disaster. While the fighting extended over many kilometres, this narrow pass marks the point where Roman movement collapsed into confinement—and where defeat became irreversible. (“Rome’s greatest defeat. Masacre in the Teutoborg Forest” by Adrian Murdoch) The defeat in the Teutoburg Forest did not merely destroy three legions; it forced Rome to recognise the limits of its power. Expansion halted, ambition recalibrated, and the Rhine hardened into a permanent frontier. Germania was no longer a province in waiting but a boundary never again seriously crossed. Long after the bones were buried and the standards lost, the lesson endured: Rome could dominate much of the known world, but it could not master every landscape, nor every form of resistance. ### Drusus the Elder: Rome’s Most Successful Germanic Commander URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/drusus-the-elder-rome-most-successful-germanic-commander/ Last updated: 2026-02-02T19:33:04.000Z In the final decades of the first century BCE, Rome looked north with a mixture of confidence and unease. The Rhine marked a frontier that had been crossed before, but never held for long, and memories of earlier disasters still lingered beneath Augustan stability. It was into this uncertain landscape that Nero Claudius Drusus was sent. Young, ambitious, and closely bound to the ruling house, Drusus did more than raid across the frontier. He carried Roman power deep into Germania, not as a response to crisis, but as a deliberate project of expansion–one that would briefly redraw the map of Rome’s northern world. ### Drusus the Elder and the Making of a Roman Legend Across modern Germany, the name of Nero Claudius Drusus survives quietly in street names–Drususgasse here, Drususstraße there–often unnoticed by those who pass through them. In Cologne, one such street lies close to the cathedral and the Roman-Germanic Museum, surrounded by reminders of the city’s ancient past. That a Roman commander should be commemorated in this way is unremarkable; that this particular commander is remembered at all is more curious. Drusus the Elder, despite his prominence in Roman eyes, has largely faded from popular memory. ![Drusus Fountain, Hochelten, Emmerich am Rhein](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/drusus-fountain-sign--1-.jpg) Drusus Fountain, Hochelten, Emmerich am Rhein. Public domain The title “Drusus the Elder” can be misleading. It suggests age, long experience, and a lifetime of campaigning. In reality, Drusus was astonishingly young. When [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) entrusted him with an army, he was only twenty-three. Within a year, working alongside his brother [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/), he subdued communities in the central and eastern Alpine valleys. What followed was a career compressed by time but dense with achievement. Drusus oversaw extensive military construction, laying down [roads](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/), forts, and supply networks that helped anchor Roman power along the Rhine. In the process, he played a role in the early development of settlements that would later become major cities of the region. His activities were not confined to land. Drusus pushed Roman exploration further north than any predecessor, combining riverine, maritime, and overland movement in a way that expanded [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)’s geographical knowledge. He also pursued diplomacy alongside force, securing alliances with tribes across the Rhine and extending Roman influence as far as the Elbe. These actions were not peripheral skirmishes but part of a broader reorientation of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s northern frontier. Drusus’ private life reinforced his public stature. He married Antonia, daughter of [Mark Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/), and fathered children who would shape imperial history: Germanicus, celebrated as [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s golden prince; Livilla; and [Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/), the future emperor. Within the Julio-Claudian family, his line proved unusually consequential. When Drusus died suddenly at twenty-nine, he was mourned not as an ageing commander but as a charismatic figure cut down at the height of promise. Contemporary Romans treated him as a hero of near-mythic stature. Statues were raised in his honour, [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/) composed a biography of him, and later [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/some-of-rome-worst-rulers-nobody-talks-about/)–especially Claudius–cultivated his image as the youthful conqueror of Germania. Writers such as [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-the-author-of-the-worlds-first-encyclopaedia-was-roman/) devoted extensive attention to his campaigns north of the Rhine. Yet over time, Drusus slipped from view. Modern readers encounter him mainly as a supporting figure in Augustan history or as a prelude to the catastrophe of Teutoburg. No ancient biography survives intact. Augustus’ memoir is lost, as is [Pliny](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/)’s detailed account. What remains is a patchwork assembled from later authors–[Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/), [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/), [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/), Velleius Paterculus, Florus, Horace, and others–each preserving fragments of a life that must be reconstructed indirectly. Even so, enough survives to trace his career with reasonable clarity and to glimpse his character. From an early age, he lived at the intersection of politics and war. His connection to Augustus ensured early entry into public life, but advancement followed demonstrated competence rather than mere favour. His military experience began in the Alpine campaigns and culminated in operations beyond the Rhine, in regions the Romans grouped under the name Magna Germania–lands poorly mapped, imperfectly understood, and freighted with fear. ![Ancient bronze bust of Drusus the Elder, National Archaeological Museum, Naples](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/drusus-bronze-bust-1.jpg) Ancient bronze bust of Drusus the Elder, National Archaeological Museum, Naples. Public domain For [Roman soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/), these expeditions meant marching into territory shaped as much by legend as by intelligence, where forests, [rivers](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/), and unfamiliar peoples were imagined as hostile and monstrous. Drusus led these campaigns without the advantages later generations would take for granted. There were no reliable maps, no rapid communications, and no comprehensive reconnaissance. Decisions depended on local intelligence from allies and captives, the reports of scouts, and a commander’s instinct for terrain and enemy behaviour. Roman command culture recognised these limitations and compensated by granting wide discretion to generals in the field. Drusus thrived in this environment. He led from the front, earning loyalty through personal courage and decisiveness. At the same time, this boldness carried risks. His readiness to expose himself–and by extension his troops–to danger sometimes bordered on recklessness. ### Rumours, Divorce, and the Question of Paternity In the months before Drusus’ birth, Rome was alive with rumour. Livia Drusilla was already pregnant when Octavian divorced Scribonia and moved with striking speed to marry her, prompting widespread speculation that the child she carried was his. The timing alone was enough to provoke comment, and satirical verse soon gave voice to public suspicion: > “Nine months for common births the fates decree; But, for the great, reduce the term to three.” The matter could not be left to gossip. Because Livia was visibly pregnant, Octavian sought a formal ruling from the collegium pontificum on whether the marriage could proceed. Roman law allowed remarriage during pregnancy only if paternity was beyond doubt. In this case, the facts were decisive. Livia had been absent from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) for much of the relevant period and had returned only in the summer, making Octavian’s paternity impossible. The pontiffs confirmed the conception and authorised the marriage. Drusus was born on 13 January 38 BCE. Despite Livia’s remarriage, Roman law placed him under the authority of his biological father, Tiberius Claudius [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-romes-most-infamous-ruler-part-1/), who formally acknowledged the child during the *lustratio* ceremony nine days later and gave him the name Decimus Claudius Drusus. Whatever suspicions had circulated in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/), Drusus entered public life as a legitimate member of the Claudian line, his status affirmed both legally and ritually. ### An Inheritance of Names, Virtues, and Memory Drusus and his elder brother [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/) spent their early years under their father’s authority but within the orbit of their mother’s household on the Palatine. Their upbringing combined conventional Roman education with something more demanding: constant exposure to ancestral precedent. The Claudian family history–preserved in memory, ritual, and wax masks–presented a lineage marked by severity, ambition, and public service. ![Latin inscription from the Roman period discovered in 1952 on the island of Vis (ancient Issa ) and preserved in the Archaeological Museum of Split. Latin text: "Drusus Caesar, T[(iberii) Aug(usti) f(ilius), Diui] / Augusti nepos, consul de[sign(atus) II], / pontifex, augur, camp[um dedit] / Publio Dolabella leg(ato) pro[praetore].](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/latin-inscription-drusus-caesar--1--1.jpg) Latin inscription from the Roman period discovered in 1952 on the island of Vis (ancient *Issa* ) and preserved in the Archaeological Museum of Split. Latin text: "Drusus Caesar, T\[(iberii) Aug(usti) f(ilius), Diui\] / Augusti nepos, consul de\[sign(atus) II\], / pontifex, augur, camp\[um dedit\] / Publio Dolabella leg(ato) pro\[praetore\]. Credits: Rossignol Benoît, CC BY-SA 3.0 [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) offers a rare contemporary glimpse of Nero’s character, praising his gratitude and personal integrity while hinting at the optimism that would later prove politically costly: > “There is no one among the noble families whom I value more highly… he is the most grateful fellow in the world.” (Cicero, Letters) [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-rome-most-infamous-ruler-part-2/)’s repeated political misjudgements eventually forced the family into flight during the civil wars, a formative experience that ended with his early death in 33 BCE. After this, Drusus moved permanently into his mother’s household under Augustus’ supervision. His education continued within the cultural and political centre of the new regime, shaped as much by public spectacle and ancestral expectation as by formal instruction. From an early age, Drusus was taught not only how Romans learned, but how Romans remembered–and what was expected of a name that carried such weight. ### The Lollian Disaster and a Shock to Roman Confidence (17 BCE) In the late summer of 17 BCE, Rome received alarming news from Gallia Belgica. Roman forces under the governor Marcus Lollius suffered a serious defeat at the hands of a Germanic coalition led by the Sugambri, with Cherusci and Suebi allies. The loss of the legionary[ eagle](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-has-the-eagle-become-the-roman-symbol/) of Legio V Alaudae marked the event as a national humiliation, not merely a battlefield setback. For Augustus–who had recently celebrated the recovery of standards lost at Carrhae–the incident was both politically and personally damaging. Although the Germanic forces soon withdrew across the Rhine and offered hostages, the episode exposed the vulnerability of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/)’s northern frontier and shattered the illusion that Gaul was secure. The Lollian Disaster triggered the most significant reassessment of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/)’s northern policy since Caesar’s Gallic Wars. Augustus recognised that peace in Gaul was impossible while Germanic groups could raid freely across the Rhine. The frontier was not a fixed line but a porous zone, difficult to police and prone to instability. Rather than rely on reactive defence, Augustus moved toward a strategic solution: securing the Alpine corridors and repositioning Roman military power to control movement between Italy, Gaul, and the Danube basin. ### Drusus’ First Test: Command in the Alps With Agrippa unavailable and Tiberius already governing Gaul, Augustus made a bold decision. In 16 BCE, he entrusted Nero Claudius Drusus, only twenty-two years old and without prior field command, with leadership of the Alpine campaign (*Bellum Alpinum*). The appointment was risky but calculated. Drusus would be closely supported by experienced officers, while Augustus and Tiberius remained nearby. The campaign would test whether the youngest Claudian possessed the balance of caution and boldness Augustus prized in commanders. Drusus’ campaign proved swift and effective. Roman forces defeated the Raeti and related Alpine peoples, secured the main passes, and established permanent routes through previously hostile terrain. The conquest opened a continuous land corridor linking Italy to the Rhine and Danube–an achievement with lasting strategic consequences. The success earned Drusus immediate promotion and public acclaim. Augustus celebrated the victory as his own in official propaganda, while poets like Horace elevated Drusus as a youthful embodiment of Roman virtus. In late 15 BCE, Drusus returned briefly to Lugdunum, where Augustus reassigned responsibilities. Tiberius returned to Rome, while Drusus assumed the post of legatus Augusti *pro praetore* of the Tres Galliae. ![Bust of Drusus the Elder. Between 15 BC and 20 AD. Marble discovered in Rome.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/bust-of-Drusus-the-Elder--1--1.jpg) Bust of Drusus the Elder. Between 15 BC and 20 AD. Marble discovered in Rome. Credits: Scailyna, CC BY-SA 4.0 The decision marked a turning point. No longer a promising youth on trial, Drusus now held independent command over Rome’s most sensitive frontier. The Alpine victories were not an endpoint but a prelude to a far larger project: the Roman advance into Germania itself. ### Governing a Region in Transition When Nero Claudius Drusus assumed command in late 15 BCE, he inherited a Gaul that was neither newly conquered nor fully integrated.[ Julius Caesa](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/)r’s tripartite division of Gaul still defined the landscape, but Augustus used his recent visit to reorganise the territory into three roughly equal imperial provinces–Aquitania, Belgica, and the newly created Gallia Lugdunensis–collectively known as the Tres Galliae. This restructuring aimed to stabilise administration, balance provincial power, and accelerate integration into the Roman system. Unlike Narbonensis, which had long been settled and Romanised, the *Tres Galliae* remained unevenly developed. Urbanisation was limited, investment cautious, and much of the population still lived near traditional oppida. Under Augustus, policy shifted decisively: Gaul was no longer just a defensive buffer but a region with economic and political potential. Drusus’ mandate was to consolidate peace, promote urban growth, secure taxation, and protect Roman interests–while preparing the ground for expansion beyond the Rhine. This work required both restraint and pressure. Roman administration brought censuses, taxation, and the steady intrusion of imperial oversight into [daily life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/), binding local elites to Rome while provoking resentment among others. Drusus’ task was to enforce these measures without destabilising the region at the very moment it was expected to support large-scale military operations. Gaul was no longer a conquered territory, but it was not yet secure–and its stability was essential to any advance beyond the Rhine. ### Lugdunum: Capital of the New Gaul Drusus and his household took up residence in the praetorium at Lugdunum, a monumental governor’s palace overlooking the Rhône–Saône confluence. Founded as a colony in 43 BCE, Lugdunum had become the administrative heart of Gaul. Its forum, theatre, and infrastructure symbolised Rome’s ambitions for the region. The city also housed the imperial mint, which from 15 BCE produced gold, silver, and bronze coinage for Gaul and the Rhine armies–making financial stability and military pay a core responsibility of Drusus’ governorship. Augustan policy focused on winning over local aristocracies. Gallic tribes were reorganised into self-governing civitates modelled on Roman municipal structures, with councils, magistrates, and legal courts. Elite competition was encouraged through imperial patronage, civic privilege, and the granting of Roman citizenship. New towns bearing Augustus’ name became regional centres of prestige. This strategy fostered loyalty and passivity, binding Gallic leaders to Rome’s success while gradually dissolving older power structures. Urban development remained uneven. Some planned towns flourished; others stagnated or were quietly ignored by the local population. Many Gauls preferred smaller villages (*vici* and *pagi*) that grew organically around roads, rivers, and military needs. While this supported trade and supply, it also revealed the limits of imposed Roman models. ![External face of the Arch of Drusus at the Porta San Sebastiano on the Appia Antica in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/drusus-arch-1.jpg) External face of the Arch of Drusus at the Porta San Sebastiano on the Appia Antica in Rome. Credits: LPLT, CC BY-SA 3.0 Discontent surfaced most clearly in taxation, exemplified by the scandal of the procurator Licinus, whose abuses provoked formal complaints to Augustus–demonstrating both the risks of corruption and the functioning of imperial oversight. Taxation replaced wartime levies of men and horses. Regular censuses assessed land, property, and [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) in detail, feeding imperial revenue and financing future campaigns. Though efficient, the process intruded deeply into private life and fuelled resentment among some communities. Loss of privileges and citizenship followed resistance. Drusus’ challenge was to enforce these measures without undermining the fragile loyalty Augustus sought to cultivate. ### An Amphibious Invasion Strategy In spring 12 BCE, Drusus launched an ambitious campaign combining land and sea power. From Batavian territory, Roman forces embarked on a large-scale amphibious operation designed to surprise the enemy, move troops and supplies together, and bypass difficult terrain. Purpose-built vessels transported soldiers, cavalry, animals, and equipment, demonstrating Rome’s logistical flexibility. What followed was not merely coastal reconnaissance, but a sustained advance into the interior of Germania itself. Using inland waterways and canals, the fleet reached the North Sea and advanced along the coast–an unprecedented Roman manoeuvre. Along the way, Drusus prioritised diplomacy. He secured alliances with local peoples such as the Frisians, gaining guides, manpower, and regional stability without bloodshed. The expedition pushed further north than any Roman force before it. Some elements explored beyond the Elbe toward the lands of the Cimbri, extending Roman geographic knowledge as much as military reach. Elsewhere, Roman troops advanced inland along the Ems River, where resistance finally emerged. A naval engagement with the Bructeri ended in Roman victory, confirming control of the waterways. Late in the season, misjudged tides nearly stranded the fleet on the coast, but allied forces helped avert disaster. With winter approaching, Drusus withdrew to the Rhine camps–having achieved strategic success without permanent occupation. Drusus returned to Rome to widespread acclaim. He had exposed and crushed a Gallic conspiracy, secured the Rhine frontier, forged new alliances, carried out a successful amphibious invasion, and ventured farther north than any previous Roman commander. Contemporary coinage, official inscriptions, and later literary praise framed the campaign as a landmark achievement of the Augustan age. Reward followed. Drusus was appointed *praetor urbanu*s, a prestigious office that placed him firmly on the path to the consulship. At just twenty-six, he was already being compared to [Alexander the Great](https://romanempiretimes.com/alexander-the-great-in-roman-thought-hero-rival-and-legend/)–a parallel consciously cultivated in Roman memory. The year ended on a sombre note with the death of Agrippa, Augustus’ closest associate. Power within the imperial family shifted, elevating Tiberius and reshaping dynastic plans. For Drusus, the future remained open. His achievements had secured Rome’s northern frontier and expanded its horizons–but they also drew him deeper into the ambitions and expectations of the Augustan regime. ### A Conspiracy Exposed and the Opening of the German War Drusus governed the Tres Galliae independently from Lugdunum. Although the provinces appeared stable, underlying resentment persisted among segments of the Gallic aristocracy, shaped by the legacy of Caesar’s conquest and intensified by ongoing administrative reforms. The census in particular appears to have provoked opposition, and some tribal leaders may have viewed the youth of the governor and the redeployment of legions to the Rhine as an opportunity to challenge Roman authority. ![ Drusus subdues Germania. The Roman general Drusus on horseback among the conquered Germanic peoples. With this he earns the right to bear the name Germanicu. Depiction on the reverse of the triumphal arch Arcus Caroli on the Vrijdagmarkt. The print is part of a series illustrating the publication of the description of the entry of the Cardinal Infante Ferdinand of Austria into Ghent on 28 January 1635 as the new governor of the Spanish Netherlands.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/drusus-subdues-germania--1--1.jpg) Drusus subdues Germania. The Roman general Drusus on horseback among the conquered Germanic peoples. With this he earns the right to bear the name Germanicu. Depiction on the reverse of the triumphal arch Arcus Caroli on the Vrijdagmarkt. The print is part of a series illustrating the publication of the description of the entry of the Cardinal Infante Ferdinand of Austria into Ghent on 28 January 1635 as the new governor of the Spanish Netherlands. Public domain Drusus uncovered the conspiracy before it could be enacted. Although the means by which the plot was revealed are not recorded, the provincial administration possessed an extensive intelligence and policing apparatus, including military officials, road-station personnel, scouts, and a permanent paramilitary force guarding the imperial mint at Lugdunum. Information was likely supplied by local elites who remained loyal to Rome and to Drusus personally. Acting swiftly, Drusus summoned leading Gallic figures under the pretext of a religious gathering, while troops were dispatched to secure potentially hostile territories. The stratagem isolated the conspirators and prevented coordinated resistance. At the same time, Germanic groups east of the Rhine, particularly the Sugambri and their allies, attempted to exploit the situation. Drusus allowed them to initiate hostilities, then responded decisively. Roman forces repelled the incursions, crossed into enemy territory via the Batavian lands, and devastated the regions of the Usipetes and Sugambri, neutralising the immediate threat along the Rhine frontier. With the Rhineland secured, preparations for a full-scale offensive could proceed. In the spring of 12 BCE, Drusus launched the first phase of the Bellum Germanicum. The campaign opened with an amphibious operation departing from Batavodurum, employing a purpose-built fleet to transport legions, cavalry, and supplies. The use of naval routes enabled a rapid advance and avoided the logistical constraints of overland movement. The fleet moved through the Drusian canal system into Lacus Flevo and onward toward the North Sea, establishing contact with coastal peoples. The Cananefates were encountered without resistance, while the Frisii were brought into alliance through treaty and subsequently contributed troops to the Roman cause. Continuing along the coast, Roman forces advanced to the mouth of the Ems River and penetrated inland. During operations on the river, the fleet was attacked by the Bructeri, but the assault was repelled, and Roman control of the waterways was maintained. As the campaigning season drew to a close, Drusus ordered a withdrawal. During the return voyage the fleet was briefly endangered by misjudged tides off the Frisian coast, but assistance from allied communities enabled a safe retreat to the Rhine. The first campaign season concluded with significant achievements: the suppression of internal unrest in Gaul, the defeat of hostile Germanic groups along the Rhine, the establishment of new alliances, and the extension of Roman military reach farther north than ever before. Drusus returned to Rome during the winter, where his successes were publicly recognised, marking his emergence as the principal commander of Rome’s northern war effort. ### Turning Point: Omen, Anxiety, and Withdrawal During the advance deep into Germania, Drusus experienced an episode that ancient authors interpreted as a supernatural warning. Cassius Dio records that a woman of immense stature appeared to him at night, addressing him in Latin and foretelling that he would not be permitted to see all the lands ahead, nor to survive the campaign. Suetonius similarly describes the encounter as an apparition. Such experiences were not dismissed in Roman culture, where nocturnal spirits, divine visitations, and ominous dreams were accepted features of the world and were often treated as meaningful communications from the divine. Whether understood as a supernatural visitation or as the product of physical exhaustion and psychological strain, the episode appears to have had a real effect on Drusus. He ordered the construction of a trophy on the far bank of the river, commemorating Roman success against the Marcomanni and marking the furthest point yet reached by a Roman army in Germania. Known later as the Tropaeum Drusi, it was remembered as a symbolic boundary of Roman expansion. Having done so, Drusus halted the advance and ordered the army to return toward the Rhine. ### Omens in the Ranks and the March Home As the army withdrew, ancient sources describe a growing atmosphere of unease. Soldiers reported unsettling sights and sounds: wolves prowling the edges of the camp, unexplained cries, phantom figures, and strange celestial phenomena. Shooting stars were seen in the night sky, interpreted as further signs of impending disaster. These reports reflect the heightened anxiety of troops operating far from familiar territory, at the edge of the known world, and may also point to the psychological toll of prolonged campaigning. ![The Drususstein (Drususstone) is a nearly 20 meters high, masonry block of Roman origin on the grounds of the citadel of Mainz, Germany. It was originally cast in marble. Researchers now largely accept that this is the structural remnant of the cenotaph mentioned by writers like Eutropius and Suetonius, erected in 9 BC by Roman troops in honour of the deceased general Drusus, in Mogontiacum (now Mainz). During the early days of the Principate the Drususstein was the starting point for elaborate memorial services in honour of Drusus, and the centre of the imperial cult in Mogontiacum. After being robbed of its marble casing in the early Middle Ages, it served as a watchtower in the fortifications of the city in the 16th century. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/cenotaph-of-Drusus--1--1.jpg) The Drususstein (Drususstone) is a nearly 20 meters high, masonry block of Roman origin on the grounds of the citadel of Mainz, Germany. It was originally cast in marble. Researchers now largely accept that this is the structural remnant of the cenotaph mentioned by writers like Eutropius and Suetonius, erected in 9 BC by Roman troops in honour of the deceased general Drusus, in Mogontiacum (now Mainz). During the early days of the Principate the Drususstein was the starting point for elaborate memorial services in honour of Drusus, and the centre of the imperial cult in Mogontiacum. After being robbed of its marble casing in the early Middle Ages, it served as a watchtower in the fortifications of the city in the 16th century. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 The march back followed the outbound route through forests, wetlands, and river crossings. Somewhere between the Saal and the Weser rivers, disaster struck. Drusus suffered a serious accident when his horse fell, crushing his leg. Ancient sources differ on the precise cause of his decline, but Livy records that the fall resulted in a fracture, a detail consistent with the severity of the injury and its consequences. ### Injury, Medical Care, and Decline Drusus received immediate medical attention. As a commander of consular rank, he would have been treated by a personal physician trained in [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) medical traditions, familiar with established techniques for diagnosing and treating fractures. Ancient medical knowledge allowed for the cleaning of wounds, resetting of bones, splinting, and bandaging, but severe injuries carried grave risks, particularly infection and fever. The army halted and established a temporary camp. Messengers were dispatched to inform Augustus, and word reached Tiberius, who was then in northern Italy. Tiberius set out at once and made an extraordinary journey at speed to reach his brother, a feat later remembered as remarkable even by Roman standards. ### Death of Drusus and the End of the Campaign When Tiberius arrived, the camp was already steeped in despair. Drusus, aware of his condition, ensured that his brother was received with full military honours and acknowledged as commander. The gesture was later remembered as an example of exemplary familial devotion. Despite this, Drusus’ condition deteriorated rapidly. He developed a fever and, within days of Tiberius’ arrival, died in the camp, thirty days after his fall from the horse. His death brought the campaign to an abrupt end. The army withdrew fully to the Rhine, and the vision of unlimited expansion into Germania was temporarily halted. For Roman memory, the episode marked a decisive turning point: the loss of a commander still in his twenties, at the height of success, whose ambitions had carried Roman arms farther north than ever before. ### Drusus’ Death and the Return to Rome Drusus died after the riding accident that crushed his leg, a wound that ancient medical writers already understood could be fatal. With no way to know the precise mechanism–whether fever, shock, or complications following the fracture–his death stunned the army, which had seen him as vigorous and still in his prime. Tiberius took control at once and organised the recovery and transport of the body, maintaining strict discipline in a camp thrown into grief. ![ From left to right: Germanicus, Drusus, Claudius, Agrippina the Elder, Agrippina the Younger, Vespasian, Archaeological museum Narona, Vid, Croatia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/02/Germanicus--Drusus--Claudius--Agrippina-the-Elder--Agrippina-the-Younger--Vespasian--1--1.jpg) From left to right: Germanicus, Drusus, Claudius, Agrippina the Elder, Agrippina the Younger, Vespasian, Archaeological museum Narona, Vid, Croatia. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 The journey back became a public event on an imperial scale. Drusus’ body was carried from the summer camp to the Rhine, then borne by stages toward Italy and Rome, with communities along the route turning out to mourn and honour him. Augustus and Livia met the cortège as it entered Italy, and the return to the capital was treated as a state occasion, culminating in formal rites in Rome and a public farewell. Drusus was cremated, and his ashes were placed in the Mausoleum of Augustus, securing his place within the ruling family’s sacred memory. In the aftermath, Drusus’ death was rapidly shaped into a political and dynastic landmark. The [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) voted posthumous honours that fixed his image as Rome’s heroic conqueror in Germania, including monuments and the hereditary title Germanicus for his line. His reputation was cultivated as an ideal of youthful virtue and military excellence, invoked by his family and later emperors as a source of legitimacy. Rumours of foul play circulated, but the public honours, Augustus’ evident attachment to him, and the sustained effort to memorialise him reveal a different emphasis: He was mourned as an irreplaceable loss–and preserved as a model the regime wanted Rome to remember. *("Eager for Glory. The Untold Story of Drusus the Elder, Conqueror of Germania" by Lindsay Powell)* --- Drusus did not live long enough to see the consequences of his campaigns. Within a generation, Roman ambitions beyond the Rhine would end in catastrophe, and Germania would be recast as a land unconquerable by arms alone. Yet it was Drusus who came closest to altering that outcome. His roads, forts, alliances, and exploratory campaigns transformed Rome’s understanding of the northern world and reshaped the frontier that followed. Remembered by his contemporaries as a model of youthful virtus and by later rulers as a source of dynastic legitimacy, Drusus remains a figure defined as much by what he achieved as by what his early death prevented Rome from becoming. ### Arausio: The Defeat That Reshaped Roman Power URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/arausio-the-defeat-that-reshaped-roman-power/ Last updated: 2026-02-03T12:55:42.000Z In 105 BCE, somewhere along the Rhône near Arausio, a Roman army confronted a threat it believed it could manage. What followed did not immediately enter Rome’s memory as a turning point, but as an unsettling rupture—confusing, humiliating, and difficult to explain. Reports arriving in the city spoke not only of defeat, but of disorder, disagreement, and authority breaking down at the highest level. Arausio would come to matter not because of a single decision or moment on the field, but because it revealed vulnerabilities the Republic had long preferred not to see. ### Arausio and the Shock of the Northern Wars The defeats inflicted by the Cimbri and Teutones, culminating in the catastrophe at Arausio in 105 BCE, marked a fundamental rupture in Roman perceptions of security. For the first time since the Gallic sack of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/), the Republic confronted enemies perceived as both unfamiliar and existential, emerging from regions beyond [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s geographical and cultural imagination. Ancient authors consistently framed these wars as something more than conventional military setbacks: they described them as overwhelming, sudden, and deeply unsettling events that challenged [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s sense of control over its world. The language used by later writers reveals how these defeats were remembered not merely as losses, but as collective shocks. Roman commanders involved in the disasters were routinely ridiculed and blamed, serving as convenient scapegoats for a crisis that appeared to exceed individual responsibility. [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/) explicitly frames the Cimbri and Teutones as an existential, destabilising shock, not a routine war: > “The terror occasioned by these nations was greater than any that had ever before seized Rome, except that of the Gauls. For they were a people unknown, of vast numbers, and their movements were rapid and resistless.” (Marius 11.2) And again, emphasising panic and loss of control: > “Italy was filled with confusion and fear, expecting daily that the barbarians would descend upon it.” (Marius 13.1) This language directly supports suddenness, scale, and collective fear. [Caesar ](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/)shows that this fear was still active memory, not retrospective exaggeration. When describing the Helvetii and their allies, he deliberately invokes earlier trauma: > “The memory of the disaster suffered by the Roman people at the hands of the Cimbri and Teutones was still fresh.” (De bello Gallico 1.7) He reinforces this by recalling the defeat of Cassius Longinus (linked to Cimbrian allies): > “This defeat was the more bitter because it reminded them of the ancient calamity.” (De bello Gallico 1.14) At the same time, extraordinary political responses followed. The repeated election of [Gaius Marius ](https://romanempiretimes.com/gaius-marius-the-rise-and-fall-of-rome-saviour/)to the consulship—five times in rapid succession between 104 and 100 BCE—reflected widespread loss of confidence in the traditional [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) and a readiness to abandon established norms in favour of perceived effectiveness. Emergency measures such as the declaration of *a tumultus* further underline the sense that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/) believed itself under immediate and exceptional threat. ![Marius sitting on a chair surrounded by Roman officers and obstinate-looking Germanic barbarians. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/gaius-marius-and-the-ambassadors-of-the-barbarians--1--1.jpg) Marius sitting on a chair surrounded by Roman officers and obstinate-looking Germanic barbarians. Public domain Although [Marius](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-gaius-marius-changed-rome-armies-forever/) eventually neutralised the danger through decisive victories, the psychological impact of the Cimbrian and Teutonic wars proved remarkably durable. Memories of the invasion lingered for generations, shaping how Romans interpreted later encounters with northern peoples. [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/) deliberately activated these associations in his [Gallic](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/) campaigns, repeatedly invoking earlier defeats and framing new enemies in ways that echoed the terror once inspired by the Cimbri and Teutones. Even defeats that predated his birth were treated as part of a shared, living memory, suggesting how deeply embedded these events remained in Roman consciousness. This legacy persisted into the imperial period. [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) explicitly connected his regime to the suppression of northern threats, carefully reviving the memory of earlier crises to reinforce his image as restorer and protector. Later panics—after [Teutoburg](https://romanempiretimes.com/arminius-from-friend-of-rome-to-german-leader-at-the-teutoburg-forest-battle/), during rumours of German unrest, or under emperors as late as [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-caligula-mad-or-just-sick/)—were repeatedly framed through the same historical lens. The fear that Germanic forces might once again pour into Italy was not rhetorical invention, but a reflex rooted in long-standing recollection. Seen in this light, Arausio was not simply a military disaster but a formative episode in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/)’s collective memory. It established a template for interpreting northern threats, justified extraordinary political adaptations, and left a residue of anxiety that shaped Roman reactions to crisis for more than a century. ### Persistent Anxiety on the Rhine after Caesar In the decades following Caesar’s withdrawal from Gaul, large-scale warfare with German tribes temporarily subsided, but Roman anxiety did not. Evidence from political correspondence, poetry, and later historical reflection shows that the Rhine frontier continued to provoke unease, especially in moments of internal instability. Only weeks after Caesar’s assassination, [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) voiced concern about the situation in the north, a fear eased only when reports arrived that German communities had sent envoys pledging obedience to Roman commanders. The speed with which such reassurance was sought and recorded reveals how readily the spectre of German unrest resurfaced in Roman political thinking. > “That the Germans and those tribes, on hearing of Caesar’s death, sent envoys to Aurelius, who had been placed in command by Hirtius, promising to carry out his orders.” (Cicero, *Letters to Atticus* 14.9.2) [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/stoic-in-the-sauna-why-a-baiae-bathhouse-linked-to-cicero-is-deliciously-ironic/)’s relief is implicit in the report itself. The mere fact that he felt reassured by news of German envoys pledging obedience shows how real the fear of northern unrest was in the immediate aftermath of [Caesar’s murder](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-are-the-ides-of-march-why-are-they-important/). The Rhine frontier appears here not as an active war zone, but as a latent threat capable of compounding [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s internal crisis—precisely the kind of anxiety later writers would amplify when recalling Arausio, the Cimbri, and subsequent German defeats. This apprehension also entered literary culture. In the Georgics, [Virgil](https://romanempiretimes.com/analysis-of-the-world-of-virgil-roman-poet-eclogues-georgics-and-the-aeneid/) depicted Germania as a land where the clash of arms filled the sky and war lay perpetually close to waking—imagery that resonates with the uncertainty following Caesar’s death. These poetic signals were grounded in reality. During the 30s and 20s BCE, German groups repeatedly crossed the Rhine, prompting Roman military responses. Marcus Agrippa led operations east of the river in 39/38 BCE, while subsequent commanders confronted coalitions involving the Treveri and powerful German peoples such as the Suebi, whom ancient geography described as surpassing others in strength and numbers. ![Alexandre-Gabriel Decamps: The Defeat of the Cimbri](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/marius-defeats-the-cimbri--1--1.jpg) Alexandre-Gabriel Decamps: The Defeat of the Cimbri. Credits: Giuseppe Guida, CC BY-SA 4.0 Under Augustus, these frontier tensions acquired lasting political meaning. The defeat suffered by Marcus Lollius at the hands of German forces proved psychologically significant enough to echo through Augustan propaganda and poetry. Augustus later highlighted the submission of German leaders—especially the Sugambri—in his Res Gestae, a selective emphasis that suggests how deeply the episode resonated. Contemporary poets repeatedly singled out the Sugambri as emblematic of the German threat, forecasting or celebrating their subjugation in the aftermath of Lollius’ defeat. Within this climate, blame followed trauma. Lollius appears to have borne personal responsibility for the disgrace, disappearing from major military commands as responsibility for German warfare passed to [Drusus](https://romanempiretimes.com/drusus-the-elder-rome-most-successful-germanic-commander/). Although later sources hint at attempts to rehabilitate his reputation, the silence surrounding his subsequent career suggests that the Rhine defeat carried real consequences. The episode illustrates how, long after Caesar, incursions from beyond the Rhine continued to stir fear, shape memory, and influence political fortunes at Rome. (“A real Roman defeat: memory, collective drama and the clades Lolliana” by Bernt Kerremans) ### Arausio and the Scale of Catastrophe The Battle of Arausio, fought on 6 October 105 BCE near Arausio, pitted Roman Republican forces against the combined strength of the Cimbri and Teutones. The outcome was one of the most devastating defeats Rome ever suffered. Ancient figures, attributed to [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/), place Roman losses at roughly 120,000 dead—exceeding even the tolls of Cannae and Carrhae. The disaster left the Alpine approaches exposed and Italy itself seemingly open to invasion, a danger avoided only because the victorious tribes turned their attention elsewhere. Despite its scale, Arausio occupies a marginal place in popular and even scholarly memory. The surviving ancient evidence for the battle and the wider Cimbrian War is fragmentary, forcing modern historians to rely on scattered references rather than continuous narrative. As a result, Arausio is often treated primarily as a prelude: a necessary backdrop for the repeated consulships of Gaius Marius and for the military reforms traditionally associated with his rise. Among modern reconstructions, the most influential remains that of Theodor Mommsen, whose nineteenth-century history of Rome offers a concise but carefully reasoned account of the battle and its context. Building on Livy’s testimony and Mommsen’s outline, recent scholarship has sought to reconstruct not only the engagement itself but also the political tensions, command failures, and strategic misjudgements that preceded it. Central to these analyses is the argument that Arausio was not simply the result of barbarian strength, but of Roman leadership breakdown—an internal failure with consequences as grave as any external threat. ### A Republic Under Strain and a New Northern Threat In the decades leading up to Arausio, Rome was already under intense internal and external pressure. From the 130s BCE onward, tensions between the aristocracy and the lower orders had sharpened, as repeated attempts to broaden political and economic rights met entrenched resistance. This unresolved conflict shaped the political atmosphere of the period and influenced the behaviour of Rome’s governing class, including the senior commanders who would later confront disaster on the Rhône. Beyond Italy, Rome had only just concluded a series of demanding wars. The capture of Numantia in 133 BCE secured much of Celtiberia, while the suppression of the Sicilian slave uprising followed almost immediately. Hardly had these conflicts ended when Rome became embroiled in the war against Jugurtha in [Numidia](https://romanempiretimes.com/numidia-rome-african-frontier-and-the-soldiers-who-changed-an-empire/) in 112 BCE—a campaign prolonged by Jugurtha’s resilience and duplicity, and still unresolved at the time of Arausio. Roman attention and resources were already stretched thin. While Rome was preoccupied, a far more destabilising movement was unfolding north of the Alps. The Cimbri, originating in the Jutland peninsula, and the Teutones from northeastern Germany began moving south in large numbers. Displacement, likely driven by demographic pressure, pushed the Cimbri across Germanic and Gallic territories, where they joined forces with the Teutones and smaller groups. Rather than a conventional raiding force, ancient and modern observers alike understood this as a migrating population seeking new land, accompanied by families, possessions, and livestock. This character distinguished the threat they posed. The Romans were confronted not with a typical predatory expedition, but with an entire people in motion, intent on resettlement as much as plunder. Cultural descriptions in the sources emphasise practices that heightened Roman unease: ritualised displays of courage, aggressive battlefield taunts, and a warrior ethos that prized death in combat. ![Cimbrians and Romans in battle (Cassell's Illustrated Universal History, vol. 3, 1882)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/cimbrians-and-romans-in-battle-1.jpg) Cimbrians and Romans in battle (Cassell's Illustrated Universal History, vol. 3, 1882). Public domain Arausio was not Rome’s first encounter with these groups, nor its first humiliation. In 113 BCE, at Noreia, Roman forces under the consul Gnaeus Papirius Carbo attempted to manage a Cimbrian incursion into Tauriscan territory. Although the Cimbri initially complied with Roman demands to withdraw, Carbo’s attempt to ambush them through deception ended in catastrophe. [The Roman army ](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/)was routed, suffering heavy losses at the hands of an enemy it had underestimated. Despite this defeat, Roman confidence remained largely intact. Early reverses against foreign enemies were not unprecedented, and the northern tribes were still viewed as inferior adversaries. Instead of advancing into Italy, the migrating groups turned west and south through Gaul—setting the stage for the far greater disaster that would follow at Arausio. ### Commanders, Kings, and a Fractured Chain of Authority At Arausio, leadership on both sides was limited in number but decisive in consequence. Among the migrating tribes, the Cimbri were led by Boiorix, while the Teutones followed Teutobod. The sources suggest Boiorix held the dominant position, reflecting the greater size and prominence of the Cimbri. He appears more frequently in the tradition, notably in dealings with Roman envoys and in attempts at negotiation before the battle. Roman command was far more complex—and far more dysfunctional. The forces were divided between Gnaeus Mallius Maximus, consul for 105 BCE, and Quintus Servilius Caepio, the proconsul of Cisalpine Gaul. Their relationship was marked by hostility rather than cooperation. Caepio, a patrician and former consul, was notorious for arrogance and corruption, most famously associated with the looting of Tolosa and the disappearance of its vast treasure. His refusal to cooperate with Mallius, whom he despised as a *novus homo*, played a central role in the Roman collapse. Mallius himself remains an obscure figure, known primarily for his office. As a “new man,” he lacked aristocratic backing and was treated with open contempt by Caepio. More experienced commanders were available. Publius Rutilius Rufus, Mallius’ senior colleague and a veteran of both the Numantine and Jugurthine wars, was passed over for command. The reasons are unclear, but the sources suggest that the Germanic threat was underestimated and that Arausio was not initially regarded as a crisis requiring Rome’s most capable leadership. Also present was Marcus Aurelius Scaurus, serving as legate to Mallius. A former *consul suffectus* with experience in Gallic affairs, Scaurus was tasked with reconnaissance. His force was overwhelmed early in the fighting, and his death removed one of the few experienced officers from the field. Finally, Gaius Marius hovered in the background of events. At the time of Arausio he was campaigning in Numidia and had already taken steps toward expanding recruitment by ignoring traditional property qualifications. However, his reforms were not yet fully implemented, and he played no direct role in the battle itself. It was only after the annihilation at Arausio that Marius emerged as the figure Rome turned to in order to restore military stability. In sum, Arausio brought together fragmented Roman command, personal rivalry, and social prejudice at the highest level—conditions that proved as destructive as the enemy facing them. ### Arausio, 105 BCE: Division, Disaster, and the Road to Reform Ancient Arausio—modern Orange in southern France—stood on fertile ground along the left bank of the Rhône, a region shaped by floodplains, gentle rises, and waterways feeding into the river. Although the precise topography of the battlefield cannot be reconstructed with certainty, the surrounding landscape suggests open, low-lying terrain broken by minor streams and wooded patches, typical of the Rhône valley. The engagement took place on 6 October 105 BCE, in the immediate vicinity of the settlement, though the town itself appears not to have played a central role in the fighting. ![King Boiorix strikes down the legate Marcus Aurelius Scaurus after the battle of Arausio](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/King-Boiorix-strikes-down-the-legate-Marcus-Aurelius-Scaurus-1.jpg) King Boiorix strikes down the legate Marcus Aurelius Scaurus after the battle of Arausio. Public domain. Rome confronted the migrating Cimbri and Teutones with two separate armies. One was commanded by the consul Gnaeus Mallius Maximus, the other by the proconsul Quintus Servilius Caepio. Personal rivalry proved fatal. Caepio, a patrician, refused to cooperate with Mallius and the two forces established camps on opposite sides of the river rather than forming a unified position. This division left the Roman armies tactically exposed from the outset. A reconnaissance detachment led by Marcus Aurelius Scaurus advanced ahead of the main force and was quickly overwhelmed by a Cimbrian war band. Captured and brought before the Cimbrian king Boiorix, Scaurus reportedly warned against crossing the Alps and challenged the notion that Rome could be defeated. His defiance ended in execution. Only after news of Scaurus’ death did Caepio agree to cross the river—but even then he refused to merge camps or coordinate strategy with the consul. Movements within the Roman lines appear to have unsettled the Cimbri, prompting Boiorix to signal a willingness to negotiate. Mallius was receptive. Caepio was not. Fearing that diplomacy would credit his rival, the proconsul launched an independent and hastily organised attack on the Cimbrian position. The assault failed catastrophically. Caepio’s forces were repelled, then destroyed in a counterattack, and his camp was overrun and looted. Emboldened by their success, the Cimbri abandoned any thought of negotiation and turned against Mallius’ army. Already demoralised by internal discord and the rout of Caepio’s troops, the consul’s men collapsed under the assault. Trapped between the enemy and the river, many attempted to escape by swimming the Rhône in full equipment. Large numbers drowned. Others were cut down alongside camp followers and non-combatants. Ancient tradition placed the losses at around eighty thousand soldiers and forty thousand auxiliaries and servants—a figure that conveyed the scale of the catastrophe, regardless of its statistical precision. The defeat left the Alpine approaches to Italy undefended and triggered panic in Rome. Memories of earlier invasions resurfaced, and the Republic responded by turning to Gaius Marius. He was entrusted with rebuilding the army and, drawing on earlier measures as well as his own innovations, reshaped Rome’s military system. Recruitment was widened beyond property-owning citizens, equipment was standardised and issued by the state, tactical organisation shifted from maniples to cohorts, and legions became permanent formations. These changes transformed Rome’s forces from a seasonal militia into a professional standing army. The Cimbri and Teutones did not exploit their victory immediately. They divided their forces, buying Rome time. Marius used the respite to train his new legions and ultimately destroyed the Teutones at Aquae Sextiae in 102 BCE and the Cimbri at Vercellae in 101 BCE, ending the Cimbric War. The aftermath of Arausio was unforgiving. Caepio was condemned, stripped of his property, and expelled from public life. Mallius was likewise disgraced. The Teutones vanished from the historical record after their defeat; the Cimbri were annihilated in Italy, with only traces of their name lingering generations later in the north. Marius emerged as Rome’s saviour, celebrated for rescuing Italy and reshaping its armies, though his later career would entangle him in the political conflicts that undermined the Republic itself. The disaster at Arausio thus marked a turning point. It exposed the lethal consequences of aristocratic rivalry and divided command, accelerated the professionalisation of the Roman army, and altered the balance between military power and the state. The battle did not merely destroy two armies; it reshaped Rome’s relationship with war, leadership, and authority. *("Disaster at Arausio: Lessons in Leadership in the Roman Army" by Abhimanyu “Manu” Trikha, ‘14\. Faculty Mentor: COL Rose Mary Sheldon, Ph.D., Department of History)* --- Arausio was not remembered simply because Rome lost an army. It endured because it exposed how fragile Republican authority had become when rivalry, social division, and personal ambition replaced coordinated command. The disaster accelerated changes already underway, reshaping Rome’s military system and altering the relationship between generals, soldiers, and the state. Long after the battlefield was silent, Arausio continued to shape how Romans understood fear, leadership, and the cost of failure—its consequences reaching far beyond the Rhône and deep into the future of Roman power. ### Some of Rome’s Worst Rulers nobody talks about URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/some-of-rome-worst-rulers-nobody-talks-about/ Last updated: 2026-01-28T22:44:57.000Z The Roman Empire is often remembered through its greatest rulers: emperors who expanded borders, stabilized institutions, or left monuments that still define the ancient world. Yet imperial power did not always produce capable leadership. At moments of crisis, ambition, fear, and misjudgment rose to the highest office, shaping reigns remembered less for achievement than for their consequences. This is not a catalogue of sensational excess, but an examination of how emperors could fail – and what those failures meant for Rome itself. ### A System Designed to Prevent One-Man Rule The Roman Republic was designed to prevent the concentration of power. Authority was deliberately divided: the consulship was shared, limited to a single year, and supported by a senatorial system intended to restrain individual ambition. For centuries, this framework functioned effectively, even as [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) expanded. Its failure emerged in the first century BCE, when long-term military commands allowed successful generals to build personal armies whose loyalty lay with commanders rather than the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/). This shift produced a new political reality. Figures such as Marius, [Sulla](https://romanempiretimes.com/sulla-rome-reluctant-tyrant/), [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/), and [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/) exploited military power to override republican norms, culminating in Caesar’s dictatorship and assassination. His death did not restore the Republic but deepened instability, as violence and factionalism replaced constitutional authority. Power increasingly followed force rather than office. Into this environment stepped Octavius, later [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/). Like his predecessors, he relied on armies and civil war to secure dominance, but he differed in presentation. In 27 BCE, he formally returned extraordinary powers to the Senate, only to receive new authorities that allowed him to govern without openly claiming supremacy. The Republic survived in name, while its substance was transformed. By styling himself princeps and combining tribunician power, provincial command, and imperium, [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/) ruled without appearing to rule. Stability was maintained through calculated satisfaction. The people received grain, money, and games; the [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) was rewarded with pay, land, and campaigns; the provinces gained more consistent administration. Alongside these measures, Augustus carefully projected *virtus*, presenting himself as restrained, moral, and traditional while reshaping the political system. He also controlled his legacy through monuments, laws, and narrative, ensuring favourable remembrance. ![Statue of Augustus in Capri](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Statue-of-Augustus-in-Capri--1-.jpg) Statue of Augustus in Capri. Credits: Hervé Simon, CC BY-SA 2.0 This Augustan balance established the standards by which emperors were judged. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s worst emperors were not defined solely by cruelty or eccentricity, but by failure to sustain this equilibrium – alienating the army, humiliating the Senate, neglecting governance, or subordinating stability to personal indulgence. The evaluation that follows examines imperial failure on these Roman terms, focusing on why such reigns damaged the system Augustus had constructed. ## Galba: The Emperor Who Should Have Ruled – But Didn’t Before becoming emperor, Servius Sulpicius Galba embodied traditional Roman ideals. His lineage was ancient and distinguished, his public service extensive, and his career marked by military competence and strict administration. Ancient sources consistently portray him as a man of virtus: disciplined, morally upright, and committed to ancestral custom. [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) captures the paradox that defines his legacy, observing that Galba appeared fully suited to rule – so long as he remained a private citizen. His governorships in Africa and Germania reinforced this reputation. Order was restored through rigorous discipline and scrupulous justice, qualities that earned him honours and priesthoods. Even earlier opportunities for imperial power were declined, suggesting restraint and political judgement. On paper, Galba represented exactly the kind of figure [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) believed it needed after [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-romes-most-infamous-ruler-part-1/). ### A Temperament Ill-Suited to Empire The qualities that defined Galba’s earlier success became liabilities once he reached the throne. His governing style was inflexible, punitive, and rooted in outdated Republican severity. Stern discipline had proven effective in provincial command; applied in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-greatest-name-you-rarely-hear/), it appeared cruel, archaic, and politically tone-deaf. From the moment he entered the city, Galba demonstrated a refusal – or inability – to adapt to the expectations of emperorship. Public mercy ([*clementia*](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-continence-of-scipio-a-legacy-of-clemency-in-roman-history-and-art/)) and generosity (*liberalitas*), now essential tools of imperial legitimacy, were largely absent. Executions were carried out on suspicion alone, citizenship was rarely granted, and privileges were dispensed sparingly. In a capital accustomed to [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-rome-most-infamous-ruler-part-2/)’s largesse and spectacle, Galba’s austerity was interpreted not as virtue but hostility. Galba’s arrival in Rome was marked by bloodshed. When sailors petitioned him for recognition as a legion – an appeal created by [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/)’s own policies – Galba dismissed them. When they protested, he responded with overwhelming violence, ordering cavalry charges into a mixed crowd of civilians and petitioners. Survivors were subjected to decimation, a punishment already viewed as archaic and extreme by first-century standards. This episode set the tone for his reign. Discipline was enforced publicly and brutally, without regard for optics or public morale. Rather than signalling renewal after Nero, Galba’s actions evoked fear and resentment. His physical frailty and age further contrasted with the energetic, performative style Romans had come to associate with imperial leadership. His most consequential failure lay in his relationship with the military. He owed his elevation not to the Senate, but to the [Praetorian Guard’](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/)s abandonment of Nero. That reality shaped expectations. The Guard had been promised generous donatives and expected reward for making an emperor. ![Portraits of the emperor Galba and of the empress Faustina Major. Gregorio di Lorenzo. Circa 1500. Grey sandstone. Campana collection purchase 1861. Louvre museum (Paris, France)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/portraits-of-Galba-and-faustina--1-.jpg) Portraits of the emperor Galba and of the empress Faustina Major. Gregorio di Lorenzo. Circa 1500\. Grey sandstone. Campana collection purchase 1861\. Louvre museum (Paris, France). public domain Galba refused. Declaring that he “levied soldiers, not bought them,” he denied payments not only to the Praetorians in Rome but offended soldiers across the provinces. This stance may have reflected Republican virtue, but it ignored the transformed political reality of imperial power, which now rested fundamentally on military loyalty. The consequences were immediate. The Praetorian Guard became hostile and embittered. Provincial armies took note. If one legion could make Galba emperor, others could do the same. ### The Collapse of Authority While Galba alienated Rome, power shifted elsewhere. In Germania, seven legions proclaimed Vitellius emperor. In the capital, Marcus Salvius Otho secured the support of the Praetorian Guard by promising what Galba had refused. On 15 January 69 CE, Galba was murdered in a coup that was swift, violent, and largely unresisted. His death did not restore order. Instead, it triggered the [Year of the Four Emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/69-ce-the-year-of-the-four-emperors/), a sequence of civil wars that devastated Rome and its provinces. Tacitus, reflecting on that year, described it as one: > “rich in disasters… horrible even in peace.” ### Why Galba Was One of Rome’s Worst Emperors Galba’s failure was not moral corruption, cruelty for pleasure, or personal excess. It was political incompetence at a structural level. He ruled as though the Republic still existed, ignoring the realities Augustus had established. By alienating the people, humiliating petitioners, and – most disastrously – misjudging the army, he dismantled the fragile consensus that sustained imperial rule. Galba stands as a cautionary figure: a man perfectly suited to rule before the empire existed, but disastrously unsuited to rule within it. His seven-month reign destabilised the state and opened the path to civil war. That systemic failure, rather than personal vice, secures his place among Rome’s worst emperors. ## Vitellius (69 CE): No Appetite for Power Vitellius became emperor not through ambition or ability, but because the Rhine legions decided he would do. A career courtier rather than a commander, he had survived under [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/), [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-caligula-mad-or-just-sick/), [Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/), and Nero by flattering imperial tastes and attaching himself to their pleasures. Ancient sources concede that he could show competence in office, but they present his elevation as accidental—a product of military discontent and the manoeuvring of generals who needed a respectable name to front their cause. ![Vitellius, Emperor of Rome. Line engraving](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Vitellius--Emperor-of-Rome.-Line-engraving.jpg) Vitellius, Emperor of Rome. Line engraving. Credits: Wellcome Pictures, CC BY 4.0 Once proclaimed emperor, Vitellius appeared to treat power as licence rather than responsibility. Tacitus and [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) both dwell on his indulgence: constant banquets, extravagant feasts, and the exhaustion of towns forced to feed his entourage as he moved toward [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/). This emphasis on gluttony is not incidental. In Roman moral thinking, excess signalled softness, and softness marked a man unfit to rule. Vitellius’ reign was thus framed as the inversion of virtus: pleasure replaced discipline, consumption replaced action. More damaging still was his failure to control the army that had made him. The Rhine legions flooded [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/), brawling in the streets, ignoring discipline, and indulging in violence that even Tacitus struggles to describe. Their decay – through idleness, disease, and lack of leadership – coincided with the rise of a rival emperor, [Vespasian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/). Faced with this threat, Vitellius did nothing decisive. He suppressed discussion, punished messengers, and retreated into denial rather than preparing defence or rallying support. When his position collapsed, Vitellius attempted to abdicate in exchange for his life and a vast sum of money. For Roman authors, this act sealed his reputation. Emperorship was imagined as public duty; to abandon it for personal gain was the ultimate failure. He could not even manage a peaceful withdrawal, and Rome descended into street fighting. Captured by Vespasian’s troops, Vitellius was dragged through the city and killed, mocked by the same crowd that had once hailed him. Vitellius is remembered as a worst emperor not simply for excess or cruelty, but for emptiness. He neither sought power nor understood it, failed to command the army, refused to act in crisis, and ultimately chose survival and money over responsibility. In a year defined by civil war, his reign exemplified how disastrously the empire could suffer when authority fell into the hands of a man with no appetite for rule. ## Domitian (81–96 CE) – The Last of the Flavians [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/)’s political instincts were shaped early by trauma. During the civil wars, he was trapped in Rome while his father and brother gathered forces in the East. He was placed under guard, then swept into the violent collapse of Flavian resistance on the Capitoline. The burning of the Temple of Jupiter and the brutal execution of his uncle, Flavius Sabinus, unfolded at close range. [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/dining-with-domitian-and-the-enigma-of-domitian-black-dinner/) escaped only through disguise and concealment. His later devotion to Jupiter as protector reflected a lifetime awareness of how abruptly power could vanish. ### Living in a Brother’s Shadow Throughout Vespasian’s reign, Domitian was publicly visible but unmistakably secondary. Dynastic imagery paired him with his father and [Titus](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-titus-and-domitian-brotherhood-on-rome-imperial-stage/), yet advancement flowed primarily to the elder brother. Titus accumulated military glory and public affection; Domitian accumulated frustration. Attempts to secure independent military distinction were blocked, reinforcing a sense of exclusion from the honours that defined Roman legitimacy. When Domitian became emperor, he proved capable and energetic. He administered justice carefully, pursued corruption, regulated finances, restored major buildings, expanded Rome’s infrastructure, and invested heavily in public spectacle and religious observance. He was attentive to detail, particularly in ritual and administration, and expected praise for precision as much as for grandeur. In policy and practice, much of his rule followed Augustan precedent. Where Domitian diverged sharply from earlier emperors was in his relationship with the Senate. He showed little interest in preserving the fiction of shared governance. Power was concentrated openly in the emperor, senior offices were filled without deference to senatorial entitlement, and the court increasingly followed Domitian rather than remaining anchored in the Senate House. The political centre moved with him, often to his residence outside Rome, reducing the Senate to a body summoned rather than consulted. ![Bust of Domitian - Naples Archaeological Museum.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/emperor-Domitian-bust--1-.jpg) Bust of Domitian - Naples Archaeological Museum. Credits: Castro Pretorio, CC BY-SA 4.0 Domitian’s reign became defined less by mass executions than by intimidation. Prominent men were put to death on charges that appeared selective and unpredictable. Surveillance, informers, and calculated displays of menace fostered a climate in which silence felt safer than loyalty. Senators and courtiers alike learned that status, past service, and even family connection offered no protection. Authority was enforced not only through law, but through anxiety. ### The Turn After Revolt A failed revolt in 89 CE hardened Domitian’s rule. Suspicion deepened, punishments intensified, and personal security became obsession. Old remarks, minor incidents, and distant associations were treated as evidence of threat. Measures once justified as vigilance slipped into paranoia. Even members of the imperial household began to fear that proximity to the emperor was itself dangerous. Domitian was not overthrown by senators, but killed by his own household. Senior palace officials coordinated the assassination, convinced that no loyalty could guarantee survival. The emperor fought fiercely, but the violence of his death reflected the complete collapse of trust at the heart of his court. His removal was followed by immediate condemnation and the erasure of his memory. ### Why Domitian Belongs Among the Worst Domitian failed not through incompetence, but through alienation. He governed effectively, built extensively, and enforced order, yet ruled in a way that made fear central to power. By abandoning restraint, humiliating the elite, and allowing suspicion to dominate decision-making, he created the very conspiracies he sought to prevent. His reign demonstrates how an emperor could administer Rome successfully and still destroy the conditions that made imperial rule sustainable. ## Nerva (96–98 CE) – The Stopgap Emperor [Nerva](https://romanempiretimes.com/nerva-the-first-of-the-good-roman-emperors/) became emperor immediately after the assassination of Domitian. His elevation was driven by urgency rather than ambition. Rome had lived through the chaos of an empty throne before, and memories of 69 CE remained vivid. A rapid settlement was essential to prevent unrest in the provinces or intervention by the armies. Nerva, elderly and politically unthreatening, offered an immediate solution. He lacked the qualities traditionally associated with imperial authority. He had never commanded troops, governed a province, or distinguished himself in war. His public record consisted of a praetorship and two consulships, one shared with Domitian. What set him apart was not achievement, but the absence of a following. He inspired no faction, commanded no loyalty, and posed no threat to rivals. Despite his limited career, Nerva had been favoured by previous emperors. He was conspicuously rewarded by Nero after the exposure of the Piso conspiracy and elevated early under Vespasian. The services that earned these rewards remain unclear, but they suggest discretion, loyalty, and usefulness within the imperial system. These same qualities made him acceptable to both the Senate and surviving Flavian supporters. ### A Senatorial Restoration Once in power, Nerva reversed the coercive practices of Domitian’s final years. Treason trials were abandoned, exiles recalled, confiscated property returned, and informers silenced. He pledged not to execute senators and upheld that promise. Government proceeded in consultation with the Senate, restoring dignity and influence to a class that had ruled in fear. Nerva governed according to traditional ideals of moderation and legality. He funded land distributions for the poor by selling imperial property, enacted reforms presented as just, and emphasised personal restraint. These actions earned senatorial approval and public goodwill, but they did not secure obedience. ### Failure with the Army The [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/) and the Praetorian Guard remained hostile. Domitian’s assassins were left unpunished and continued to operate within the palace. Financial rewards failed to compensate for Nerva’s lack of military standing. To soldiers accustomed to emperors who campaigned alongside them, Nerva appeared weak and expendable. ![Emperor Nerva statue, Gloucester](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/emperor-Nerva-statue.jpg) Emperor Nerva statue, Gloucester. Credits: Philip Halling, CC BY-SA 2.0 In 97 CE the Praetorian Guard openly defied the emperor. They surrounded the palace, seized Domitian’s killers, and executed them despite Nerva’s resistance. The emperor’s authority was ignored, and the inviolability of his person was effectively broken. The humiliation exposed the limits of senatorial power in the face of armed force. ### Why Nerva Belongs Among the Worst Nerva failed not through cruelty or excess, but through incapacity. He could not command the army, restrain the Guard, or protect the authority of the imperial office. His reign demonstrated that senatorial approval alone was no longer sufficient to rule Rome. Emperors now required military legitimacy. Nerva’s role was transitional, and his most consequential act was selecting a successor capable of ruling where he could not. ## Lucius Aurelius Verus (161–169 CE) – Overshadowed [Lucius Aurelius Verus ](https://romanempiretimes.com/beyond-marcus-aurelius-lucius-verus-the-shadowed-emperor-of-romes-golden-age/)ruled Rome as emperor for eight years, yet he is frequently absent from lists of Roman emperors. Even modern summaries of the Antonine dynasty sometimes omit him altogether. This habitual neglect is striking, given that his reign was legitimate and contemporaneous, and doubly ironic considering his apparent determination to be noticed – whether by accentuating his blond hair with gold dust or cultivating one of antiquity’s most memorable beards. He is often treated [as if he barely existed](https://romanempiretimes.com/rethinking-lucius-verus-through-sources-and-historiography/). In historical memory, Lucius Verus disappears behind his co-emperor as though his name were an editorial inconvenience rather than a constitutional fact. ### A Talent for Leisure The neglect is undeserved in one respect: Lucius Verus left behind a trail of vivid anecdotes. Most concern his leisure activities, which were neither subtle nor restrained. Like other aristocratic youths before him, he reportedly took pleasure in visiting taverns in disguise, an activity that sometimes ended badly. On one such occasion he returned home with his face bruised and swollen after being beaten by those he had chosen to provoke. He also enjoyed more destructive amusements. Large coins were thrown into cookshops for the pleasure of smashing cups and crockery. [Chariot racing](https://romanempiretimes.com/fury-on-wheels-the-legendary-chariot-races-of-ancient-rome/), [gladiatorial contests](https://romanempiretimes.com/ave-imperator-morituri-te-salutant-what-did-gladiators-actually-say-before-fighting/), and [gambling](https://romanempiretimes.com/fortunes-favors-exploring-the-gambling-culture-of-ancient-rome-romans-gamble/) occupied much of his attention, as did hosting extravagant banquets. One feast was said to have cost six million sesterces, largely because of the extraordinary gifts bestowed on the guests. These presents went far beyond polite tokens. Guests received crystal goblets, jewel-studded gold cups, gold [perfume](https://romanempiretimes.com/niche-perfumes-in-ancient-rome-how-did-emperors-smell-like/) containers, silver serving ware, and live animals matching the dishes served at the table. The household staff were also distributed as gifts, with each guest receiving a servant. To ensure the smooth transport of this haul, Verus provided carriages, mules, muleteers, and silver trappings so his guests could return home properly equipped. Portraits of Lucius Verus depict an emperor with an imposing beard, a dense mass of curls that contemporary writers likened to barbarian fashion. The beard was worn long and carefully tended, and ancient descriptions suggest that Verus took particular pride in his appearance. His fondness for luxury extended even to his drinking vessels. ![Marble portrait of the co-emperor Lucius Verus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Marble-portrait-of-the-co-emperor-Lucius-Verus--1-.jpg) Marble portrait of the co-emperor Lucius Verus. Public domain Among his prized possessions was an enormous crystal goblet, named after a horse he favoured, so large that it exceeded the capacity of an ordinary human draught. Taken together, these details form a consistent picture. The biographical tradition portrays Lucius Verus as a man who enjoyed pleasure, display, and generosity, someone who delighted in fine things and knew how to entertain on a grand scale. ### Scandal Without Conviction Attempts to attach darker stories to Verus are notably half-hearted. Rumours circulated of an illicit relationship with his mother-in-law [Faustina](https://romanempiretimes.com/faustina-the-younger-from-imperial-daughter-to-deified-empress/) and even of poisoning involving oysters, but the sources themselves express scepticism. These allegations are presented as gossip rather than conviction, and are explicitly described as inconsistent with his character. Unlike other emperors, Verus resists easy transformation into a villain. The biographical tradition struggles to find credible moral outrage, and the lack of enthusiasm with which scandal is reported speaks volumes. Lucius Verus died in 169 CE, possibly from illness contracted during the eastern campaigns, though the precise cause remains uncertain. [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-stoic-emperor-how-marcus-aurelius-outwitted-death-in-the-germanic-wilds/) lived on for another eleven years, long enough to secure his reputation through endurance, reflection, and authorship. His private philosophical writings ensured his lasting presence in cultural memory, while Verus faded into obscurity. As a result, [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/10-things-you-did-not-know-about-marcus-aurelius/) became synonymous with the period. His image, words, and name persist, while Lucius Verus is reduced to a footnote, if he appears at all. ### An Emperor Without Impact Lucius Verus does not fit comfortably into a catalogue of Rome’s worst emperors. His reign was not marked by cruelty, incompetence, or disaster. Contemporary judgement is blunt: he neither overflowed with vice nor distinguished himself by virtue. His failure lay elsewhere. He left little imprint on the office he held. The work of ruling was carried out by his co-emperor, and posterity followed suit. In the end, Lucius Verus is remembered less for what he did than for how easily he was forgotten. For an emperor, that absence of impact was itself a form of failure. *("Ancient Rome's worst emperors" by L.J.Trafford)* --- Imperial failure in Rome rarely followed a single pattern. Some emperors collapsed under the weight of power they could not control; others ruled competently yet fostered fear, resentment, or instability that outlived them. A few failed simply by leaving no mark at all. What unites these reigns is not scandal, cruelty, or excess alone, but the inability to sustain the fragile equilibrium Augustus had constructed. When that balance broke – between army, Senate, people, and emperor – the consequences were never confined to the ruler. They were borne by the empire itself. ### Roman Nanotechnology: The Case of the Lycurgus Cup URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-nanotechnology-the-case-of-the-lycurgus-cup/ Last updated: 2026-01-27T22:16:31.000Z Objects from antiquity rarely unsettle modern categories. Most fit comfortably within what we think we know about ancient craft, technology, and intention. Occasionally, however, a single artefact resists easy classification. Preserved in glass, colour, and light, it invites questions that seem to belong as much to the present as to the past – about materials, knowledge, and the limits of ancient experimentation. The Lycurgus Cup is one such object. ### A Glass Vessel with Unusual Optical Behaviour The Lycurgus Cup, generally dated to the fourth century CE, is the most elaborate surviving example of a Roman cage cup. It is made from standard Roman soda–lime–silica [glass](https://romanempiretimes.com/have-romans-discovered-an-indestructible-glass/), but with the deliberate addition of trace amounts of gold and silver, alongside manganese compounds. These inclusions formed sub-microscopic metallic particles within the glass, producing an unusual optical effect. In reflected light the vessel appears opaque green, while in transmitted light it turns a translucent red. This visual transformation is not a surface treatment but an intrinsic property of the material itself. The effect depends on the direction and intensity of light rather than on any applied colouring, making the cup one of the most technically complex glass objects known from antiquity. ### Cutting, Relief, and the Manipulation of Light The cup was produced through a demanding multi-stage process. A thick blank was first cast and then extensively cut back to create a high-relief figural frieze, with deep undercutting typical of luxury diatreta glass. The figures were not only carved on the exterior but also hollowed and lightly polished on the interior. This thinning enhanced their luminosity when light passed through the vessel, allowing the sculpted forms to glow rather than simply reflect light. The exceptional state of preservation reveals deliberate attention to how light would interact with depth, surface, and translucency. The visual effect was not incidental but carefully engineered. ### Lycurgus and the Dionysiac Narrative The imagery depicts the myth of Lycurgus, the Thracian king who opposed Dionysus. According to the version followed here, Lycurgus attacked the god’s followers and was punished when the nymph Ambrosia transformed into a vine that bound and trapped him. On the cup, Lycurgus appears entangled in vine shoots, flanked by figures from Dionysus’ retinue. Ambrosia lies at his side, Pan stands nearby with a panther, and Dionysus himself appears opposite the king. The composition unfolds continuously around the vessel, encouraging the viewer to rotate the cup to follow the narrative. The choice of subject aligns closely with themes of wine, restraint, punishment, and divine power. ![Drinking-cup; glass; green and red; covered with various scenes representing the death of King Lycurgus; rim mounted with silver-gilt band of leaf ornament, plus silver-gilt foot with open-work vine leaves.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Lycurgus-Cup-1.jpg) Drinking-cup; glass; green and red; covered with various scenes representing the death of King Lycurgus; rim mounted with silver-gilt band of leaf ornament, plus silver-gilt foot with open-work vine leaves. Credits: Dale Cruse, CC BY 2.0 ### Contexts of Use: Banquet, Cult, or Display The original context in which the Lycurgus Cup was used is unknown. Its Dionysiac imagery strongly suggests a sympotic setting, where mythological scenes related to wine often functioned as visual commentary on drinking itself. Other possibilities have been proposed, including ritual or cult use, but none can be demonstrated with certainty. The form of the cup and the remains of its base support its identification as a drinking vessel rather than a lamp, though the play of transmitted light would also have made it visually striking in a dimly lit interior. It may have been passed around or displayed during elite gatherings rather than used routinely. ### Colour, Wine, and Visual Play The cup’s colour change invites interpretation within a banqueting context. In reflected light, its green tone evokes unripe grapes or white [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/); in transmitted light, the red suggests mature grapes or red wine. This duality mirrors the Dionysiac themes of transformation and excess represented in the imagery. The object thus combines material behaviour and narrative content into a single visual experience, one that responds dynamically to its environment rather than remaining visually static. Although modern analysis identifies the cup as glass, its optical properties would have made its material ambiguous in antiquity. Ancient texts describe precious stones and vessels whose appearance altered under different lighting conditions, and glass with unusual visual effects could be perceived as comparable to rare minerals or crystal. Before scientific testing was possible, the Lycurgus Cup was variously described as an object of uncertain material. Its colour shifts, translucency, and carved depth place it within a broader ancient fascination with luminous substances rather than within a simple hierarchy of materials. ### Light Effects and Ancient Aesthetic Knowledge Ancient literary descriptions of gems and luxury objects repeatedly emphasise changes in appearance caused by light, moisture, or movement. These accounts show a sustained interest in objects whose visual qualities were unstable and responsive. The Lycurgus Cup fits squarely within this aesthetic tradition. Its behaviour under reflected and transmitted light corresponds closely to effects described for engraved gems and crystal vessels in sympotic and courtly contexts, where visual surprise and material ambiguity were prized. ![The Lycurgus Cup in blazing red color when backlit](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/01/1067043001.jpg) The Lycurgus Cup in blazing red color when backlit: © The Trustees of the British Museum CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 ### Glass as an Experimental Medium Roman glassmakers had long exploited the medium’s capacity for imitation and illusion. Earlier cameo glasses and luxury vessels demonstrate sustained experimentation with colour layering, relief, and translucency. The Lycurgus Cup extends this tradition by combining sculptural depth with material transformation. Rather than representing a sudden technological anomaly, the cup reflects a long trajectory of Roman interest in pushing glass beyond utility into the realm of visual and conceptual play. The Lycurgus Cup was not meant to be understood at a glance. Its imagery unfolds through movement, and its colour depends on light and position. Whether used actively or displayed, it demanded attention and rewarded close viewing. In this sense, the cup exemplifies a broader Late Antique tendency for luxury objects to comment on their own use, material, and setting. Its technical sophistication serves not to announce innovation but to deepen the viewer’s engagement with myth, light, and substance. *("The Lycurgus Cup" by Jaś Elsner)* ### The Narrative Moment Chosen The frieze on the Lycurgus Cup depicts a precise and unusual moment in the myth: not the attack on Dionysus, nor the outbreak of violence, but the onset of divine punishment already in motion. Lycurgus is shown disarmed, entangled, and overwhelmed, his resistance rendered futile. This choice distinguishes the cup from most earlier representations, which typically emphasise Lycurgus as an active aggressor. Here, the narrative has already turned against him. The god’s revenge is no longer impending; it is unfolding. This temporal positioning matters. The cup does not illustrate moral choice but moral consequence. Lycurgus’ fate is sealed, and the surrounding figures act not as participants in a struggle, but as agents or witnesses of divine justice. ### Lycurgus as the Central Figure At the centre of the composition stands Lycurgus himself, naked except for high-laced [boots](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-used-more-than-stone/), stripped of weapons and authority. He is bound by living vines that coil around his body, immobilising him. His facial expression conveys fear rather than rage, and his raised hand forms a gesture associated with Roman imperial authority. Whether intentional or coincidental, this gesture complicates his role: Lycurgus is both [tyrant](https://romanempiretimes.com/sulla-rome-reluctant-tyrant/) and victim, ruler and condemned man. ![A close-up of the Lycurgus Cup: © The Trustees of the British Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/01/1066982001.jpg) A close-up of the Lycurgus Cup: © The Trustees of the British Museum CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 The imagery transforms the king into a visual warning. His power has failed him, and his former violence is rendered meaningless by the god he sought to destroy. The vine – the very source of wine – becomes the instrument of punishment. ### Ambrosia and the Appeal to Earth Ambrosia appears at Lycurgus’ side at the moment before her transformation. Her posture is low, her hand touching the ground, her other arm raised in supplication. She invokes Mother Earth as a protective force, a gesture well attested in [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) visual and literary traditions. In mythic terms, this appeal initiates the miracle: Ambrosia disappears into the earth and re-emerges as a grapevine. Her role is crucial symbolically. Her name evokes immortality, nourishment, and divine sustenance. Through her transformation, the vine becomes not merely a plant but a vehicle of divine justice and eternal life, binding Lycurgus while affirming Dionysus’ creative power. ![Lycurgus Cup, Roman, 4th century AD, British Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Lycurgus-Cup--Ambrosia.jpg) Lycurgus Cup, Roman, 4th century AD, British Museum. Credits: Lucas Livingston, CC BY 2.0 ### Dionysus and the Act of Judgment Dionysus stands opposite Lycurgus, calm and composed. He wears a tunic, cloak, boots, and a mitra ribbon in his hair, and holds the thyrsus – an object associated with initiation into Dionysiac mysteries. His raised hand issues punishment rather than physical force. The god does not struggle; he commands. This visual restraint reinforces Dionysus’ authority. The violence inflicted upon Lycurgus is not chaotic but ordered, sanctioned, and inevitable. The god’s role is judicial rather than emotional, underscoring the moral clarity of the scene. ### The Supporting Figures: Satyr, Pan, and Panther The Satyr and Pan mirror one another in pose and placement, creating visual rhythm across the frieze. Both raise a leg and arm, suggesting motion and tension, while remaining secondary to the central action. The Satyr’s stone and Pan’s association with wild nature reinforce the theme of Dionysian disorder unleashed against transgression. The panther, a traditional companion of Dionysus, confronts Lycurgus directly. In Roman iconography, the panther often signifies divine punishment and ecstatic violence. Its presence near Dionysus strengthens the association between the god’s power and animal ferocity, reinforcing the inevitability of Lycurgus’ fate. The frieze is carefully balanced. Figures are arranged in opposing groups, creating a symmetrical composition that contrasts order and chaos. Lycurgus stands between Ambrosia and the panther, caught between divine mercy and divine violence. Dionysus visually balances the combined figures of Lycurgus, Ambrosia, and the Satyr, while Pan mirrors the panther. This symmetry is reinforced technically. The profiles of the four standing figures were hollowed and polished from the interior of the cup, making their faces and torsos more translucent under transmitted light. Ambrosia and the panther, smaller and lower in the composition, were hollowed only externally. The result is a hierarchy of luminosity that mirrors the narrative hierarchy of power. In a banqueting context, the myth carries a dual warning. Lycurgus’ crime is not merely violence but rejection of Dionysus and his gift of wine. The frieze warns against both impiety and excess. Wine is a divine gift that brings joy, ecstasy, and community, but when rejected or abused, it leads to madness and destruction. This moral ambivalence aligns with ancient sympotic ideology. Literary sources repeatedly frame wine as a force that must be approached with respect. The image of Lycurgus entangled by the vine makes the symbolism explicit: wine is both nourishment and danger, liberation and bondage. ### Colour Change and Dionysiac Symbolism The cup’s shift from green in reflected light to red in transmitted light reinforces the myth’s meaning. Green evokes unripe grapes, water, and restraint; red suggests ripeness, wine, blood, and intoxication. Ancient authors consistently linked these colours to Dionysian power, life, death, and rebirth. ![Lycurgus Cup, Roman, 4th century AD, British Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Lycurgus-Cup-2--1--1.jpg) Lycurgus Cup, Roman, 4th century AD, British Museum. Credits: Lucas Livingston, CC BY 2.0 The transformation of colour parallels the transformation of Ambrosia and the fate of Lycurgus. It also reflects broader late antique ideas of renewal, *aeternitas*, and divine transformation. Whether filled with wine or illuminated by a lamp, the cup would have enacted the myth visually through light itself. ### Meaning Made Visible The decoration of the Lycurgus Cup is not illustrative but interpretative. It selects a charged narrative moment, organises it through symmetry and light, and embeds it within the physical behaviour of the material itself. Myth, ritual, and sensory experience converge. The cup does not merely depict the punishment of Lycurgus. It performs it, repeatedly, whenever light passes through glass and wine fills the vessel. *("The symbolism of the Lycurgus Cup" by Maja Miziur-Moździoch. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology Polish Academy of Sciences)* ### The Science Behind the Colour Change The striking colour shift of the Lycurgus Cup is not the result of paint, staining, or surface treatment, but of the glass itself. Embedded within its matrix are minute particles of gold and silver, so small that they are measured in nanometres. These metallic nanoparticles are invisible individually, yet together they profoundly alter how the glass interacts with light. When light strikes the surface of the cup and is reflected back to the eye, the nanoparticles scatter shorter wavelengths more strongly, giving the vessel its opaque green appearance. When light passes through the glass instead, different wavelengths dominate, and the cup appears translucent red. The colour change therefore depends entirely on lighting conditions rather than on any applied pigment. This behaviour is explained by a physical phenomenon known as surface plasmon resonance. At very small scales, electrons on the surface of metallic particles oscillate in response to light. The precise colour produced depends on the size, shape, and composition of the particles, as well as their distribution within the glass. In the case of the Lycurgus Cup, the specific mixture of gold and silver nanoparticles produces two distinct optical responses, making the vessel dichroic. One important consequence of this mechanism is durability. Unlike organic dyes or painted surfaces, which fade or degrade over time, colours produced by metallic nanoparticles are exceptionally stable. The optical effect is a property of the material itself and does not diminish with age. This explains why the Lycurgus Cup still displays its dramatic colour shift more than sixteen centuries after it was made, while many ancient painted objects have long since lost their original appearance. Although the underlying chemistry was unknown in antiquity, Roman glassmakers were clearly capable of controlling the process with remarkable precision. The consistent colour behaviour of the cup suggests deliberate experimentation rather than accident. Trace amounts of precious metals were introduced into the molten glass, producing effects that could only be fully appreciated once the vessel was complete and exposed to changing light. From a modern perspective, **the Lycurgus Cup stands as one of the earliest known examples of functional nanostructured material**. Its makers did not work from theoretical models, but from empirical knowledge acquired through practice. The result is an object in which artistic ambition, technical skill, and material behaviour are inseparably intertwined – a luxury vessel whose visual impact depends as much on physics as on myth. The Lycurgus Cup does not reveal a lost scientific theory, nor does it anticipate modern physics in any direct sense. What it demonstrates instead is the depth of Roman engagement with material behaviour through practice, observation, and skilled manipulation. Glass, myth, light, and ritual are fused into a single object whose effects unfold only in use. Its power lies not in innovation declared, but in phenomena made visible – an artefact that continues to reward attention precisely because it resists simple explanation. 📜 For those that want to learn more about the amazing Lycurgus Cup, we hope you’ll enjoy [this video](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KGjH2VRaHp8?ref=romanempiretimes.com): ### The Roman Soldier's Shield that Never Returned Home URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-soldiers-shield-that-never-returned-home/ Last updated: 2026-01-26T22:26:29.000Z In January 1935, during excavations at the eastern frontier city of Dura-Europos, archaeologists uncovered a small but unusual assemblage of military objects buried beneath the city’s final defensive works. Recorded carefully in the field diary of the excavation’s director, the find consisted of several wooden shields preserved in a state rarely encountered in Roman archaeology. At the time of their discovery, their significance was not yet fully apparent, but their context and condition would later prove to be exceptional. ### **When Painted Shields Emerged from the Sand at Dura-Europos** On Friday, January 18, 1935, Clark Hopkins, then field director of the excavations at Dura-Europos, recorded an extraordinary discovery in his field diary. As he noted: > “Just after breakfast, three painted shields were found one right a top of the other…. Herb and I spent all morning removing them. Most of the wood was strong enough to move easily and much of the painting is visible.” The shields, uncovered stacked together beneath the ruins of the city, were later transferred to the collection of the Yale University Art Gallery. Dated to shortly before 256 CE—the year Dura-Europos fell to the Sasanian forces and was subsequently abandoned—they were immediately recognised as exceptional survivals. Painted wooden objects from antiquity are extremely rare, and these shields preserve substantial traces of their original decoration. The finds from Dura-Europos preserve both traditional Roman body-shields and broader oval forms, and the painted examples belong to more than one of these shield traditions. Their imagery draws directly on epic tradition. The painted surfaces depict scenes from the Trojan War as told in the *Iliad*, including combat between [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) warriors and [Amazons](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-amazons-in-roman-thought-from-fierce-foes-to-fascinating-myths/), alongside the figure of a warrior god. Together, the shields offer rare material evidence for the visual culture of the [Roman military](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) on the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/)’s eastern frontier, combining martial equipment with mythological imagery rendered in paint on wood. ("Painted Roman Wood Shields from Dura-Europos" by Anne Gunnison, Irma Passeri, Erin Mysak and Lisa R. Brody, in Mummy Portraits of Roman Egypt) ### The Roman Body-Shield in Practice The best-preserved shield from Dura-Europos belongs to a long-established Roman tradition of large, curved body-shields used by heavy infantry. By the mid-third century CE, this form was still in active service, particularly in the eastern provinces, where its size and curvature offered effective protection against missiles as well as in close-order combat. ![Watercolor of Dura-Europos Homeric Shield](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Watercolor-of-Dura-Europos-Homeric_Shield-1.jpg) Watercolor of Dura-Europos Homeric Shield. Public domain Ancient authors emphasised both its construction and its tactical value. [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/) describes a shield made from layered wooden boards, reinforced at the edges and fitted with a central iron boss to deflect blows and missiles, its convex form allowing it to absorb impact more effectively than a flat surface. Archaeological evidence from Dura confirms many of these features in practice, though it also reveals variation in materials, assembly techniques, and surface treatment that literary sources alone cannot capture. The Dura example was constructed from thin wooden strips arranged in multiple layers, producing a lightweight but resilient structure. Its curved profile would have shielded the bearer from shoulder to knee, while the missing central boss once protected the hand gripping the shield from behind. Traces of fabric, skin, and painted decoration show that the shield was not only functional but also visually striking, its surface serving as a field for symbolic imagery as well as identification. Rather than representing an outdated or ceremonial object, the survival of such a shield at Dura demonstrates the continued relevance of the Roman body-shield at a moment when equipment traditions were becoming increasingly fluid. Alongside lighter oval forms and regionally influenced designs, it reflects a military environment in which established Roman practices coexisted with adaptation to local conditions and tactical needs. Ancient descriptions provide a technical account of the shield’s construction and intended use. > The Roman panoply consists firstly of a shield (scutum), the convex surface of which measures two and a half feet in width and four feet in length, the thickness at the rim being a palm's breadth. It is made of two planks glued together, the outer surface being then covered first with canvas and then with calf-skin. Its upper and lower rims are strengthened by an iron edging which protects it from descending blows and from injury when rested on the ground. It also has an iron boss (umbo) fixed to it which turns aside the most formidable blows of stones, pikes, and heavy missiles in general. *Polybius, The Histories*. ![Scutum from Dura-Europos](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/02/768px-Ag-obj-5959-001-pub-large.jpg) Scutum from Dura-Europos. Credits: Wikipedia, Public Domain ### A Frontier City Shaped by Empire and Army Perched above the Euphrates in eastern Syria, the ancient city of Dura-Europos (modern Salhiyeh) has, for over a century, offered one of the clearest archaeological views into life in the Parthian and Roman Middle East. Founded as a Hellenistic military settlement, the city developed under Arsacid control into a small but complex urban centre. Its ruling elite was Greek-speaking, while much of the wider population spoke Aramaic. Around the middle of the second century CE, Dura entered the Roman sphere and remained there until its destruction and abandonment around 256 CE following a Sasanian siege. Crucially, the site was never reoccupied. This meant that once Dura was identified in 1920, its remains were unusually well preserved and readily accessible for archaeological investigation. Large-scale excavations conducted between the two World Wars brought the city international attention. Papyri, inscriptions, and extensive wall paintings—including those from temples, an early Christian church, and a synagogue—revealed a densely layered religious and cultural landscape rarely preserved elsewhere in the Roman world. During its final phase, Dura also housed a substantial Roman imperial garrison. This force established a large military base in the northern sector of the city, an area that may have occupied as much as a quarter of the walled urban space. Although portions of this base were uncovered during excavations in the 1930s, it was never systematically analysed or fully published. Yet it represents a rare and valuable example of a Roman urban cantonment—distinct from the more familiar rectangular forts of the European provinces—and therefore holds particular significance for the study of Roman military organisation under the Principate. Subsequent reassessment has shown that the military presence at Dura was both larger and earlier than previously assumed. Rather than being a development confined to the years around 210 CE, the base appears to have expanded substantially several decades earlier. Independent analysis of documentary evidence concerning the size and composition of the garrison supports this conclusion, indicating that Roman forces grew significantly in the later second century rather than the early third. This revised chronology has broader implications for the city’s political history, especially for theories proposing a Palmyrene protectorate over Dura during this period, which now appear less convincing. Equally important is the recognition of a large population of military dependents—family members, servants, and others connected to the garrison—who formed part of an extended military community. The Roman presence was therefore not limited to soldiers alone. Instead, it functioned as a “city within a city,” reshaping the social and economic fabric of Dura to a greater extent than previously acknowledged. Earlier interpretations have alternated between viewing the garrison as an oppressive occupying force or as a driver of economic growth and civilian–military integration. The exceptional combination of archaeological and textual evidence from Dura allows for a more nuanced assessment. Rather than a single, uniform impact, the Roman military presence produced complex and shifting patterns of interaction, creating both opportunities and tensions across different levels of society. These dynamics unfolded against the backdrop of wider imperial conflicts that would ultimately bring the city’s history to an abrupt end. ("The Roman military base at Dura-Europos Syria. An archaeological visualization" by Simon James) ### The Scutum at Dura-Europos The scutum reflects a design optimized for close-order combat and bodily protection. Its semicylindrical form provided extended coverage from shoulder to knee, particularly suited to dense infantry formations. Unlike the flat shields of their adversaries, the scutum offered enhanced protection, allowing [Roman soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) to form the [Testudo](https://romanempiretimes.com/testudo-the-military-formation-that-lasted-from-ancient-rome-to-today-2/) formation, a defensive tactic likened to a tortoise shell that was nearly impervious to arrows and projectiles. ![Scutum is now restored and in the Yale University Art Gallery collection (1933.715), with a convex curve likely more sharp than the original shield. This photograph shows the shield in the condition in which it was found, with heavy structural damage but the painting of the shield surprisingly intact.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Dura-Europos-archival-photograph-1.jpg) Scutum is now restored and in the Yale University Art Gallery collection (1933.715), with a convex curve likely more sharp than the original shield. This photograph shows the shield in the condition in which it was found, with heavy structural damage but the painting of the shield surprisingly intact. Public domain The scutum, characterized by its rectangular, curved design, measures 105.5 by 41 cm and is predominantly constructed from wood. Discovered fragmented into thirteen pieces, it is composed of wooden strips ranging from 30 to 80 mm in width and 1.5 to 2 mm in thickness. These strips are assembled in three layers, culminating in a total wood thickness of 4.5 to 6 mm. At the shield's center is a hole, likely made post-construction, with the umbo (central boss) now missing, along with the original shield hump. The shield's rear was initially reinforced with wooden strips, which have since been lost, and it is believed to have been covered with a red skin, as noted in the initial excavation report, though this covering has since disappeared. The front surface was layered with fabric and then either skin or parchment, adorned with a painting. Surrounding the central hole are various decorative bands, featuring motifs such as an eagle within a laurel wreath, winged Victories, and a lion. ### The Shields at Dura-Europos The excavations at Dura-Europos produced the most substantial body of archaeological evidence for Roman shields yet recovered from a single site. The Yale collections and excavation archives preserve shield bosses, wooden boards, reinforcing bars, and a large number of fragments, amounting to the remains of as many as fifty individual shields. No other Roman site has yielded such a concentration of shield-boards, let alone examples retaining traces of painted decoration. At the same time, the assemblage is incomplete and unevenly preserved. No shield was found fully intact, and many fragments mentioned in the excavation reports can no longer be located. Any interpretation must therefore balance the richness of the surviving material against the gaps created by loss, decay, and early excavation practices. ### Shield Types in Use at Dura Archaeological evidence from Dura indicates the presence of at least four distinct shield traditions. The most common form is the large, broad oval shield constructed from thin vertical planks of wood and fitted with a central grip protected by a metal boss. These shields dominate the surviving assemblage and appear to represent the standard Roman fighting shield in use at the site during its final decades. A second form is the semicylindrical plywood shield. Constructed from layered wooden strips glued with alternating grain directions, this shield belongs to the long-established Roman tradition of the legionary body-shield. Its survival at Dura into the mid-third century demonstrates that this form had not yet disappeared from active use, at least in the eastern provinces. A third, rarer type consists of oval shields oriented horizontally and lacking a central boss. Known only from drawings and brief descriptions, these examples are difficult to classify. Their construction and decoration suggest a connection with Roman shield-making, yet their form departs from standard imperial types and may reflect adaptation to local traditions. ![ A photograph of Roman shield drawn by Herbert Gute (Amazon shield from embankment near T24). Illustration depicts YUAG item 1935.552, sometimes called the "Amazon shield" due to its depiction of Greeks and Amazons in combat.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Dura-Europos-archival-photograph-2-1.jpg) A photograph of Roman shield drawn by Herbert Gute (Amazon shield from embankment near T24). Illustration depicts YUAG item 1935.552, sometimes called the "Amazon shield" due to its depiction of Greeks and Amazons in combat. Public domain Finally, a group of shields constructed from rawhide threaded with wooden sticks represents a completely different technological tradition. These shields, lightweight and rigid once dried, have close parallels in Near Eastern military practice stretching back centuries. Their presence at Dura complicates attribution, as they could have belonged to Roman troops, local levies, or Sasanian forces involved in the siege. Many shield fragments described in early excavation reports are no longer traceable in the Yale collections, making verification impossible. Particularly important are the painted shield fragments which were described in detail but have since vanished. Their dimensions and decoration closely match the oval plank shields recovered in later seasons, suggesting that painted shields were once even more numerous than the surviving material indicates. The repeated appearance of shield fragments in different contexts across the city reinforces the impression that shields were widely used, repaired, discarded, and repurposed in Dura’s final years. Depictions of shields in Dura’s wall paintings and reliefs introduce further complexity. Large oval shields, smaller hexagonal forms, and circular targes appear in religious and civic art, particularly in the synagogue and in Palmyrene contexts. Gods are often shown carrying oval shields or small round bucklers, while mounted figures in local dress frequently bear bossless shields. None of the small targes seen in art have been recovered archaeologically, but the bossless ovals may represent Romanised versions of this regional type. The coexistence of these images with the archaeological material points to a diverse visual and functional shield culture rather than a single uniform standard. ### Building the Broad Oval Plank Shields The construction of the oval plank shields reveals a high degree of technical sophistication. Thin planks of poplar were glued edge to edge and shaped into a broad oval, with the thickness carefully graduated from centre to rim. The finished board was slightly domed, a form that greatly increased rigidity without adding weight. Tool marks show the use of sharp axes, adzes, and planes, and the final outline was trimmed only after the board had been fully shaped. Openings for the central grip were cut after assembly, leaving a wooden core that was reinforced by a transverse iron bar on the reverse. This iron bar served both as a grip and as a structural brace, spreading stress across the board. Leather edging, stitched through holes near the rim, protected the vulnerable edges from wear and impact. Two main surface treatments were used on the oval shields. Some were faced with very thin animal skin glued to both sides of the board, with a layer of fibrous material embedded in the adhesive to prevent splitting along the grain. Others were prepared with gesso, sometimes applied over fabric or fibre, creating a smooth surface suitable for painting. These methods reveal a clear concern with durability as well as appearance. Painted decoration survives in varying degrees, and analysis shows that several painting media were employed, including water-based paints, tempera, and casein. The rectangular shield from was painted using an encaustic technique, similar to that used in Egyptian mummy portraits, producing a waxy, weather-resistant surface. Pigments included vermilion, carbon black, earth colours, and indigo. The shield designs from Dura fall into several broad categories. Some consist of concentric bands arranged around the boss, often with wreath-like motifs and strong radial symmetry. Others feature large central figures, including mythological scenes drawn from Greek epic. A third group employs bold geometric patterns, including spoked designs with repeated heart-shaped motifs. These designs echo second-century auxiliary shield imagery while anticipating the bold, simplified patterns seen in late Roman art and the *Notitia Dignitatum*. The diversity of decoration raises questions about function. Shields bearing complex mythological scenes are unlikely to have been standard battlefield equipment for entire units. They may represent parade shields, training equipment used in cavalry exercises, or personal display pieces. Simpler designs, particularly those with strong geometric structure, are more plausibly connected with unit or cohort identity. Literary sources from Late Antiquity confirm that shield patterns could serve as identifiers, though the extent of standardisation remains unclear. *("Excavations at Dura-Europos 1928-1937\. Final Report VII. The Arms and Armour and other Military Equipment" by Simon James)* ### The Roman Cookbook That Reveals an Empire URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-cookbook-that-reveals-an-empire/ Last updated: 2026-01-24T17:33:51.000Z He is remembered less as a person than as a warning. In Roman literature, his name came to stand for excess without limit, appetite without restraint, and a refusal to accept moderation at the table. Ancient writers returned to him again and again, not to praise skill, but to illustrate what happened when wealth, power, and taste were allowed to feed upon themselves. Yet the figure so vividly sketched in satire and moral critique is only loosely connected to the Roman cookbook that later carried his name. ### The Many Apicii and the Making of a Reputation Marcus Gavius Apicius is inseparably associated with Roman cookery through the collection known as *De Re Coquinaria*, traditionally linked to his name. Yet despite this enduring association, the historical figure behind the name remains elusive. What survives about Apicius himself consists largely of anecdote: stories that emphasise excess, luxury, and an almost theatrical devotion to [food,](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/) culminating in an equally extravagant death. Ancient sources, moreover, do not speak of a single Apicius, but of three men bearing the name, each remembered for culinary indulgence. The earliest Apicius lived at the turn of the first century BCE and was already proverbial for extravagance. He appears in Posidonius’ Histories, preserved by Athenaeus, as a figure who surpassed all others in prodigality: > “a man who transcended all in prodigality” Athenaeus, The Dinner of the Sophists ![Portrait of Marcus Gavius Apicius](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Apicius_from_Soyer.png) Portrait of Marcus Gavius Apicius. Public domain The second—and the one with whom this discussion is primarily concerned—is Marcus Gavius Apicius, active during the reign of [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/) in the early first century CE. A third Apicius appears in the second century CE under [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/) and is remembered not for recipes but for technical ingenuity in food preservation. Athenaeus records his invention of specialised oyster packaging during Trajan’s Parthian campaign: > “When the Emperor Trajan was in Parthia, at a distance of many days’ journey from the sea, Apicius caused fresh oysters to be sent to him in packing skilfully devised by himself.” Athenaeus ### A bon viveur with a provocative death Marcus Gavius Apicius flourished in the early imperial period and became the archetype of the bon viveur. His reputation was such that his name itself became shorthand for wealth and gastronomic excess. Ancient writers consistently emphasise not only his luxurious habits in life but the calculated extravagance of his death. [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/) famously framed Apicius’ suicide as the ultimate act of gluttony: > “Apicius, you had spent 60 million \[sesterces\] on your stomach, and as yet a full 10 million remained to you. You refused to endure this, as also hunger and thirst, and took poison in your final drink. Nothing more gluttonous was ever done by you, Apicius.” Martial, Epigrams [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) likewise records the episode, presenting Apicius’ decision as an unwillingness to live on what he considered insufficient means: > “Apicius so far surpassed mankind in prodigality that when he wished to know how much he had already spent and how much he still had left, on learning that 10 million \[sesterces\] still remained to him, he became grief-stricken, and feeling that he was destined to die of hunger, he took his own life.” Cassius Dio, Roman History Direct evidence for Apicius’ culinary activity is limited. A contemporary grammarian, Apion, authored a treatise entitled On the Luxury of Apicius, now lost apart from its title (Athenaeus). In its absence, [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) preserves several details of Apicius’ gastronomic innovations. Among these is the claim that Apicius promoted the consumption of flamingo tongues: > “Apicius, the most gluttonous gorger of all spendthrifts, taught that flamingo’s tongue has a particularly fine flavour.” Pliny, Natural History Flamingos, originally imported from Africa as luxury food, were later bred in Italy to satisfy elite demand. Martial notes their presence on elite estates, such as Faustinus’ farm at Baiae (Epigrams). Although *De Re Coquinaria* includes a recipe for boiled flamingo in spiced date sauce, it does not specify tongues. Nevertheless, references by Seneca and Martial demonstrate that Apicius’ recommendation was widely taken up. [Flamingo tongues](https://romanempiretimes.com/some-recipes-date-back-to-ancient-rome-french-toast-foie-gras-and-braised-flamingo/) later featured among the ingredients of Vitellius’ infamous dish, the Shield of Minerva, and the practice was further elaborated under the emperor Elagabalus, who served peacock and nightingale tongues at imperial banquets. Another culinary innovation attributed to Apicius concerns the treatment of pork liver: > “There is also the art of treating the liver of sows like that of geese, the discovery of Marcus Apicius. The pigs are stuffed with dried figs, and when full, they are killed after having been given a drink of mulsum.” Pliny, Natural History Foie gras was already known in Roman cuisine, with [Pliny](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-the-author-of-the-worlds-first-encyclopaedia-was-roman/) attributing its discovery to earlier figures (Natural History). Apicius’ contribution lay in adapting this technique to pigs, producing *ficatum*, liver flavoured through controlled feeding. De Re Coquinaria preserves two recipes for this dish (7.5.1–2), combining pepper, thyme, lovage, liquamen, [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/), [oil](https://romanempiretimes.com/olive-oil-in-the-roman-empire-how-the-romans-discovered-the-liquid-gold/), and laurel berries. Pliny also records Apicius’ preference for red mullet prepared in elaborate sauces: > “Marcus Apicius, a man born for every device of luxury, thought mullets excellent when killed in a sauce of their companions (*garum sociorum*), and also *allec* (fish paste) made out of their livers.” Pliny, Natural History [Garum](https://romanempiretimes.com/garum-the-unami-of-ancient-rome/), a fermented fish sauce, was a prized condiment in elite Roman cuisine. *Garum sociorum,* imported from New Carthage in Spain, represented the highest grade. Pliny’s phrasing allows a deliberate ambiguity: *socius* could mean either a commercial association or, humorously, the fish’s “companions.” *Allec*, originally a by-product of garum production, later became a luxury food in its own right, particularly when made from mullet liver or shellfish (Natural History). ![Remains of garum, cetaria of Santa Pola, Museum of the Sea of ​​Santa Pola, fourth century.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/remains-of-garum--1--1.jpg) Remains of garum, cetaria of Santa Pola, Museum of the Sea of ​​Santa Pola, fourth century. Credits: Claus Ableiter, CC BY-SA 3.0 The prestige attached to [red mullet](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) is illustrated by [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/), who describes an auction orchestrated by Tiberius himself: > “Tiberius Caesar ordered a mullet of enormous size that had been sent to him to be sent to the market and put up for sale… Caesar said, ‘Friends, I shall not be surprised if either Apicius or Publius Octavius buys that mullet.’ … Octavius was victorious… since he had purchased for 5,000 sesterces a fish which Caesar had sold and which not even Apicius had succeeded in buying.” Seneca, Epistles Apicius’ pursuit of seafood excellence extended beyond Italy. Athenaeus recounts his aborted journey to Libya in search of superior shrimps: > “There lived in the days of Tiberius a man named Apicius… He had spent countless sums on his belly at Minturnae… When he heard that they also grew to excessive size in Libya… On seeing the shrimps, he enquired whether they had any that were larger… and ordered the helmsman to sail back to Italy by the same route, without his even having approached the Libyan shore.” Athenaeus Such anecdotes collectively present Apicius as a wealthy Roman whose culinary curiosity extended to the exotic and the extreme. Seneca generalises this tendency in a broader moral reflection: > “Behold Nomentanus and Apicius, digesting… the creatures of every nation upon their table.” Seneca, On the Happy Life Ancient sources attribute two cookery works to Apicius: a general cookbook and a specialised treatise on sauces. There is no firm evidence that he was a professional chef. [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) instead describes him simply as a wealthy and prodigal man (Annals). His reputation attracted both admiration and moral condemnation. Seneca remarks sharply that Apicius, > “learned in the science of the cook-shop,” had > “defiled the age with his teaching” (To Helvia, On Consolation). The surviving *De Re Coquinaria*, however, is not Apicius’ original work. It is a fourth-century CE compilation of over 500 recipes assembled by an unknown editor who attached Apicius’ name to lend authority and prestige. A further appendix of 52 recipes by Vinidarius was added in the fifth century. Despite its composite nature, the collection is the most complete ancient cookbook to survive. Written in later Latin, the work is organised into ten books, each bearing a [Greek ](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/)title, including *Epimeles* (“The Careful Housekeeper”), *Polyteles* (“The Gourmet”), and *Thalassa* (“The Sea”). Its sources range from Apicius’ own writings to agricultural manuals, medical texts, and Greek and Roman dietary literature. The recipes combine the exotic and the everyday, from peacock dishes and stuffed dormice to herb dressings and digestive salts. Book 10, devoted entirely to fish sauces, is often considered closest to Apicius’ original treatise. Seven recipes explicitly bear his name and show consistent seasoning preferences, including contrasts of hot meat with cold sauces. Many other recipes reflect elite taste for rare ingredients and imported spices. ![Apicius manuscript, New York Academy of Medicine: contents of book 1 (left), first page of text (right)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/apicius-manuscript-1.jpg) Apicius manuscript, New York Academy of Medicine: contents of book 1 (left), first page of text (right). Public domain The collection also reflects the empire-wide scope of Roman cuisine, with dishes described as Parthian, Alexandrian, Numidian, or Indian in style. Approximately sixty different condiments appear in the text, many familiar to modern cooks. Pepper, in particular, is ubiquitous, even appearing in dessert recipes. The demand for spices imposed heavy costs on the Roman state and shaped long-distance trade routes, especially after the discovery of the monsoon winds enabled direct sailing to India. Apicius’ influence extended well beyond his lifetime. Later [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), notably [Elagabalus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-divine-chaos-of-elagabalus-romes-most-unconventional-emperor/), explicitly imitated his extravagance, claiming to surpass him in novelty and excess (Augustan Histories, Elagabalus). Schools of cookery adopted him as a patron figure, and later writers used his name as a synonym for culinary excellence. His book circulated in medieval elite circles, was known at the court of Charlemagne, and continued to attract interest in the Renaissance and beyond. Through *De Re Coquinaria*, Apicius remains central to our understanding of Roman food culture—not as a single authorial voice, but as the symbolic anchor for the richest surviving record of ancient cooking, taste, and gastronomic ambition. ("Cooks & other people". proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on food and cookery 1995\. Edited by Harlan Wlaker) ### A Name That Became a Warning A dense web of stories surrounds the figure of Marcus Gavius Apicius, the most notorious gourmet of Roman antiquity. His reputation for greed is matched only by claims about his culinary expertise—though the precise nature of that expertise is far from clear. Contemporary writers such as [Columella](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/), Pliny, and Seneca speak with a unified voice, presenting Apicius as the ultimate embodiment of excess: a man consumed by food to the point of ridicule, a stylised figure of elite indulgence rather than a skilled practitioner of an art. There is a strong narrative about his death. What gives this narrative its force is not poverty—Apicius was still wealthy—but the idea that he could not bear to eat ordinary food. The diet he rejected was not that of the destitute, dependent on coarse bread or thin porridge, but a respectable and balanced Mediterranean fare of vegetables, pulses, fish, and locally raised meat. The refusal of such food marks Apicius not as deprived, but as fundamentally alienated from moderation. ### Luxury Without Labour Before his reputation as a gourmet was fully formed, Apicius was already an extremely wealthy man with access to imperial circles. Seneca suggests that he even received financial support from the state, possibly to fund the kind of lavish hospitality expected of elite Romans entertaining foreign guests. His banquets were evidently remarkable, showcasing the most refined cuisine [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/) could offer. Yet despite this, the sources are silent on one crucial figure: the cook. Apicius himself is never described as preparing food. It is far more likely that his household employed exceptionally skilled chefs whose expertise rivalled that of any in the city. Whether their recipes were written down or preserved orally remains uncertain. Doubts have often been raised about literacy among slaves and the urban poor, but such scepticism underestimates the prevalence of functional literacy. The language of the recipe collection associated with Apicius is plain, technical, and unadorned—precisely the kind of Latin that could be mastered with minimal formal education. Roman elite attitudes toward culinary labour help explain why Apicius was never imagined as a cook. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) is explicit about which occupations were considered degrading: > “Now we have by and large been taught these points about which trades and occupations are to be thought decent and which ones are disgraceful: those trades are to be thought least proper which are the servants of physical pleasure: fishmongers, butchers, cooks, poultrymen, fishermen… add to these if you like perfume-sellers, dancers, and the whole entertainment industry.” Cicero Such work was considered slavish, unworthy of a man of rank. Apicius therefore attracted criticism not because he laboured in the kitchen, but because he spent extravagantly on what others prepared. He was a consumer of luxury, not its producer. Nowhere do ancient sources describe him as a professional cook, nor as a freedman enriched through culinary skill. Although such figures existed, there is no evidence that Apicius belonged among them. ![Pullum Numidicum (Numidian Chicken) accompanied with Conchicla Cum faba (Beans with Cumin) ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Pullum-Numidicum--Numidian-Chicken--accompanied-with-Conchicla-Cum-faba--Beans-with-Cumin---1--1.jpg) Pullum Numidicum (Numidian Chicken) accompanied with Conchicla Cum faba (Beans with Cumin). Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 This distinction matters because it undermines the assumption that Apicius authored the recipe collection attributed to him. Scholars have long spoken cautiously of a text “attributed to Apicius,” yet rarely asked why that attribution arose. One hypothesis suggests that a later freedman cook adopted the name, but the text itself offers no authorial voice at all. There is no “I,” no framing, no claim of expertise. This silence strongly suggests that the work is not the product of a single author, but a compilation that developed organically, shaped by many hands over time. ### How Cooks Disappeared and Recipes Survived In Roman elite culture, knowledge of food was theoretical rather than practical. Physical labour was delegated to slaves; [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) engagement with cuisine focused on sourcing, breeding, cultivation, and reputation. Agricultural manuals written by landowners contain detailed advice on farming and animal husbandry, but their authors never performed this work themselves. Recipes included in such texts were almost certainly gathered from household staff. Medical and veterinary writers such as [Galen](https://romanempiretimes.com/galen-of-pergamon-rome-most-famous-physician-galenus/) and Vegetius also record remedies in recipe form, yet these too originated in the practices of freedmen and slaves. Greek specialists form an exception, as Greek culture placed greater value on practical skill, allowing artisans—including cooks—to write technical texts. Roman authors, by contrast, relied heavily on Greek knowledge in all technical fields. This divide profoundly shaped Roman cookery. In Greek tradition, the *mageiros* combined theory and practice. Originally associated with sacrifice, by the fourth century BCE he appears in comedy as a free professional capable of organising an entire banquet. Dionysius captures the distinction: > “We are able to garnish, to carve, to cook sauces, and to blow on the fire, anyone can chance to do that; someone like that is only a food processor \[*opsopoios*\] but the master chef \[*mageiros*\] is quite different.” ![Pseudo-Apicius, De re coquinaria. Manuscript with notes by Poliziano. Saint Petersburg, Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Pseudo-Apicius.jpg) Pseudo-Apicius, De re coquinaria. Manuscript with notes by Poliziano. Saint Petersburg, Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Public domain In [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/), this division hardened. Practical cooking remained the work of enslaved ops*opoioi*, while culinary theory was appropriated by elite diners. As a result, food writing took two forms: elite texts with narrative and commentary, and anonymous recipe collections stripped of voice. The Apicius collection belongs firmly to the latter category. Unlike works by [Cato ](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/)or Columella, which open with clear authorial intent, the Apicius collection speaks only through its instructions. Even the lost treatise by Apicius’ contemporary Gaius Matius apparently contained narrative discussion, reinforcing how unusual the silence of the recipe collection is. The recipes themselves reflect professional kitchens. They are concise, technical, and practical, written in forms of Latin closer to everyday speech than literary style. The language smells of work rather than display. This diversity of vocabulary and grammar points to multiple authors and multiple periods. The collection cannot be the work of one man, elite or otherwise. The name “Apicius” therefore functions less as authorship than as a label. By the second century CE it had become a byword for luxury. Juvenal jokes about poor men who aspire to Apician tastes. Later figures adopted the name as a cognomen to signal culinary ambition. Writers use “Apician” to denote fine food, excess, or greed, depending on context: > “that soul \[of a glutton\] will receive more pleasure… because it is interred in Apician and Lurconian spices.” Tertullian, De ieiunio > “Away with the seasoners of sauces, away with all the wiles of cooks, away with the dishes of Apicius.” Querolus > “There he will be treated with such comradeship as if up to this point he had belched among Apician feasters and Byzantine master carvers.” Sidonius Apollinaris By this stage, “Apicius” no longer refers to a man but to a category of food and expertise. Tertullian even notes that cooks themselves were named after him: > “In the same way are not doctors named after Erasistratus, and grammar-teachers after Aristarchus, and cooks also after Apicius?” The surviving manuscripts confirm this evolution. The collection circulated under the name Apicius without a formal title. De re coquinaria is a Renaissance invention. Variations in manuscripts, duplicate recipes, marginal additions, and linguistic inconsistency all point to gradual accumulation within professional cooking environments—possibly guilds such as the *collegium cocorum Caesaris*. What survives, then, is not the voice of a reclining gourmet discoursing on sauces, but the residue of working kitchens. As a chef-text, it preserves technique rather than theory. Its anonymity is not a flaw but a clue. The myth of Apicius endures because it satisfies expectations about [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/): excess, domination, appetite without restraint. Seneca condemns him accordingly: > “May the gods and goddesses ruin those whose greed crosses even the boundaries of our invidious empire!” Yet stripped of myth, what remains is something rarer: a corpus shaped by enslaved and freed cooks, preserved under the borrowed authority of a famous name. The recipes of Apicius are not the work of Apicius. They belong to the cooks who made Rome eat. *("The Myth of Apicius" by Sally Grainger)* ### What It Took to Survive as a Roman Citizen URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/what-it-took-to-survive-as-a-roman-citizen/ Last updated: 2026-01-21T00:22:39.000Z Life in ancient Rome required more than legal status or civic pride. Survival depended on knowing how the city worked in practice: where you stood socially, how households functioned, what public space demanded, and how daily needs such as food, shelter, and clothing were managed within a rigid hierarchy. Rome did not offer comfort or protection by default. It rewarded those who understood its rules, read its signals correctly, and adapted to an environment where status, proximity, and custom shaped everyday life as much as law. ### The Eternal City by 95 CE By 95 CE, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) was the largest city in the Mediterranean world, with a population that likely exceeded one million inhabitants. It was a densely built, crowded, and socially stratified metropolis, where monumental architecture stood alongside precarious living conditions. Marble temples, basilicas, and imperial fora dominated the city’s public image, while the majority of its population lived in multi-storey apartment buildings ([*insulae*](https://romanempiretimes.com/insulae-apartment-buildings-ancient-rome-romans/)) constructed quickly and often unsafely. The city’s infrastructure reflected both [Roman engineering](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-engineering-the-backbone-of-an-empire/) skill and its limitations. [Aqueducts](https://romanempiretimes.com/marvel-ancient-roman-aqueducts/) supplied vast quantities of water, feeding fountains, [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), and elite households, yet access was uneven and contamination common. Sewage systems existed in parts of the city, but waste disposal remained inconsistent, contributing to persistent health risks. Fire posed a constant threat, especially in districts packed with wooden structures, narrow streets, and open flames used for cooking and lighting Social life in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) was shaped by proximity rather than equality. Senators, equestrians, freedmen, [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/), migrants, and the urban poor shared the same urban space but experienced it very differently. Legal status determined access to protection, justice, and opportunity. [Slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-zoninus-collar-the-iron-collar-that-spoke-for-the-silenced/) and freedpeople formed a substantial portion of the population, performing essential labour while remaining vulnerable to abuse and sudden punishment. Citizenship conferred privileges, but it did not guarantee security. Political power was concentrated at the top, yet its presence was felt daily. Imperial authority was visible in statues, inscriptions, and public ceremonies, while laws and regulations affected movement, trade, and behaviour. At the same time, informal systems—patronage, personal connections, neighbourhood networks—often mattered more than official structures for navigating everyday problems. [Food](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/) supply was a central concern. Rome depended heavily on imported grain, distributed through state systems to prevent unrest. Shortages, delays, or corruption could quickly lead to anxiety and disorder. Markets, [taverns](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-tavern-inn-wine-bar-the-hospitality-business-of-an-ancient-roman-city/), and street vendors were essential to daily survival, particularly for those without stable income or household resources. Entertainment and [public spectacle](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/) played a significant role in urban life. [Games](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-greek-glory-to-roman-spectacle-the-olympic-games-evolution/), executions, theatrical performances, and public punishments were common features of the civic calendar, reinforcing social hierarchies while offering moments of distraction and collective experience. These events coexisted with constant reminders of mortality, from disease outbreaks to frequent [funerals](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) and roadside tombs. ![Race line-up. Ulpiano Checa Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Ready-for-the-race.jpg) Race line-up. Ulpiano Checa Museum. Credits: Cruccone, CC BY 3.0 [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) in 95 CE was therefore a city of contrasts: extraordinary wealth and persistent danger, sophisticated administration and everyday improvisation, monumental stability and fragile lives. To live there required awareness of risks, adaptability to rapid change, and an understanding of how to function within a city that rewarded resilience more reliably than comfort. ### Where You Stood Mattered More Than Who You Were Social class in ancient [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) was not defined by a single label, but by the cumulative answers to a series of legal and social distinctions. Whether a person was freeborn or freed, citizen or non-citizen, Italian or provincial, senator, equestrian, or without rank determined nearly every aspect of life. These classifications governed taxation, [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/) eligibility, political participation, legal protection, and even permitted clothing. Roman society functioned through visible hierarchy, and knowing one’s place was not merely a matter of etiquette but of survival. At the apex of this system stood the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), followed by men of senatorial and equestrian rank. Beneath them were ordinary citizens without formal status, freedmen, and finally slaves. [Women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/), regardless of wealth or family background, occupied a legally subordinate position, lacking independent civic authority. This hierarchy was reinforced in public space. Seating arrangements in theatres and amphitheatres physically displayed social rank, with senators closest to the arena and women and slaves relegated to the highest tiers. Dress also served as a marker: the broad purple stripe identified senators, the narrow stripe equestrians, while most citizens rarely wore the toga at all. ### Climbing Rome’s Ladder Without Falling Off Senatorial rank was required for advancement along the *cursus honorum* and access to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/)’s highest offices. Unlike earlier periods, the imperial [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) was not restricted to old aristocratic families. Civil wars had thinned the traditional [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/), and emperors increasingly admitted new men, including provincials. Entry, however, depended on wealth. A senator was required to possess at least one million sesterces in land and assets and was forbidden from engaging in trade. The rewards included prestige, political influence, and proximity to imperial power, but that same proximity carried danger. Senators lived under constant scrutiny, and closeness to the emperor could quickly turn fatal. Below them stood the equestrian order, defined by a lower property qualification of 300,000 sesterces. Equestrians increasingly filled administrative and managerial roles avoided by senators, especially under emperors who valued competence over lineage. Unlike the senatorial class, equestrian rank was open to freedmen, making it a key route of social advancement. Yet equestrians shared the same fundamental risk as senators: visibility to imperial authority without its protection. ### Free, but Never Quite Equal Freedmen formed a large and diverse social group. [Roman society](https://romanempiretimes.com/inside-roman-society-how-ordinary-life-shaped-an-extraordinary-empire-part-1/) was unusual in the scale of manumission, and for many, slavery was a temporary condition. Freedmen could become citizens, conduct business, accumulate wealth, and even rise to equestrian status. However, they remained excluded from certain offices, military service, and marriage into elite families. Former imperial slaves often held significant administrative power, which provoked resentment from the traditional elite. Literary hostility toward imperial freedmen reflects social anxiety rather than their actual influence. ![Charles Bartlett: Captives in Rome. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/captives-in-rome--1-.jpg) Charles Bartlett: Captives in Rome. Public domain Women and slaves occupied a legally dependent position. Both were formally under the authority of another and lacked autonomous legal standing. Slaves had no personal rights but could hope for eventual manumission. Women, by contrast, had no comparable route to legal independence, despite occasional flexibility in practice. The law placed them below freedmen in formal status, regardless of family or wealth. ### Living Outside Respectability Below even slaves stood the *infames*, a category defined not by birth but by occupation and behaviour. Actors, dancers, [gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/), and prostitutes were legally marginalised, stripped of full civic rights despite their public visibility and popularity. *Infamia* functioned as institutionalised social shaming. Yet these figures occupied a paradoxical position: socially excluded but culturally central, attracting fascination from all levels of society, including the imperial household itself. ### What Kept the System Together Roman citizenship marked the sharpest legal divide of all. Citizens were protected from corporal [punishment](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/), torture, and crucifixion and retained the right to appeal directly to the emperor. Non-citizens lacked these safeguards entirely. Despite extreme inequalities, large-scale class conflict was relatively rare. Instead, Roman society was stabilised by *amicitia*, a system of reciprocal obligation linking patrons and clients across social boundaries. Through patronage, individuals of lower status aligned themselves with powerful figures in exchange for protection, influence, or material benefit. Freedmen remained lifelong clients of their former masters, while elite patrons amassed large followings as visible demonstrations of power. This network of mutual dependence, rather than equality, limited unrest and bound Roman society together. In Rome, class was not an abstract concept. It was a daily reality, enacted in law, space, clothing, and ritual. To understand Roman life is first to understand how carefully—and how relentlessly—difference was organised. ### The Household Where Rome Was Made Family sat at the centre of Roman identity, binding the living to both their ancestors and their descendants. Lineage mattered not only privately but publicly: elite households displayed ancestral death masks in their atriums, festivals such as Parentalia honoured the dead, and political reputation could be enhanced—or damaged—by claims about one’s family background. Roman writers treated ancestry as a serious measure of worth, and attacks on an opponent’s lineage were a recognised political tactic. Under the emperors, family stability was elevated into state policy, reinforced through legislation that promoted marriage and child-rearing as moral duties essential to Rome’s survival. The Roman household was structured around the authority of the *pater familias,* the male head who exercised legal control over property, finances, marriages, and dependants. His power extended over adult children and, in theory, even included the right to punish or kill members of his household. Yet this authority was often more fragile in practice. Elite sons frequently remained financially dependent well into adulthood, while pursuing leisure, social ambition, and political connections beyond paternal control. Roman sources repeatedly reveal the tension between legal power and social reality, where fathers struggled to manage heirs whose behaviour reflected both privilege and excess. ![Egisto Sarri: Hour of Games (series Daily Life in Pompeii)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Egisto-Sarri-Pompei.jpg) Egisto Sarri: Hour of Games (series Daily Life in Pompeii). Public domain Imperial ideology strongly promoted the household as a model of moral order, none more visibly than under [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/). He legislated aggressively on marriage, adultery, and reproduction, rewarding large families and penalising those who failed to conform. Augustus also staged his own family as an example of traditional discipline, arranging marriages and careers for his children and relatives. Yet these efforts ended in public scandal, exile, and estrangement, exposing the limits of moral legislation when confronted with personal autonomy and elite resistance. Women occupied a legally subordinate position within this structure. Expected to embody chastity, modesty, and domestic virtue, their primary social role was reproduction. Women held no political office, lacked voting rights, and were subject to male guardianship in financial matters. Augustus’ morality laws formalised these expectations, punishing adultery with exile and severe legal penalties. At the same time, Roman literature reveals persistent anxiety about educated, outspoken women who operated beyond domestic boundaries, suggesting a reality more complex than official ideology allowed. Slavery was embedded in every level of Roman family life. Slaves had no legal personhood, could not marry, and were subject to corporal punishment and sale at their owner’s discretion. Their treatment reflected directly on the reputation of the household: excessive cruelty invited public disapproval, while excessive leniency risked accusations of weakness. Although no serious challenge to slavery existed, imperial legislation gradually imposed limits on the most extreme abuses, particularly in the first century CE. Children were viewed simultaneously as assets, responsibilities, and risks. Roman law granted the pater familias the right to decide whether a newborn would be raised or exposed, with physical fitness, gender, and economic capacity shaping that decision. Exposure did not always mean death, but it often resulted in enslavement. Education, where available, focused on rhetoric and public performance, preparing elite boys for political life, while philosophical study was treated with suspicion by imperial authorities. Despite the rigid hierarchy governing family life, Roman society avoided constant internal conflict through systems of obligation and reciprocity. Patronage relationships tied households together across social boundaries, creating networks of dependence that stabilised inequality. Family, in Rome, was therefore not only a private institution but a mechanism through which social order, authority, and continuity were maintained across generations. ### What Your Clothes Said Before You Spoke Clothing in Rome was never simply a matter of comfort. What a person wore immediately signalled gender, status, wealth, respectability, and even moral standing. Although Roman dress appears simple at first glance, its variations were socially meaningful and carefully observed. For men, the tunic formed the foundation of everyday clothing. Its cut was basic, but its presentation allowed for distinction. Length, material, colour, and accessories such as belts all conveyed information about status and intention. Wool was common and affordable, while linen offered comfort in heat. Silk, though luxurious, attracted criticism for being unmanly and excessive. Knee-length tunics were practical and fashionable, revealing legs that were expected to be hairless, reflecting broader Roman preferences for [bodily grooming](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-ancient-romans-shave-barber-grooming-rituals-in-the-roman-empire/). Cloaks provided protection from the weather and could be lined with fur for warmth. Footwear was typically limited to sandals, sometimes reinforced with nailed soles for traction. The toga, often imagined as universal Roman attire, was in fact reserved for formal occasions. Its complexity and impracticality made it unsuitable for daily wear. It functioned primarily as a public and political garment, worn by men seeking office or participating in civic rituals. Managing a toga required skill, and candidates often relied on slaves to prevent embarrassment. Its symbolic value far outweighed its usefulness. ![Pablo Salinas - The Roman Festivals of the Colosseum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Pablo-Salinas--The-Roman-Festivals-of-the-Colosseum---1-.jpg) Pablo Salinas - The Roman Festivals of the Colosseum. Public domain Men’s appearance extended beyond clothing. Grooming mattered. Hair on the head was prized, while body hair was removed through plucking or burning. Baldness carried social stigma, prompting some elite men to resort to hairpieces. Attention to personal presentation reflected discipline, self-control, and conformity to elite norms. Women’s clothing followed a more layered structure. The tunic formed the base, over which the *stola* marked respectability and marital status. A shawl, or *palla*, completed the outfit, serving both as outerwear and veil. Colour combinations allowed for display or discretion, depending on circumstance. Unlike men, women were not required to wear the toga. [Female grooming and adornment](https://romanempiretimes.com/beauty-in-ancient-rome/) were highly visible markers of wealth and fashion. Jewellery, elaborate hairstyles, and skilled hairdressers signalled status. In the Flavian period, towering coiffures required hours of labour and specialist expertise. Simpler styles remained acceptable but carried different social connotations. Children dressed much like adults, scaled down in size. Clothing, however, also carried protective meaning. Boys wore a *bulla* and girls a *lunula*, amulets believed to guard them from harm. These were surrendered at adulthood, marking the transition into full social participation. Boys then assumed the *toga virilis*, publicly signalling their new legal and civic status. Across all ages and genders, clothing functioned as a visual language. It communicated belonging, ambition, respectability, and rank at a glance. To dress incorrectly was not merely a fashion error but a social risk, capable of attracting ridicule or suspicion in a society acutely attuned to appearance. ### Where You Slept Said Everything In Rome, accommodation was never a neutral matter. Where you stayed shaped [daily routines](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/), social exposure, and even personal safety. For the vast majority of the population—including newcomers to the city—life unfolded inside insulae, multi-storey apartment blocks packed tightly into Rome’s streets. These buildings were usually rented rather than owned, and could rise anywhere from three to eight storeys. Notices advertising vacancies were commonly painted directly onto walls, offering anything from shops and storerooms to “high-class rooms,” all managed through an owner’s slave or agent. Comfort was limited. Apartments lacked running water, [private toilets](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-romans-go-to-the-toilet-and-use-urine-in-ways-we-cannot-imagine-today/), and cooking facilities. Residents relied on public latrines, bakeries, and takeaway food shops, turning basic bodily needs into social encounters where gossip circulated freely. Noise was unavoidable, especially in rooms above bathhouses, cookshops, or taverns, where activity continued well into the night. The most desirable apartments were on the first floor, safely above street level but close enough for a quick escape. Danger was an accepted part of urban living. Fires were frequent, building standards inconsistent, and collapses common enough to inspire dark humour from Roman writers. Even well-connected investors lost properties to structural failure. Although Rome maintained a fire brigade, survival often depended on proximity to stairs and the ability to flee without hesitation. To live in an insula was to accept crowding, risk, and constant proximity to others. Elite housing operated on entirely different principles. The townhouses of the wealthy were designed as both private residences and public arenas. Facing inward to shield occupants from the street, they opened into impressive atria where clients gathered each morning, ancestors were displayed in busts and masks, and status was carefully staged. Decoration was bold and intentional: vivid wall paintings, [mosaics](https://romanempiretimes.com/asarotos-oikos-mosaic-unswept-floor-roman-elite/), statues—often Greek originals—signalled education, wealth, and cultural authority. ![Roman mosaic. Love scene.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/roman-mosaic-loce-scene--1-.jpg) Roman mosaic. Love scene. Credits: Alberto Fernandez Fernandez, CC BY-SA 2.5 These homes were complemented by villas outside the city, particularly along the Bay of Naples. Here, space replaced congestion, and architecture expanded to include gardens, libraries, baths, and sea views. Such residences offered relief from Rome’s density while reinforcing elite identity through leisure and display. Across the social spectrum, housing in Rome made hierarchy visible. Whether in a precarious upper-storey room or a carefully curated atrium, where you slept revealed not just how you lived, but where you stood. ### Where Rome Bought Its Daily Life Shopping in Rome was as much about timing, location, and spectacle as it was about goods. Fresh food was best found at the [*nundinae*](https://romanempiretimes.com/before-mondays-existed-rome-had-this/), the nine-day markets where farmers arrived before dawn, having travelled overnight to bypass restrictions on daytime wagons. Early arrival mattered, both to secure quality produce and to avoid the crush of later shoppers. For those unwilling to brave the crowds, permanent shops and markets offered alternatives, especially around the city’s forums. The *Forum Romanum* sat at the heart of this commercial world. It was not a market alone, but a dense concentration of political, religious, judicial, and social life. Shoppers moved among [temples](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/), law courts, and monuments, often pausing to witness speeches, trials, or executions. The rostra in particular functioned as a focal point for public drama, repeatedly becoming the stage for unrest, violence, and spectacle. ![Roman Forum, Italy.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Forum-Romanum--2-.jpg) Roman Forum, Italy. Credits: Krzysztof Golik, CC BY-SA 4.0 Once the cultural circuit was complete, shoppers headed along the Via Sacra, Rome’s most prestigious retail street, where luxury goods such as jewellery, [perfumes](https://romanempiretimes.com/niche-perfumes-in-ancient-rome-how-did-emperors-smell-like/), and spices were sold at elite prices. To relieve congestion, emperors created their own Imperial Forums, each lined with shops and dedicated monuments. These new spaces combined commerce with imperial self-display. Certain districts developed specialisms: bookshops clustered near the Forum of [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/), vegetable markets occupied the *Forum Holitorium*, cattle were sold at the *Forum Boarium*, and slaves were traded at the *Saepta Julia*. Buying slaves was itself a complex commercial process. Purchases were shaped by assumptions about ethnicity, climate, appearance, and skill. Greek slaves were favoured for education and medicine, others for physical labour or novelty value. Buyers weighed the merits of home-born slaves against newly captured ones, inspected health closely, and looked for useful traits such as literacy or training. Despite legal protections, the trade was understood to be deceptive by nature, and caution was expected. Shopping in Rome therefore extended far beyond simple exchange. [Markets ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/)doubled as social theatres, forums blended consumption with power, and even routine purchases reinforced hierarchy, taste, and status. To buy in Rome was to participate fully in the city’s public life. ### Eating Well, Eating Poorly, Eating Everywhere Roman food culture was shaped as much by empire and inequality as by taste. The range of foods available in the city was broad, drawing on agricultural produce from Italy and imports from across the Mediterranean world. Vegetables and pulses such as lentils, peas, beans, chickpeas, leeks, and cabbage formed staples, alongside fruits including grapes, figs, apples, pears, peaches, pomegranates, and olives. Many of these could be preserved through pickling or drying, allowing consumption beyond their growing season. Mushrooms and chestnuts also featured among commonly available foods. Central to Roman cooking was sauce, above all [garum](https://romanempiretimes.com/garum-the-unami-of-ancient-rome/). This fermented fish sauce functioned as a universal seasoning and marker of culinary sophistication. Contemporary descriptions make clear both its popularity and its pungent origins, produced by salting fish entrails and leaving them to ferment in the sun. Despite (or because of) this process, garum was applied liberally across social classes and meals, becoming one of the most distinctive elements of Roman taste. Access to food, however, varied sharply by status. Luxury ingredients and elaborate dishes were the preserve of the wealthy, while the urban poor relied heavily on the state grain dole. This grain was typically taken to local bakeries, as most Roman dwellings lacked cooking facilities. [Bread](https://romanempiretimes.com/panis-quadratus-the-ancient-bread-that-fed-an-empire/) formed the core of the poorer diet, supplemented when possible by vegetables, cheese, or small amounts of sausage. The absence of private kitchens made cookshops and taverns an essential feature of daily life. These [establishments](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-tavern-inn-wine-bar-the-hospitality-business-of-an-ancient-roman-city/) served prepared food to be eaten on site or taken away and were frequented by all levels of society. Even emperors acknowledged their appeal, treating casual dining as a practical necessity rather than a social failing. Wall inscriptions and [graffiti](https://romanempiretimes.com/whispers-on-the-walls-graffiti-as-a-voice-of-ancient-rome/) show that Romans also evaluated their dining experiences publicly, leaving comments that mixed complaint, humour, and blunt honesty. ### Excess on Display: Dining Among the Wealthy For Rome’s richest households, food was not simply nourishment but a form of social display. Wealthy Romans ate whatever they pleased and often chose their meals precisely for their cost, rarity, or shock value. Extravagance itself signalled status. Ancient writers record [elite diners](https://romanempiretimes.com/convivium-how-the-romans-turned-dinner-into-a-display-of-power/) consuming substances not normally considered food at all, including [perfumes](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-aroma-of-rome-perfumes-of-power-pleasure-and-prestige/), believed to sweeten the body from within. ![Reconstructed Roman dining room in the Painting House](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/reconstructed-roman-dining-room--1-.jpg) Reconstructed Roman dining room in the Painting House. Public domain Displays of excess extended to theatrical gestures such as dissolving pearls in vinegar and drinking the mixture, an act traditionally associated with Cleopatra and frequently cited as a symbol of conspicuous consumption. The primary setting for elite dining was the private dinner party. Securing an invitation required sustained social effort rather than reciprocal courtesy. Invitations were earned through persistence, strategic visibility, and careful cultivation of favour. Attendance itself functioned as a marker of inclusion within elite networks, while exclusion carried social meaning. Dinner parties varied widely depending on the host. Imperial banquets, in particular, were unpredictable. Ancient sources associate them with sudden violence, intimidation, or calculated theatricality. Poisonings, executions, and armed interventions by guards are all recorded as interruptions to otherwise formal meals. [Under Domitian, one dinner became infamous for its entirely black setting,](https://romanempiretimes.com/dining-with-domitian-and-the-enigma-of-domitian-black-dinner/) from walls and couches to food and serving slaves, with tomb-like slabs placed beside guests. Such occasions were designed to unsettle as much as to impress. More typical elite dinners followed established conventions. Guests reclined on their left sides on shared couches arranged around a central table, eating with the right hand. Seating arrangements carried clear social signals. The companions assigned to one’s couch reflected the host’s estimation of a guest’s importance, and diners were acutely aware of these hierarchies. Conversation formed part of the performance, with wit offering the possibility of advancement and social missteps risking exclusion from future invitations. Food at these gatherings could reach extreme levels of complexity and excess. Wealthy hosts drew inspiration from culinary collections such as those attributed to Apicius, serving dishes composed of rare animal parts and imported delicacies. Elaborate centrepieces included the so-called Trojan Hog, a roasted pig that released sausages when carved, and [enormous fish chosen for their cost](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) and the logistical effort required to prepare them. Presentation often mattered as much as flavour, with dishes floated in water channels or served by naked attendants, adding spectacle and risk to the meal. Entertainment accompanied dining and was not always welcome. Guests might be subjected to [poetry](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/) readings, musical performances, storytelling, or dance. Hosts occasionally inflicted their own literary ambitions on captive audiences, a prospect so dreaded that advance enquiries about planned entertainment were advisable. A poorly chosen performer could turn an evening into an endurance test rather than a pleasure. ![Reconstructed Dining Room containing three couches made of wood, Xanten, Germany](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Reconstructed-Dining-Room-containing-three-couches-made-of-wood--Xanten-_Germany_-8178323856---1-.jpg) Reconstructed Dining Room containing three couches made of wood, Xanten, Germany. Cresits: Marcus Cyron, CC BY-SA 2.0 One of the clearest signs of a bad dinner party was stinginess. Guests were sensitive to unequal treatment, particularly when inferior food or drink was served to them while the host enjoyed better fare. Such practices communicated relative standing within the host’s social circle with uncomfortable clarity. Wine dominated Roman drinking culture. The most prized varieties came from Campania, especially [Falernian wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/) from the slopes of Mount Falernus. Wine was never consumed unmixed; water, honey, or spices were added to avoid the stigma of barbarism. Beer was available but carried no prestige. Excessive wine consumption, however, was not merely tolerated but expected in elite settings, reinforcing the association between sociability, status, and [indulgence](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/). Together, elite dining practices reveal a world in which food, drink, and hospitality operated as instruments of hierarchy, competition, and display. Meals were stages on which wealth, favour, and power were enacted as much as consumed. *(“How to survive in ancient Rome” by L.J. Trafford)* --- To live in Rome was to move constantly between visibility and vulnerability. Status shaped where one sat, what one wore, where one slept, and how one ate, but it never eliminated risk or dependence. Family authority, patronage, and custom offered structure rather than security. Survival rested not on ideals, but on fluency: understanding hierarchy, reading social cues, and adapting daily to a city that rewarded awareness more reliably than virtue. ### Acta Diurna: How Rome Made News Public URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/acta-diurna-how-rome-made-news-public/ Last updated: 2026-01-18T21:51:28.000Z Long before information was gathered, edited, and delivered as a product, Rome developed its own way of shaping what people knew about the world around them. Certain events were meant to be seen rather than heard, fixed rather than fleeting, and encountered as part of daily movement through the city. These public traces did more than inform. They structured attention, directed conversation, and quietly reinforced authority by deciding what deserved to be visible at all. ### When Knowledge Entered Public Space Across human history, access to information has shaped collective outcomes. Military success or failure, economic stability, cultural development, and political change all depended on how effectively knowledge could be obtained, recorded, and shared. Societies that recognised this invested effort in developing ways to circulate information, adapting their methods to the technical and social tools available to them. In the ancient world, this led to a range of practices designed to make information public. News could be exchanged orally in communal spaces such as marketplaces and assemblies, or fixed in written form for repeated consultation. These methods were not static. Over time, they became more structured and more intentional, reflecting an increasing awareness of the value of regular, accessible information for both individuals and the wider community. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) represents a particularly developed stage in this process. While it is often assumed that the concept of a daily record of events belongs to the early modern period, Roman practice shows that this idea had already taken concrete form much earlier. By the late Republic, information of public relevance was being gathered, organised, and made available on a recurring basis. The material included matters that would be recognisable as news even today: political decisions, legal actions, public events, and developments affecting the life of the community. These practices demonstrate that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) did not merely transmit information incidentally. It developed systems that allowed information to circulate regularly and visibly within the urban environment. Access to daily knowledge was not universal or equal, but the principle that certain facts should be made public had already been firmly established. ### Before News Was Daily As [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/) expanded, so did the demand for structured information about events affecting the city and its wider territories. By the late Republic and into the Principate, the circulation of public knowledge had become a practical necessity rather than an occasional exercise. ![Forum Romanum in Rome, Lazio, Italy](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Forum-Romanum--1-.jpg) Forum Romanum in Rome, Lazio, Italy. Credits: Krzysztof Golik, CC BY-SA 4.0 Political life, military activity, provincial administration, and elite conduct generated a steady flow of events that required recording and communication. Within this environment, the decision traditionally attributed to [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) to formalise daily public reporting marked an important development. The *Acta Diurna* did not emerge in isolation but built upon earlier Roman practices of recording and organising information. ### Annales: Recording the Year One of the most established forms of written public record at Rome was the *annales*. These were yearly accounts that listed significant events in chronological order, organised by the calendar year (*annus*). While the recording of events over time was not unique to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/), the Romans gave this practice a distinct form and terminology that would endure long after antiquity. The annales focused on events deemed worthy of collective memory. They could include political developments, military actions, religious matters, prodigies, and occurrences affecting the city or the provinces. Their scope was not confined to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) itself but extended to the wider world under Roman control. Over time, this mode of recording became closely associated with historical writing. A number of Roman authors compiled works described as Annales, spanning several centuries. These ranged from early Republican writers to figures active well into late antiquity. The continuity of the genre reflects the lasting importance attached to annual record-keeping as a means of structuring historical knowledge. The most influential surviving example is the Annals of [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/). Written after his earlier historical work, the Annals cover the period from the death of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) onward, presenting imperial history year by year. Although only parts of the work survive, its structure illustrates how the annalistic form could accommodate a wide range of material without altering its method. The nature of the information included is revealing. Tacitus does not restrict himself to major political or military events. Personal conduct at the highest level of power appears alongside developments in distant provinces, treated with the same narrative discipline. In Book 14, for example, he records events surrounding [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-romes-most-infamous-ruler-part-1/) with a level of detail that brings private motives into public view: > “In the years of the consulship of Gaius Vipstanus and Gaius Fontius, Nero no longer postponed his long-planned crime… ‘All men wish to overthrow the mother’s power, but no man could have imagined that hatred of the son could lead to the murder of the mother.’” (Tacitus, Annals) Here, personal relationships within the imperial household are presented as matters of public consequence, recorded alongside official events. Elsewhere in the same book, Tacitus turns his attention to developments in the provinces, applying the same careful narration to matters far removed from the capital. The annales therefore reveal a Roman conception of public information that was broad in scope. What mattered was not the nature of the event—whether intimate or administrative—but its perceived relevance to the life of the state. By organising such material year by year, Roman annalistic writing established a rhythm of expectation and recall that helped shape how information was preserved and understood. ![Statue of Tacitus in the Vienna parliament](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Vienna-Parliament-Statue-Tacitus.jpg) Statue of Tacitus in the Vienna parliament. Public domain This tradition of structured recording provided an important foundation for later developments. When daily information began to be displayed publicly at [Rome,](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) it did so against a background in which the regular documentation of events had long been accepted as essential to civic life. ### Organising Time as Public Knowledge Alongside annals and oral reporting, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-story-rome-wanted-to-hear/) relied on another powerful tool for organizing public knowledge: the *Fasti*. These were official calendars, displayed publicly, that structured time itself by marking what could—and could not—be done on each day. More than a simple list of dates, the Fasti combined religious observance, civic administration, and historical memory in a single, visible format. The term *Fasti* derives from *fas*, meaning what was permitted according to divine law. At its core, the [calendar](https://romanempiretimes.com/marking-the-hours-the-roman-way-of-measuring-time/) defined legitimacy: which days were suitable for legal business, assemblies, or public action, and which were barred by religious restriction. Compiling and maintaining this calendar was a priestly responsibility, and it was updated annually, month by month, to reflect both sacred and civic priorities. Lists of priests, magistrates, and officials were integrated into the structure of time itself. The information contained in the Fasti extended well beyond religious observance. They recorded festivals, rituals, and auspicious days, but also noted political events, public works, and military achievements. Particularly prominent were the *Fasti triumphales*, which listed Rome’s victorious commanders and triumphs from the city’s earliest legendary rulers onward. In this way, the calendar became a monument of memory as much as a practical guide. Some versions of the Fasti focused specifically on office-holding. The *Fasti consulares,* discovered on the Capitoline Hill in the sixteenth century and now known as the Fasti Capitolini, preserved the annual succession of consuls together with notable events that occurred during their terms. These lists offered a framework for dating the past and became an essential reference for Roman historical writing. The calendar also divided days according to their function. *Dies fasti* permitted legal and administrative activity, while *dies nefasti* forbade it. Certain days were marked for assemblies (*dies comitiales*), while others were regarded as ill-omened. For a long time, this knowledge was restricted to elite circles. That changed in 304 BCE, when Gnaeus Flavius made the calendar public, allowing ordinary citizens to know when business could be conducted and when it could not. This act transformed access to civic time. Over time, specialized forms developed. The *Fasti magistrales* focused on emperors and magistrates, recording days dedicated to their honors, ceremonies, and festivals. These were sometimes distinguished from more routine calendars and treated as official chronicles of imperial rule. At the same time, references to *Fasti diurni* point to calendars used for daily notation, blurring the boundary between timekeeping and news. Fragments of the Fasti also preserve events of diplomatic significance. A notable example comes from Ostia, where a fragment records the visit of King Pharasmanes II of Iberia, his wife, and his son to Rome as guests of Antoninus Pius. Ancient historians describe the visit in detail, noting the honors granted to the king, including sacrifice on the Capitol and the erection of an equestrian statue. The appearance of this visit in the Fasti shows that such calendars did not merely track ritual cycles but also highlighted moments deemed important to Rome’s public life. ![Fasti Antiates maiores reconstruction](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Fasti-Antiates-maiores-reconstruction.jpg) Fasti Antiates maiores reconstruction.Public domain The influence of the Fasti extended into literature. Their structure inspired poetic treatments of the calendar, most famously in [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/)’s Fasti, which presents the Roman year through myths, rituals, and celestial movements. Here, the calendar becomes a narrative device, blending time, religion, and cultural identity. By organizing religious observance, political authority, and historical memory within a shared temporal framework, the Fasti shaped how Romans experienced public life. They offered a daily reference point for what mattered, when action was permitted, and how the past should be remembered. In doing so, they helped lay the groundwork for later historical writing, which would adopt the same chronological logic while expanding it into continuous narrative. ### Recording the Day Itself The *Acta Diurna*, introduced under [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/) during his first consulship in 59 BCE, represented Rome’s most far-reaching experiment in making information public on a daily basis. Unlike the Annals, which recorded only events judged historically significant, the Acta Diurna embraced a far wider range of material. Alongside matters of state, they included details that might otherwise have been dismissed as minor or incidental. What mattered was not hierarchy, but regularity and visibility. None of the original notices survive, yet their scope can be reconstructed from later references. The Acta Diurna reported on leading political figures, imperial households in the Principate, official decrees, senatorial decisions, and imperial orders. They also recorded legal proceedings, including the progress and outcomes of trials, and allowed certain disputes to be made public. Beyond formal politics, the notices extended to the rhythms of urban life: construction and demolition projects, fires, natural disasters, and even circulating rumours. This breadth distinguished the Acta from earlier forms of record-keeping. Their purpose was not simply to preserve memory, but to keep the population informed on an ongoing basis. The news was posted on tablets made of materials such as stone, metal, or wood, and displayed in prominent public spaces, most notably the Roman Forum. Although compiled in Rome, the notices circulated far beyond the city. They were read in the provinces and among the army, extending their reach across the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/). Ancient authors provide glimpses of how these notices functioned. [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) remarks that Caesar was the first to order the daily publication of proceedings from both the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) and the popular assemblies, indicating a deliberate policy of transparency. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/), writing privately, refers to consulting the *Acta urbana* of a specific date, suggesting that readers followed them closely and selectively. Literary evidence reinforces this impression. In the Satyricon, Petronius presents a clerk reciting the city’s news: births and deaths, grain reserves, executions, financial transactions, and a fire breaking out in a [tavern](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-tavern-inn-wine-bar-the-hospitality-business-of-an-ancient-roman-city/). The passage conveys the variety of material that could appear side by side, from state finances to everyday mishaps, all treated as part of the city’s public record. Tacitus refers repeatedly to the Acta Diurna or *Acta urbana* in his Annals, using them as a point of comparison with historical writing. In one episode, he notes their silence on the presence of certain imperial figures at a [funeral](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/), implying that such notices were expected to contain detailed information about prominent individuals. Elsewhere, he draws a clear distinction between genres: matters of lasting importance belonged in the Annals, while lesser events were left to the daily notices. He also observes that these reports were read attentively in the provinces and within the army, where they served as a means of tracking political developments at the centre. Taken together, these references show that the Acta Diurna were widely accessible and socially inclusive. They circulated across geographic and social boundaries, reaching soldiers and civilians alike. By combining official decisions with the ordinary facts of daily life, they created a shared informational space in which the empire could see itself recorded, day by day. *("Methods and tools of information dissemination on a daily basis in the ancient world-from agoraa to Acta Diurna" by Ketevan Nizharadze, Doctor of Philology, Associate Professor, Georgian National University SEU)* ### Information as an Instrument of Rule The Acta Diurna were not merely a collection of notices displayed in the city of Rome. They formed part of a broader system through which information was organised, controlled, and circulated within the Roman state. The publication of daily records must be understood within the wider administrative framework of the Republic and the early [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/), where political authority depended on the management of information as much as on military force or legal power. Rome governed a territory that extended far beyond the city itself. Communication between the capital and the provinces was therefore essential to the maintenance of order. Official information flowed outward from Rome, reflecting a centralised model in which events, decisions, and public acts were recorded at the centre and then transmitted, in various forms, across the empire. The Acta Diurna operated within this structure, reinforcing Rome’s position as the primary source of authoritative information. The survival of the empire depended in part on the efficient movement of news relating to political decisions, legal outcomes, military developments, and public affairs. The Acta Diurna contributed to this process by creating a recognised and regularised record of daily events that could be consulted, copied, and disseminated as required. ### From the City to the Provinces Although the Acta Diurna were displayed publicly in Rome, their reach extended well beyond the city. There is no evidence for large-scale mechanical reproduction or systematic state distribution. Instead, circulation relied on human networks. Copies were made by hand when necessary, and information was transmitted through letters, reports, and personal correspondence. ![Rome Forum Romanum Tabularium-the official records office of ancient Rome and house of the offices of many city officials. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Rome-Forum-Romanum-Tabularium.jpg) Rome Forum Romanum Tabularium-the **official records office of ancient Rome* and house of the offices of many city officials. Credits: Rita1234, CC BY-SA 3.0 [Elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) communication played a significant role in this process. Senators, magistrates, and officials travelling or residing outside Rome sought access to the Acta through private channels. Cicero’s correspondence demonstrates an active interest in receiving specific daily reports, suggesting that the Acta were consulted selectively and valued for particular types of information. Access to the Acta outside Rome therefore depended on social position, personal connections, and the availability of literate intermediaries. Despite these limitations, the Acta were known and read in the provinces and within the army. Tacitus notes that they were consulted in order to follow the actions of prominent individuals, indicating that their contents circulated far from their original place of display. This transmission was uneven, but it was sufficient to make the Acta part of a shared informational environment across the empire. ### What Counted as News The Acta Diurna recorded a wide range of material. Alongside formal announcements—such as senatorial decisions, legal judgments, and official decrees—they also included information of a more domestic or incidental nature. Births, deaths, [executions](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/), fires, public works, and unusual events were noted without clear distinction between what might later be classified as significant or trivial. This breadth of content distinguished the Acta from annalistic writing, which focused on major political or military developments. The inclusion of minor occurrences suggests an intention to document the rhythm of daily life in the city as well as the actions of the state. The mixture of official and everyday material did not appear to trouble contemporary readers, who treated both as part of the public record. The presence of such material also implies that the Acta were read aloud and discussed. Even those unable to read would have encountered their contents indirectly, through public recitation or private conversation. The Acta thus contributed to a shared awareness of events, even when access to the written text was limited. ### When Silence in the Record Mattered Ancient authors reveal that readers expected the Acta to provide detailed accounts of public and private affairs. Tacitus’ use of the Acta illustrates this expectation. In his discussion of the funeral of Germanicus, he remarks on what he did not find recorded. While other members of the imperial family were named, he notes the absence of any mention of Germanicus’ mother. This silence is itself significant. Tacitus’ search implies that the Acta were assumed to contain such information and that omissions were meaningful. The Acta were therefore not only a source of information but also a reference point against which absence could be measured. Their authority rested not on completeness alone, but on the expectation that they would normally record matters of public visibility. ### Being Seen – or Not – by the Public Ancient writers were aware that the Acta were not neutral records. Livy refers to early doubts about official documentation, and Tacitus alludes to selective reporting and manipulation. Despite this awareness, the Acta continued to be consulted and cited. Their authority did not depend on unquestioned accuracy but on their status as an official source. Readers approached them with a degree of caution, yet still regarded them as an essential repository of public information. The Acta occupied a space between record and representation, where trust was negotiated rather than assumed. ### Why the Acta Did Not Last There is no evidence that the Acta Diurna survived beyond the administrative and social conditions that sustained them. They depended on urban literacy, bureaucratic continuity, and the concentration of authority in Rome. As these conditions weakened, so too did the mechanisms that supported daily public records. No proof exists for their continuation into late antiquity in a recognisable form. Their disappearance appears to coincide with broader changes in governance, communication, and record-keeping, rather than with any formal abolition. *("Ancient Rome's Daily Gazette' by C.A Giffard)* --- The Acta Diurna did not survive because they were innovative, nor because they were comprehensive. They endured for as long as the administrative, social, and urban conditions that sustained them remained intact. When those conditions changed, the daily record faded—not abruptly, but as part of a broader transformation in how information was produced, displayed, and controlled. ### To Adopt or Not to Adopt? Rome Took a Clear Position URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/to-adopt-or-not-to-adopt-rome-took-a-clear-position/ Last updated: 2026-01-15T19:40:05.000Z In Roman society, family was not only a matter of affection or descent. It was a legal structure tied to property, memory, religious duty, and public standing. When that structure was threatened – by the absence of an heir, the extinction of a name, or the risk of a household ending – Romans did not leave the outcome to chance. They turned instead to a formal solution, one that could redefine identity, rewrite lineage, and secure continuity across generations. ### A Different Starting Point In the modern Western world, adoption is usually understood as a response to the needs of children. It is commonly framed as a way for adults who wish to raise children to provide care for those who cannot remain with their birth families. Over time, changing attitudes toward single parenthood and family support have reduced the number of children available for adoption, while international adoption has raised complex questions about inequality, displacement, and power. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) operated within a very different set of conditions. Family life unfolded in a high-mortality environment, where childhood illness, maternal death, and the early loss of parents were common. Even among the [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/), not all children survived to adulthood. Large families did not guarantee continuity, and the survival of heirs could not be assumed. Roman households were also shaped by sharp social hierarchies and the widespread presence of enslaved labour. Child-rearing was often delegated to wet nurses and household staff, which could distance parents from early upbringing. At the same time, exposure and abandonment were accepted practices, indicating that not all children were regarded as equally worth raising. Decisions about whether a child would be reared at all could be influenced by legitimacy, health, or family circumstance. These realities placed continuity under constant pressure, particularly among the elite. Childlessness, repeated loss, and fragile family lines were persistent problems. In this context, adoption did not function as a substitute for parenthood in an emotional sense. It functioned as a legal and social mechanism for survival: a way to secure heirs, preserve names, and maintain households when birth alone failed to do so. Roman family life was also marked by unequal power within the household. Male authority over family structure was extensive, while female perspectives are largely absent from the surviving record. Long periods of male absence due to military or administrative service further shaped family dynamics. Adoption appears most frequently in situations where a man had outlived one or more partners and faced the prospect of his household ending without succession. ![Children playing with nuts. Marble panel from a sarcophagus, Roman artwork, 3rd century CE. From Vigna Emendola on the Via Appia.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Sarcophagus-depicting-children-at-playjpg--1-.jpg) Children playing with nuts. Marble panel from a sarcophagus, Roman artwork, 3rd century CE. From Vigna Emendola on the Via Appia. Public domain Seen against this background, Roman adoption was not an act of rescue or sentiment. It was a calculated response to demographic risk, mortality, and the need for continuity in a society where family survival could never be taken for granted. ### Was adoption common in Rome? It is difficult to measure how widespread adoption was at [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) with precision. Most estimates are based on personal names, since adoption often left traces in nomenclature. Roman naming practices, however, were flexible, and changes that appear to reflect adoption can sometimes be explained in other ways. For this reason, numerical figures can only be approximate. What the available evidence does indicate is that adoption occurred with some regularity among elite groups. Studies focusing on office-holders suggest that a measurable minority had entered their families through adoption. The proportions vary by context, but they consistently appear in environments where inheritance, office, and family continuity carried particular weight. These figures are drawn from groups that are both well documented and especially sensitive to succession. They reflect situations in which the absence of a male heir created practical problems that required resolution. The evidence also shows that adoption was employed in circumstances extending beyond private family need, including cases where political or social considerations were involved. ### Continuity, Inheritance, and Legal Solutions In Roman society, adoption was closely tied to the need for continuity within the family. This involved not only the transmission of property, but also the preservation of family rites and obligations. A household without legitimate descendants faced both material and symbolic disruption. In such cases, adoption offered a means of creating an heir where birth had failed to do so. A Roman without legitimate children could adopt a son who was still under paternal authority in another household, or bring under his power a man who was legally independent. These mechanisms allowed a family line to continue despite the absence of natural offspring. While the original motivations behind adoption—whether religious or economic—cannot be securely identified, the surviving evidence shows that adoption was used repeatedly and in a structured manner. In the late Republic and early [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), inheritance considerations appear prominently in the cases that are best documented, alongside an increase in testamentary arrangements. During the Classical period, the legal recognition of children born outside [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/) was extremely limited. Legitimation, understood as the acquisition of paternal authority over such children, was largely unavailable. In general, natural children could not be adopted. A narrow exception existed for men without other children under their authority, who could incorporate certain illegitimate children through specific legal procedures, provided those children were freeborn or freed and met additional conditions. Even so, this practice does not appear to have been widespread, and adoption more often involved individuals of equivalent social standing. ![Inscription compelling all young couples marrying in Ostia to worship the representations of Concord, Antoninus Pius and Faustina Major.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/inscription-of-newlyweds-in-ostia--1-.jpg) Inscription compelling all young couples marrying in Ostia to worship the representations of Concord, Antoninus Pius and Faustina Major. Public domain Restrictions on legitimate marriage further shaped the pool of potential heirs. Certain groups, including [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/) for much of the imperial period, were barred from contracting legal marriages. As a result, children born from concubinage or similar arrangements were excluded from their father’s family unless special legal measures were later introduced. From the fourth century onward, new forms of legitimation emerged under imperial legislation. These allowed children born from concubinage to be brought under paternal authority in specific circumstances, usually through the subsequent marriage of their parents or by direct imperial approval. Additional provisions linked legitimation to civic obligations, enabling certain children to inherit as legitimate if they entered municipal office. These measures were subject to restrictions and did not apply in cases where marriage had been prohibited at the time of conception. Over time, the legal framework governing adoption and legitimation continued to change. Adoption remained a formal legal act, but its central role within Roman law diminished in the post-Classical period. Adjustments allowed for the adoption of [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) and, eventually, for women themselves to adopt, as adoption no longer automatically entailed the creation of paternal authority. Despite these changes, certain formal requirements, including age thresholds and generational distance between adopter and adoptee, were retained. ### Breaking the Father’s Power For the earliest phases of Roman history, the structure of the family can only be glimpsed indirectly. No contemporary sources survive, and later authors already stood at a considerable distance from the practices they described. By the late Republic and early [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/), however, one early legal text had acquired particular importance for understanding personal status within the Roman household: a provision of the [Twelve Tables](https://romanempiretimes.com/foundations-of-justice-romes-twelve-tables/) concerning the release of a son from paternal authority. Table IV.2 states: > si pater filium ter venum duit, filius a patre liber esto. > If a father gives his son in sale three times, let the son be free from his father. This provision defines the conditions under which *patria potestas*—the father’s legal power over his son—could be broken. Whether the phrase refers to a literal sale or to repeated hiring out for labour has been debated, but its significance lies less in the mechanism than in the principle it establishes. A son could, under specific circumstances, be removed from his father’s authority and placed in a new legal position. By the second century CE, this procedure was understood as a necessary preliminary to adoption. The jurist Gaius describes the process as a formal sequence of acts designed to dissolve one paternal bond before another could be created: > “Furthermore, parents also stop having under their power children given in adoption. Indeed for a son, supposing he is given in adoption, three mancipations and two intervening manumissions accordingly occur … when a father releases him from power in order to make him legally independent (sui iuris).” (Gaius, Institutes) The legal writers focus entirely on procedure. They explain how paternal power was transferred, but not why the parties involved sought adoption in any given case. A more interpretative perspective appears in the Augustan period, when Dionysius of Halicarnassus discussed the same rule while reflecting on [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/)’s early laws. Treating the provision as a genuine sale of sons, he remarked on the extent of paternal authority in Roman custom: > “He even authorised the father to make money from his son, up to a third sale … giving greater power to the father over his son than to a master over his slaves.” (Roman Antiquities) ![The beginning of Lampugnino Birago’s Latin translation of the „Roman Antiquities“ in the dedication copy for Pope Paul II, the manuscript Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Dionysius-of-Halicarnassus--Antiquitates-Romanae--Latin---1-.jpg) The beginning of Lampugnino Birago’s Latin translation of the „Roman Antiquities“ in the dedication copy for Pope Paul II, the manuscript Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Public domain Dionysius associated this rule with [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s earliest lawgivers and saw it as evidence of Roman severity when compared with Greek practice. He also noted a later restriction attributed to Numa, under which a father who had arranged a lawful marriage for his son would lose the right to sell him. His account reflects an Augustan attempt to reconcile early Roman law with contemporary moral sensibilities. Whatever its original social context, by the historical period adoption functioned primarily as a legal mechanism affecting inheritance. Once adopted, a son stood in the same legal position as a natural child within his new household. He lost claims in his family of origin and acquired those of a legitimate descendant in the adoptive family. In financial terms, his position was equally constrained: adoptive and natural sons alike remained subject to the extensive control imposed by patria potestas. Roman law distinguished between two forms of adoption based on the legal status of the individual concerned. One applied to those already under paternal power; the other to those who were legally independent. Both required formal enactment and public recognition. Emancipation and adoption were thus closely linked from an early stage, and by the time of the Twelve Tables, the legal foundations for both procedures were already in place. ### Who Was Allowed to Adopt Roman adoption was tightly constrained by legal status. Because adoption placed the adoptee under the patria potestas of the adopting father, only a man who already possessed that authority could adopt. A son still under his own father’s power was therefore ineligible. This restriction shaped practice in noticeable ways. One solution frequently attested in the legal sources was the adoption of a grandson rather than a son. In such cases, a grandfather could establish an heir on behalf of a childless son while remaining within the limits of the law. This arrangement, however, required careful handling. The consent of the son was necessary before a grandson could be adopted into the family. Without it, the legal position of the child would be ambiguous. Even when consent was given, adoption did not automatically resolve all questions of succession. A grandson adopted in this way did not inherit directly from the grandfather, since on the grandfather’s death he would fall back under the authority of his natural father. The procedure appears designed to secure continuity across generations rather than to bypass the intermediate heir. Roman law also imposed age requirements intended to imitate the natural order of parenthood. The adopter was expected to be significantly older than the adoptee, with an eighteen-year gap treated as appropriate. This principle was already recognised in the late Republic and continued to be discussed in later legal writing. Although enforcement could be uneven—particularly in politically sensitive cases—the expectation that adoption should resemble biological succession remained influential. Further refinements addressed cases that appeared to strain this principle. [An older man](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-elderly-in-ancient-rome-voices-of-respect-and-fear/) was not to be adopted by a younger one, and a man was discouraged from adopting multiple individuals without a clear justification. In cases of adrogation, where a legally independent person was taken under paternal authority, additional scrutiny applied. A man below a certain age was expected to attempt to produce his own heirs unless a specific impediment existed. Exceptions could be made, especially where prior family ties were involved. These rules reflect an effort to regulate adoption so that it preserved the appearance of natural family order while serving legal and social needs. The legal authorities focused on eligibility, consent, age, and succession, treating adoption not as a private arrangement but as a formal reconfiguration of family structure that required public legitimacy. ### Why Women Could Not Normally Adopt In Roman law, adoption depended on the possession of patria potestas. Because women did not hold this authority, they were in principle excluded from both forms of adoption, *adoptio* and *adrogatio*. Adoption was not conceived as a joint decision by a married couple. A woman, unless she was in a manus marriage, did not belong legally to the same familia as her children and exercised no formal authority over them. Marriage itself was not a requirement for adoption, and many adoptions appear to have taken place in households without a wife, whether through widowhood or lifelong bachelorhood. In this sense, adoption could function as an alternative to marriage rather than an extension of it. The exclusion of women was reinforced by procedure. Adrogatio was carried out in the *comitia curiata*, a political assembly in which women could not participate. As a result, female perspectives played no formal role in the selection of adoptees. Adoption had no direct legal implications for a wife, a point underscored by juristic discussions of the adoptee’s position within the household. Paulus addresses this explicitly when explaining the legal relationships created by adoption: > “A person given in adoption becomes cognate to everyone to whom he becomes agnate… adoption does not create the tie of blood, but the tie of agnation. Hence if I adopt a son, my wife is not in the place of mother to him… but the man whom I adopt does become brother to my daughter… and of course the two are not allowed to marry.” This passage clarifies that adoption established agnatic, not biological, relationships. The adoptee entered the adopter’s family structure, but not the kinship network of the adopter’s wife. Some cases from the Republic and early [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/) suggest ways in which women could influence succession indirectly. Testamentary arrangements allowed women to require heirs to assume their name, producing effects similar to adoption without formally creating patria potestas. These cases are best understood as testamentary solutions rather than true adoptions. ![Codex Justiniani](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Justinian-code--1-.jpg) Codex Justiniani. Credits: Yale Law Library, CC BY 2.0 Imperial legislation introduced limited exceptions. A constitution of [Diocletian](https://romanempiretimes.com/diocletian-architect-of-the-roman-empires-renewal/) from 291 CE records a highly specific exemption granted to a woman seeking to incorporate her stepson after the loss of her own children: > “It is certain that a woman, who does not even have her own sons in her power, cannot adrogate… we permit you to have him, just as if he were born from you, as a token of a natural and legitimate son.” This case was treated as exceptional rather than normative. Later juristic opinion confirms that female adoption required direct imperial authorisation: > “Since a woman cannot adopt a son without an order from the emperor…” The general prohibition remained in force until the time of [Justinian](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-plague-of-justinian-when-death-came-to-constantinople/), who reiterated the ban while allowing petitions based on exceptional circumstances, including the loss of children. Evidence from late Roman Egypt suggests that private arrangements sometimes bypassed formal law, reflecting a practical recognition of maternal authority, particularly among widows. Testamentary adoption remained the most viable route for women to shape succession, though it did not produce the same legal effects as adoption during life. ### Two Ways to Create a Son Roman law recognised two distinct forms of adoption, depending on whether the act took place in a public or private setting. Our knowledge of these procedures comes largely from imperial-era legal and antiquarian sources, which describe practices already regarded as traditional. Although the evidence is fragmentary, it allows a clear distinction between adoptio and adrogatio, each governed by different legal requirements. Aulus Gellius offers the most complete surviving explanation of the two procedures: > “When strangers are taken into another family and into the position of children, this occurs either through the praetor or through the people. When it happens through the praetor it is said to be adoptatio, when through the people adrogatio…” In *adoptio*, the person being adopted was already under the *patria potestas* of another father. The procedure required the dissolution of that authority and the formal transfer of power to the adopter, carried out before a magistrate. This was a private act in the sense that it did not involve legislation, though it remained a public legal process. Its structure closely resembled emancipation, except that the final release was omitted, leaving the adoptee under the control of the new paterfamilias. *Adrogatio*, by contrast, applied only to individuals who were legally independent (*sui iuris*) and thus heads of their own households. Because this procedure extinguished one family in order to preserve another, it required public approval. It was carried out before the *comitia curiata,* under the supervision of the pontiffs, and involved a formal inquiry into the circumstances of the adoption. Gellius records the formula of the popular mandate, which explicitly transferred full paternal authority: > “Will you request and command that Lucius Valerius should be son to Lucius Titius… and that he should have power of life and death over him, as a father has over his son.” This language reflects the legal comprehensiveness of paternal power rather than its everyday application. The procedure also involved the renunciation of the adoptee’s former family rites, a step that made adrogation both a legal and religious act. The pontiffs were required to examine several factors before approving an adrogation. These included the adopter’s age and capacity to produce natural heirs, the motives behind the adoption, and the relative status of the parties involved. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)’s discussion of the attempted adoption of Clodius illustrates how these criteria could become points of contention, especially when political interests were at stake. Concerns extended not only to the extinction of the adoptee’s family rites but also to the potential harm to his material interests. Over time, the administration of adrogation changed. While the comitia curiata continued to exist into the imperial period, its role gradually diminished. By the second century CE, adrogation by imperial rescript is attested, with the emperor assuming functions formerly exercised by the pontiffs. The convenience of this procedure appears to have led to the gradual abandonment of popular adrogation at Rome, though the precise point at which this occurred remains uncertain. Private adoption remained more flexible but was still constrained by legal form. Because the adoptee remained under paternal power, the arrangement was primarily negotiated between senior male members of different households. Financial considerations were central, but short-term political and social interests could also shape decisions. Such motives are difficult to trace, as they rarely surface in surviving legal texts. Alongside these procedures stood the phenomenon often described as testamentary adoption. Ancient authors use the language of adoption in such cases, but modern analysis suggests that most involved no more than the appointment of an heir combined with the instruction to assume the testator’s name. Only in exceptional circumstances—most notably the case of [Octavian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) – was a formal adrogation carried out after death, and even then under unusual political conditions. Ancient writers themselves did not consistently distinguish between these different mechanisms. Terms such as adsciscere, in familiam transire, or nomen adsumere could be used to describe a range of arrangements with very different legal effects. This ambiguity reflects a broader Roman tendency to focus less on procedural distinctions than on the visible outcome: the transformation of name, status, and family affiliation. ### Adoption, Status, and Elite Continuity Among Rome’s elite, adoption served purposes that remained broadly consistent from the late Republic into the early [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-roman-empire-a-brief-history/). Political standing and inheritance lay at the centre of these arrangements. For senators and their families, success was measured through participation in public life, especially advancement along the cursus honorum, military distinction, and the accumulation of honour that accompanied office-holding. Wealth mattered not simply as property, but as a resource that enabled political action and social visibility. Although Roman elites did not generally treat landed property as an untouchable ancestral possession in the manner of later aristocracies, inheritance still conferred significant power. Control over wealth included the ability to alienate property and to determine succession, and adoption offered a means of directing both. Where natural succession was uncertain or impossible, adoption provided a practical response to demographic vulnerability. ![During his reign the Emperor Hadrian (figure right) adopted Antoninus Pius (centre left) and he in turn adopted the 17 year old Marcus Aurelius (left) and the 8 year-old Lucius Verus. A head stares from behind Hadrian’s left shoulder, presumably representing the guardian spirit of Aelius Verus, the late father of Lucius. The sacrifice of a bull is being offered to the gods.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Marcus-Aurelius--Antoninus-Pius--small-Lucius-Verus-and-Hadrian--a-scen-of-a-cycle_-Adoption----of-the-Parthian-frieze-from-Ephesus--the-Parthian-Monument-reliefs--post-169-AD--Ephesos-Museum-Vienn--1-.jpg) During his reign the Emperor Hadrian (figure right) adopted Antoninus Pius (centre left) and he in turn adopted the 17 year old Marcus Aurelius (left) and the 8 year-old Lucius Verus. A head stares from behind Hadrian’s left shoulder, presumably representing the guardian spirit of Aelius Verus, the late father of Lucius. The sacrifice of a bull is being offered to the gods. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 Elite adoption often favoured close relatives or candidates of comparable rank. This increased the likelihood that the adoptee would share the values, ambitions, and expectations of the group. The history of the Scipionic family illustrates how children could be redistributed among branches of a wider kin group to stabilise succession. Such strategies did not always produce the intended outcome. In one prominent case, a father who produced several sons nevertheless saw his surviving heirs absorbed into other families through adoption. Literary sources rarely describe adoption from the perspective of the adoptee. This may reflect the fact that Roman adoption usually involved individuals of similar status, so the social transition was less dramatic than might be assumed. Where evidence does survive, it suggests that adoption could be integrated into existing family relationships rather than replacing them entirely. A revealing case appears in the writings of [Quintilian](https://romanempiretimes.com/quintilian-a-roman-theory-of-education-that-left-its-mark-from-antiquity-onwards/). In the preface to Book 6 of the Institutio Oratoria, he mourns the death of his young sons and reflects on the importance of the elder as his hope for old age. Yet this same child had recently been adopted by a consular figure, with a marriage into a praetorian family already envisaged: > “Have I lost you when you have moved closer to expectations of every distinction through your recent adoption by a consular, destined to be son-in-law to a praetorian uncle…?” The passage shows adoption operating as a mechanism of advancement. The child remained connected to his natal family while gaining a second paternal figure and access to higher social networks. In Quintilian’s case, adoption appears as one of several strategies employed to secure his son’s future, alongside education and arranged marriage. The arrangement also reflects Quintilian’s own concerns about mortality and status, as well as his reliance on extended family networks following the early death of his wife. Such cases are particularly visible among provincials who rose to prominence under the Empire. For members of this group, adoption could function as a corrective to misfortune or limited origins, a way to realign family prospects with new ambitions. The association between adoption and succession is explicit in contemporary writing, where adoption is described as a means of repairing one’s position in life. Under the Empire, the broader significance of elite adoption shifted. Senatorial adoptions continued, but their political impact was increasingly shaped by imperial patronage. Attention turned toward the imperial household itself. Early imperial adoptions initially retained the appearance of private family arrangements, but their wider implications were quickly recognised. After the end of the Julio-Claudian line, adoption became an overt instrument of designation, and its political function came to dominate all other considerations. *(“Adoption in the Roman world” by Hugh Lindsay)* --- Roman adoption was less a private choice than a legal instrument that could redirect inheritance, redefine kinship, and keep a household intact. It operated through formal rules, public procedures, and assumptions about authority that shaped who could adopt, who could be adopted, and what changed as a result. In that sense, the Roman answer was not sentimental—it was structural. ### Contrary to What you Think, Not all Romans Spoke Latin. Here's What they Actually Spoke. URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/contrary-to-what-you-think-not-all-romans-spoke-latin-heres-what-they-actually-spoke/ Last updated: 2026-01-14T18:46:09.000Z Rome governed through roads, laws, and armies—but daily life unfolded through something far less uniform. Across cities, villages, camps, and marketplaces, people negotiated, argued, prayed, joked, and commanded in ways that were instantly understood by those around them, yet unfamiliar to outsiders. This constant exchange shaped how authority was exercised, how communities formed, and how the Empire functioned at its most ordinary level. To understand Rome as it was lived, it helps to listen first—not to what was written, but to what was spoken. ### What People Actually Spoke in the Roman Empire Across the Roman world, daily communication rarely took place in a single language. Movement was constant: [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/) were transferred, merchants travelled, [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) were relocated, and officials circulated between provinces. As a result, most communities were exposed to more than one language, and many people developed at least a functional ability to operate across linguistic boundaries. There was no attempt by Roman authorities to enforce a single spoken language. Latin carried legal and administrative authority, but its spread depended largely on context and convenience rather than obligation. In the eastern Mediterranean, Greek already functioned as a shared language of communication and continued to do so under Roman rule. Latin remained present in official settings, but it did not displace Greek in everyday life. Competence in more than one language varied widely. Some individuals were fluent, while others used a second language only in limited and familiar situations. Full mastery was not required. Communication depended on practical ability rather than formal correctness, especially in settings such as markets, military camps, and administrative exchanges. Partial bilingualism was sufficient for daily needs. ![Records of various inscriptions and gladiator graffiti in Garrucci's book "Graffiti of Pompeii. Inscriptions and engravings traced with a stylus", 1856 - 2nd edition](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/roman-inscription.jpg) Records of various inscriptions and gladiator graffiti in Garrucci's book "Graffiti of Pompeii. Inscriptions and engravings traced with a stylus", 1856 - 2nd edition. Public domain Language choice was shaped by situation and audience. Different languages carried different social meanings, and speakers adjusted accordingly. Using Latin could signal authority or official status; using a local language could signal familiarity or accommodation. Switching between languages was common and often deliberate, reflecting social awareness rather than confusion. Multilingual practice was not confined to educated elites. Evidence from inscriptions, private documents, and informal writing shows that ordinary people also navigated linguistic diversity. Shopkeepers, craftsmen, soldiers, and local officials operated in environments where more than one language was present, and their communication reflects this flexibility. Contact between languages influenced how Latin itself was spoken. As Latin circulated through different regions, it absorbed local features and developed distinct regional forms. Long before later linguistic divisions became visible, spoken Latin already varied considerably from place to place, shaped by the languages alongside which it was used. The [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/) functioned through this adaptability. Communication did not depend on uniform speech, but on shared expectations and the ability to make oneself understood. Linguistic diversity was not an obstacle to cohesion; it was a normal condition of life within an empire that spanned continents. *(“Bilingualism and the Latin language” by J.N. Adams)* ### What Multilingualism Looked Like in Practice Language [diversity](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/) in the Roman world was not an abstract condition. It was visible in stone, metal, and paint—on tombstones, public buildings, and everyday objects. In many places, people did not choose one language over another. They used several at once, each serving a different purpose. One striking example comes from northern [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-leave-britain/). Near a Roman fort, a tombstone was erected for a woman named Regina. The inscription speaks in two voices. One is in Latin, identifying her status and social ties. The other is written in Palmyrene, a form of Aramaic associated with Syria. The languages do not simply repeat one another. Each carries a different emotional and cultural weight. Latin communicates status to the local and imperial audience. Palmyrene expresses personal identity and grief, even though very few people nearby could read it. The choice to include it was symbolic, not practical. ![Regina's Tombstone: a relief portrait with inscriptions in Latin and Palmyrene](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/regina-tombstone-1.jpg) Regina's Tombstone: a relief portrait with inscriptions in Latin and Palmyrene. Credits: researchgate.net, CC BY 4.0 Elsewhere, multilingualism appeared in public spaces. In North Africa, buildings were sometimes marked with inscriptions in Latin and Punic, and occasionally Greek as well. These were not translations for the illiterate. They addressed different groups who shared the same space. Latin spoke to imperial authority; Punic to local tradition; Greek to wider Mediterranean culture. The presence of multiple languages on the same monument reflects coexistence, not transition. Multilingual practice was not limited to formal inscriptions. Some texts mix languages so closely that no single one clearly dominates. Others are written in one language but use the script of another. A Latin message carved in Greek letters, for example, could signal the writer’s limited literacy, their cultural background, or the expectations of the intended audience. Script itself carried meaning. Seeing unfamiliar letters was enough to mark difference, even for those who could not read them. Names provide another window into this world. Individuals often bore names that could function in more than one language, or names adapted to different contexts. A person might be known one way at home and another in official settings. These choices were not accidental. They allowed people to move between communities without fully surrendering one identity to another. What all these cases show is that language in the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) was situational. People adjusted how they wrote and what they displayed depending on who they were addressing. Multilingualism was not a temporary stage on the way to uniformity. It was a stable condition, sustained over generations, and embedded in [daily life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/). Language did not merely transmit information. It signalled belonging, difference, memory, and power. In a world where people moved constantly and communities overlapped, speaking—or carving—more than one language was not a complication. It was a solution. *(“Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman worlds” Edited by Alex Mullen and Patrick James)* ### When Writing No Longer Matched Speech For much of Roman history, people did not experience a sharp divide between what they spoke and what they wrote. Speech changed gradually, as all spoken language does, while spelling remained largely fixed. As a result, the written forms of Latin increasingly failed to reflect everyday pronunciation—but this was not seen as a problem. Writing was a learned skill, governed by convention, not a mirror of speech. This gap between speech and writing widened over time. Words were pronounced differently in different regions, yet continued to be written according to inherited norms. Someone who spelled carefully was not necessarily speaking in an old-fashioned way; they were simply following the only accepted method of writing. Accuracy on the page reveals nothing certain about how a person sounded in conversation. For a long time, people did not think in terms of “Latin” versus “Romance” as separate languages. Instead, they navigated different registers of the same linguistic world. Formal writing followed traditional models; informal writing, when it survived at all, often departed from them. [Graffiti](https://romanempiretimes.com/whispers-on-the-walls-graffiti-as-a-voice-of-ancient-rome/), private notes, and practical documents show spelling that bends toward speech, while official texts remain conservative. This flexibility was widely understood. When accuracy and authority mattered, traditional spelling was used. When clarity and immediacy mattered—especially for material intended to be read aloud—writers were willing to relax those norms. The goal was intelligibility, not correctness. ![Electoral registration at the House of Julius Polybius on the Via dei Abundance in Pompeii. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/electoral-propaganda-graffiti-in-pompeii.jpg) Electoral registration at the House of Julius Polybius on the Via dei Abundance in Pompeii Public domain Only much later did people begin to think of these differences as evidence of separate languages. That shift required not just changes in speech, but the establishment of competing writing systems, each taught and learned separately. Before that moment, variation was experienced as a matter of style, audience, and purpose—not as a boundary between languages. *(“Speaking, reading and writing late Latin and early Romance” by Roger Wright)* ### Latin and Greek as Languages of Power By the early [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/), language use was no longer a simple matter of conquest. Latin functioned as the language of Roman authority, law, and administration, but it was not enforced with rigid uniformity. In practice, Roman officials adapted to local realities. In the eastern provinces, Greek remained deeply entrenched, and [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) recognized that attempting to replace it would be impractical. As a result, Greek was effectively accepted as a parallel administrative language in the East. Official announcements were often issued in both Latin and Greek. Legal texts, proclamations, and correspondence circulated in bilingual form, with Greek versions produced by Roman clerks rather than local translators. These translations closely mirrored Latin phrasing, reflecting Roman priorities rather than Greek literary style. The goal was clarity and control, not cultural accommodation. At the same time, Latin retained symbolic weight. Even where Greek was dominant, Roman authority continued to present itself through Latin formulas, especially in legal and military contexts. The language of power was visible even when it was not widely spoken. ### Where Latin Was Required—and Where It Was Not Latin knowledge was not a universal requirement for Roman citizenship. Entire communities could be enfranchised without any expectation of linguistic assimilation. However, practical limits quickly emerged. Certain rights and activities—writing wills, engaging in litigation, holding office, or entering imperial service—required competence in Latin because Roman law operated exclusively in that language. ![Graffiti with the inscription "Julia and Petronia" from the Roman villa of Bruckneudorf (detail).](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/pompeii-graffiti--1-.jpg) Graffiti with the inscription "Julia and Petronia" from the Roman villa of Bruckneudorf (detail). Credits: Wolfgang Sauber, CC BY 4.0\. This created a clear distinction between formal status and functional participation. One could be Roman without speaking Latin, but advancement within the imperial system increasingly depended on it. Latin became indispensable not because it was imposed, but because it was unavoidable in key areas of public life. In the East, this tension remained unresolved. Greek continued to dominate urban culture, education, and everyday communication. Latin appeared mainly in administrative islands: the army, imperial courts, and certain legal institutions. Outside those spaces, it rarely displaced local speech. ### The Limits of Latinization in the East Unlike the western provinces, the eastern Mediterranean was never fully Latinized. Greek already functioned as a shared language across vast regions long before Roman rule, supported by cities, schools, libraries, and literary traditions. Roman conquest did not dismantle this system. Instead, it largely operated alongside it. In Egypt, Greek retained official status for centuries after Roman annexation, while the native Egyptian language continued among the rural population. Latin entered the region late and never replaced either language in daily use. Similar patterns appeared elsewhere in the East: Latin existed, but mostly at the margins. Even Roman colonists sent eastward often became culturally Hellenized rather than spreading Latin to surrounding populations. Trade hubs, ports, and mixed cities remained Greek-speaking environments, with Latin confined to specific institutional roles. Religion did little to change this balance. Early Christianity in the East operated primarily in Greek, and only later did Latin gain prominence in religious contexts—and mainly in the West. ### A Divided Empire of Languages Over time, the Roman world settled into a linguistic division that reflected its geography. The western provinces became increasingly Latin-speaking, eventually producing the Romance languages. The eastern provinces remained predominantly Greek-speaking, despite centuries of Roman rule. This was not the result of failure, but of accommodation. Roman governance proved flexible enough to function without linguistic uniformity. Authority did not depend on erasing local languages, but on ensuring that Roman systems—law, taxation, military command—could operate where needed. By late antiquity, even the imperial capital reflected this division. Latin remained the language of the army and formal administration long after Greek became dominant in daily life. Attempts to maintain Latin as a living urban language in the East ultimately faltered, not through resistance, but through demographic and cultural realities. ### The Roman Language Balance The Roman Empire did not impose a single spoken language across its territories. Instead, it developed a layered linguistic system: Latin for law and power, Greek for culture and communication in the East, and countless local languages beneath them. This balance allowed Rome to govern vast and diverse populations without demanding uniform speech. In the end, neither Latin nor Greek achieved total dominance across the empire. Each prevailed in different regions, for different purposes, and among different communities. The Roman world was not monolingual—it was multilingual by design, sustained by pragmatism rather than ideology. *(“The Conflict of Languages in the Roman World” by Robert J. Bonner)* --- Rome never required its subjects to sound the same. Authority functioned through law, habit, and accommodation rather than linguistic uniformity. What held the empire together was not a shared tongue, but a shared ability to make oneself understood. ### Before Mondays Existed, Rome Had This URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/before-mondays-existed-rome-had-this/ Last updated: 2026-01-09T19:44:16.000Z Rome’s life did not unfold in a smooth, uninterrupted flow. It moved in intervals—predictable, recurring, and quietly authoritative. Certain days pulled people into the city; others sent them back to their fields, workshops, and obligations. This rhythm shaped when goods were sold, when news travelled, when crowds gathered, and when the state deliberately stood still. Long before the familiar week divided [time](https://romanempiretimes.com/marking-the-hours-the-roman-way-of-measuring-time/) into neat units, Romans organised their world according to a different cycle—one so embedded in daily life that it governed movement, labour, and expectation without ever needing explanation. ### Why Rome Needed Periodic Market-Days No aspect of the Roman economy depended more heavily on routine than local exchange. The movement of goods within short distances—often no more than a day’s walk—formed the backbone of economic life across the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/). Although rarely visible in literary sources and difficult to trace archaeologically, this circulation accounted for the majority of commercial activity. It sustained rural communities, connected villages to nearby towns, and ensured the flow of necessities that neither households nor estates could reliably produce on their own. Large areas of the countryside were too sparsely populated to support permanent commercial centres. In such regions, periodic gatherings emerged as a practical solution. Farmers assembled at known locations on fixed days to sell surplus produce and obtain items unavailable through subsistence farming alone. These temporary markets left little physical trace, yet their presence is implied by scattered [coin](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) finds, pottery fragments, and the clustering of minor objects at crossroads and open sites. For rural populations, such occasions provided modest dietary variety, access to tools and materials such as iron and [salt](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/), and occasional minor luxuries. In some agricultural regions, local exchange was not merely useful but indispensable. Areas specialising in a single crop—olive cultivation in parts of Spain, Syria, or North Africa—could not sustain life without regular opportunities to trade. Here, market-days ensured survival. Landowners sometimes facilitated exchange by opening their estates on fixed dates, allowing tenants and traders to gather within villa courtyards equipped with storage spaces, stables, and shelter. Elsewhere, fairs developed on open ground, gradually acquiring a degree of permanence through repeated use. ![ Ancient Roman market place (Macellum) and so-called Serapis temple, Pozzuoli, Campania, Italy.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Ancient-Roman-market-place-and-Serapis-temple-panorama.-Pozzuoli-Campania-Italy.-jpg--1--1.jpg) Ancient Roman market place (Macellum) and so-called Serapis temple, Pozzuoli, Campania, Italy. Photo credits: Norbert Nagel, CC BY-SA 3.0 These gatherings were not informal or spontaneous. The right to establish a market carried legal and economic weight and required official approval. Market-days generated tolls, attracted crowds, and redirected trade flows, sometimes to the disadvantage of neighbouring centres. For this reason, Roman authorities closely regulated their creation and timing, seeking to prevent excessive competition and to preserve order within local commercial networks. Markets also gravitated toward existing settlements. Roadside clusters of workshops and small shops functioned as points of manufacture and retail, while villages with only a few hundred inhabitants could host surprisingly large crowds on designated days. Epigraphic evidence reveals itinerant traders moving from one market to another, carefully coordinating their routes to coincide with scheduled gatherings. The success of these circuits depended on predictable timing. Markets were arranged so that traders could move efficiently between them without overlap, ensuring that goods, people, and profit circulated continuously rather than concentrating in a single location. Religious observance further reinforced this system. Festivals and sacred days drew crowds to temples and shrines, creating ideal conditions for exchange. Across both eastern and western provinces, holy days regularly doubled as market-days. Deities associated with trade were thanked for profits earned at these gatherings, while sanctuaries themselves became commercial hubs, combining worship, sales, accommodation, and storage within the same precincts. In this way, economic activity, ritual practice, and social life converged. Taken together, these patterns reveal a world in which exchange depended not on constant access to markets, but on carefully timed concentration. Periodic market-days brought together rural producers, urban consumers, and itinerant merchants in numbers large enough to make trade viable. Without such rhythm, much of the Roman economy—especially beyond major cities—could not function at all. *("Market-Days in the Roman Empire" by Ramsay MacMullen)* ### When the Market Day Had to Move The eight-day market cycle was designed to be regular, but it was not untouchable. Under certain circumstances, Roman authorities were willing to intervene—especially when religious concerns came into play. Ancient writers make clear that market-days were not adjusted lightly. When they were, it was usually to avoid an ill-omened coincidence rather than for administrative convenience. One recurring problem concerned leap years. The Roman calendar periodically inserted an extra day, creating a brief disruption in the normal rhythm of time. This raised a practical question: should the market cycle absorb the extra day, or should it skip it? The answer mattered, because the *nundinae* were part of a wider network of markets held in different towns on different days. A change in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) could ripple outward, affecting traders, schedules, and expectations far beyond the city itself. Ancient evidence suggests that Roman officials did not aim to “correct” the cycle mathematically. Instead, they acted pragmatically. When a market-day threatened to fall on a date regarded as religiously dangerous, it could be shifted. [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) reports such a case, noting that a Roman market-day was moved explicitly because of religious rites. This was not a technical correction but a deliberate avoidance. The key religious factor appears to have been the *Regifugium*, a festival associated with the symbolic withdrawal of royal authority and widely regarded as ill-omened. Over time, the first day of the leap-year pair—the *biduum*—came to inherit this negative character. Holding a market on that day was increasingly seen as inappropriate. Rather than abolishing the market or abandoning the cycle, officials simply moved the market-day to the following day in affected years. This solution reveals something important about how Romans understood time. The nundinae were expected to be predictable, but not at the expense of religious order. When calendar structure and ritual observance came into conflict, ritual took precedence. The market could wait a day. The omen could not. *("The Imperial Nundinal Cycle" by Chris Bennett)* If calendar rules shaped when markets could take place, individual decisions determined where they were held—and who controlled them. ![Fresco from the House of Julia Felix: sale of fabrics, pots and pans and bread in front of a colonnade.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Fresco-from-the-House-of-Julia-Felix-sale-of-fabrics--pots-and-pans-and-bread-in-front-of-a-colonnade_jpg-1-1.jpg) Fresco from the House of Julia Felix: sale of fabrics, pots and pans and bread in front of a colonnade. Photo credits: Phyrexian, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### A Senator’s Private Market and a City’s Objection Two letters in the fifth book of [Pliny the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/)’s Letters preserve a dispute that began as a request for a rural market and escalated into a question of status and leverage. As Pliny puts it: > “It was a small matter, but the beginning of a matter that was not” The issue was this: L. Bellicius Sollers, an ex-praetor, applied to the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) for permission to establish nundinae on one of his estates. Vicetia, a nearby North-Italian town, sent deputies to object. The case was initially adjourned, and Vicetia retained professional legal help—fees that Pliny reports as reaching 10,000 sesterces. When proceedings resumed, the imbalance between a municipal delegation and a senator became harder to ignore. Vicetia’s advocate withdrew, later claiming he had been warned that he was no longer facing an ordinary matter. Friends had reminded him that Sollers: > “was no longer contending about a market, but rather about his influence, reputation and honour” The Senate allowed the advocate to avoid the case on the condition that he repay the fees, and the wider fallout pushed the Senate toward tightening rules around fee-taking advocates—an aspect that interested Pliny particularly. Behind the legal drama sits a practical question: why would a powerful landowner want a periodic market on private property, and why would a town fight it? A rural nundinae could make exchange easier for the surrounding population, reducing the need to travel to the city for regular buying and selling. At the same time, such a market could strengthen the landlord’s local standing and deepen dependence on the estate, especially in landscapes dominated by tenant holdings rather than tightly controlled, self-sufficient villa production. For Vicetia, the risk was not sentimental. A nearby rural market threatened to redirect people, produce, and transactions away from the [city](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/)’s own market. That could mean weaker supply in the urban marketplace, higher prices, and the kind of tension municipal authorities were expected to avoid. It also threatened municipal income drawn from market activity—through taxes and other levies tied to circulation and exchange. Comparable evidence from elsewhere shows that authorities paid close attention to whether a newly requested market would “harm” existing schedules or reduce revenues “either for the city or for the most sacred treasury.” ![Cryptoporticus of an ancient Roman Domus in Vicetia, presently known as Vicenza](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/Criptoportico-romano-in-Vicenza--1--1.jpg) Cryptoporticus of an ancient Roman Domus in Vicetia, presently known as Vicenza. Photo credits: Piergiovanna Grossi, CC BY 4.0 The case also illustrates who held the decisive power. Applications for the *ius nundinarum* in Italy were handled at the centre, and the applicant in this case was not only a senator but one with substantial influence and support. A later assessment quoted in the chapter captures how uneven such contests could be: > “the senator could not help winning such an unfair contest” What emerges is a picture of the nundinae as more than a convenient meeting day. A market could reshape local circuits of supply, touch municipal finances, and expose the limits of urban leverage when elite private interest was involved. *("The nundinae of L. Bellicius Sollers," by L. de Ligt)* ### Living Inside the Roman Calendar Time is not just something that passes; it is something people learn to recognise, anticipate, and organise their lives around. Some days stand out, others fade into the background, but all of them begin somewhere, and together they form repeating sequences that give structure to human activity. Without beginnings, time would be shapeless; without repetition, it would be impossible to plan. What people call “time” is, in practice, a pattern. For the Romans, this pattern was neither simple nor uniform. Their year was shaped by overlapping rhythms: fixed religious dates, recurring festivals, and the steady return of the market day every eighth day, regardless of how months were arranged. These cycles did not always align neatly, but that was precisely what gave [Roman time](https://romanempiretimes.com/marking-the-hours-the-roman-way-of-measuring-time/) its texture. Regularity offered reassurance, while irregular interruptions prevented life from becoming monotonous. The calendar balanced both. Nature itself provided some of this structure. The alternation of day and night, the movement of the sun and moon, and the turning of the seasons offered obvious points of reference. But human society added its own rhythms. Markets were held at fixed intervals; festivals marked moments of collective attention; legal and religious restrictions shaped what could or could not be done on certain days. In this way, social life imposed its own order on time. How early this system took shape is impossible to say. By the late Republic, Romans themselves no longer remembered its origins. Even the antiquarians of the first century BC were already dealing with traditions whose beginnings lay beyond reach. What we know comes largely from later writers who gathered fragments of earlier learning, sometimes faithfully, sometimes uncritically. Yet despite the uncertainty of the details, it is clear that both monthly religious dates and the regular market cycle were already established by the early Republic. ![Ancient Roman graffiti inscription from Pompeii. The text is a record of a nundinae, the Roman market day cycle. It lists days of the week and locations such as Pompeii, Nuceria, Cumae, and Rome.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/01/-Nundinae--1.jpg) Ancient Roman graffiti inscription from Pompeii. The text is a record of a **nundinae*, the Roman market day cycle. It lists days of the week and locations such as Pompeii, Nuceria, Cumae, and Rome. Public domain In its earliest form, this calendar was probably simple and spare. Over time, it accumulated additional layers of meaning and practice. Under the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/), a new rhythm began to appear alongside the old one — the seven-day week — which developed independently and eventually came to dominate everyday life. But before that transformation, Romans lived within an older framework, one that did not name every day individually. In the early Republic, only certain days were singled out by name. Some annual festivals were fixed and memorable, while each month was anchored by three key points: the Kalends, the Nones, and the [Ides](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-are-the-ides-of-march-why-are-they-important/). Rather than counting days forward from the past, Romans thought ahead toward the next significant moment. A date was not “the 10th” but “four days before the Ides.” Time was defined by what was coming, not what had already passed. This way of reckoning made sense in a world where months were once tied to the moon. The Kalends likely marked the appearance of the new moon, while the Ides were associated with the full moon. When the calendar was later adjusted to follow the solar year, these connections were lost, but the structure remained. The names endured even after their original meaning faded. What mattered was not [astronomical](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-astronomy-how-did-romans-see-the-planets/) precision but shared expectation. Certain days were sacred, others unsuitable for business, and still others associated with ill-omen. These distinctions were not obvious to everyone. For a long time, knowledge of which days were favourable or forbidden was controlled by priestly elites. Only when calendars were made public did this information become accessible to the wider population. Alongside these religious markers ran the most dependable rhythm of all: the market day. Every eighth day, work paused, families gathered, and people travelled to town to trade, exchange news, and take part in public life. This cycle cut across months and festivals alike. It was the one element of Roman time that remained steady no matter how the calendar shifted. Together, these overlapping patterns — religious dates, market days, and later the planetary week — formed the lived experience of time in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/). They shaped habits, expectations, and social behaviour long before they became objects of scholarly calculation. Long after the old system faded, traces of it survived in memory, custom, and the structure of later calendars. What remained most enduring was not the Roman way of counting days, but the human need for time to have shape, rhythm, and meaning. For centuries, the nundinae structured Roman life more reliably than months or numbered dates. They organised exchange, regulated movement, and shaped when people gathered, spoke, and waited. Long before Mondays existed, it was the market-day that gave Roman time its most familiar rhythm. ### Saturnalia: The Roman Festival that Inspired the Spirit of Christmas URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/saturnalia-roman-festival-inspired-spirit-christmas/ Last updated: 2025-12-25T11:10:33.000Z In the heart of December, as the chill of winter settled over the Roman world, an extraordinary festival turned societal norms on their head. Saturnalia, a week-long celebration dedicated to Saturn, the god of sowing and agriculture, transformed the rigid structures of Roman life into a whirlwind of laughter, generosity, and revelry. Slaves dined as equals with their masters, dice games determined who would reign as “king” of the festivities, and the city streets echoed with cries of “*Io Saturnalia!*” But Saturnalia wasn’t merely a time of chaos—it was a celebration of abundance, renewal, and shared humanity. Could this exuberant ancient festival have sown the seeds for the way we celebrate Christmas today? ### *Io Saturnalia!* The Feast of Saturn and the Origins of Holiday Traditions Saturnalia was one of the oldest Roman festivals, held in honor of [Saturn](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/), the god of agriculture, fertility, and rebirth. According to Frazer, (*a Scottish social anthropologist, folklorist, and classical scholar*) Saturn was remembered as a just and benevolent king who united scattered mountain dwellers, taught them to farm, established laws, and ruled in peace. Saturn’s reign, often referred to as the Golden Age, symbolized a utopia where there were no [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/), no private property, and no social hierarchies. It was an era of abundance and liberty, where everyone lived in harmony and shared equally in prosperity. The Roman historian Justinus attributes this idealized age to Saturn’s governance, stating: > “The first inhabitants of Italy were the Aborigines, whose king, Saturnus, is said to have been a man of such extraordinary justice, that no one was a slave in his reign, or had any private property, but all things were common to all.” To honor Saturn’s legacy, the festival recreated this vision of equality, allowing [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) to dine with their masters and upending societal norms, even if only temporarily. Saturn thus became a symbol of abundance, freedom, and equality, reflected in the weeklong festivities marked by feasting, gambling, gift-giving, and drinking. Saturnalia originally started as an agricultural celebration, coinciding with the winter solstice, when the year’s final harvest was gathered. The festivities began on December 17 and typically lasted until December 23, although at times it extended to December 25\. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/12/Stonehenge-during-the-Winter-Solstice.jpg) ## This close timing with the solstice contributed to Saturnalia’s transformation into Christmas during the Christianization of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/). **Stonehenge during the Winter Solstice. Credits: TimothyBall from Getty Images Signature, by Canva* The festival’s central themes included overturning social norms, extravagant feasting, generosity toward the poor, and lighting the streets with large candles known as *sigillaria*. The city was decorated lavishly, and the phrase “Io Saturnalia!” echoed through the streets, uniting people from all walks of life in joyous celebration. Frazer described the atmosphere of the celebrations as one of uninhibited merriment and freedom, noting: > “The customary restraints of law and morality are thrown aside, when the whole population give themselves up to extravagant mirth and jollity, and when the darker passions find a vent which would never be allowed them in the more staid and sober course of ordinary life.” On the festival’s first day, Roman citizens and farmers from nearby regions traveled to the Temple of Saturn, located at the foot of Capitoline Hill, creating a massive swell in the city’s population. The temple visit resembled a pilgrimage, with people gathering to pay tribute to Saturn. Bulls were paraded through the streets, accompanied by [Roman senators](https://romanempiretimes.com/beneath-the-streets-of-rome-senator-falcos-riveting-quest-for-the-lost-emblem/) and priests, before being sacrificed at the temple. At the temple, Saturn’s statue—bound in wool and filled with [olive oil](https://romanempiretimes.com/olive-oil-in-the-roman-empire-how-the-romans-discovered-the-liquid-gold/)—symbolized his temporary release from captivity. Priests initiated the festival by unbinding the statue’s woolen fetters and placing it at the head of a grand banquet. This act symbolized Saturn reclaiming his throne, previously abandoned to [Jupiter](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/)/Zeus, and ruling over [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/beauty-in-ancient-rome/) for the duration of the celebrations. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/12/A-possible-representation-of-the-festivities-happening-during-the-Roman-Saturnalia.jpg) ## For the next few days, the **sigillaria*, and the cries of “Io Saturnalia!” allowed people to be indulged in a brief, utopian glimpse of the Golden Age. **A possible representation of the festivities happening during the Roman Saturnalia. Illustration: Midjourney* ### Freedom and Equality for a Day: The Saturnalia’s Echoes of the Golden Age Some scholars draw comparisons between Saturnalia and other festivals that temporarily reversed societal roles between masters and slaves. Roman festivals like Saturnalia (starting December 17), the *Compitalia* (an agrarian thanksgiving), and the *Nonae Caprotinae* (celebrated by free women and female slaves on July 7) allowed for these role reversals. Similarly, the *Matronalia* on March 1 involved mistresses possibly serving meals to their female slaves, though the evidence for this is late and comes primarily from the fifth-century writer Macrobius: > “In March... matrons would wait on their slaves at dinner, just as the masters of the household did at the Saturnalia.” Other authors mention Matronalia as an anniversary of the Temple of Juno Lucina or a time when matrons received gifts, but do not confirm Macrobius’s account. The *Nonae Caprotinae* also involved acts of solidarity between free women and slaves. According to Plutarch and Macrobius, the festival commemorates an incident where female slaves disguised themselves as their mistresses to save Rome’s free [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) from being handed over to the Latins. The celebrations included sacrifices at a fig tree, mock battles, and dramatic begging processions. Saturnalia is better documented, though questions remain about its precise nature. During this festival, Saturn (Cronos), whose temple stood at the base of the Capitol in Rome, was symbolically freed from his chains. For several days, depending on the period, the god "ruled" in place of Jupiter. Public festivities included offerings, banquets *(lectisternia*), and private celebrations involved feasting, drinking, and general merriment, with slaves enjoying time off. Even [Cato the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/), in his agricultural guide, recommended giving each slave a gallon of wine during Saturnalia and the Compitalia. ![An illustration for the poem "The Saturnalia" by Walter Thornbury, where he imagines the horrors that would ensue if modern-day slaves got the upper hand on their masters](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/12/An-illustration-for-the-poem--22The-Saturnalia-22-by-Walter-Thornbury--where-he-imagines-the-horrors-that-would-ensue-if-modern-day-slaves-got-the-upper-hand-on-their-masters.jpg) An illustration for the poem "The Saturnalia" by Walter Thornbury, where he imagines the horrors that would ensue if modern-day slaves got the upper hand on their masters. Public domain Roman male citizens wore short tunics instead of togas and donned the *pileus* (a cap symbolizing freedom or manumission). Gambling and dice games, normally forbidden, became a central amusement. Patrons hosted clients, and dinners were filled with wit, satire, and entertainment. The festivities were visually captured in the Calendar of Filocalus (354 CE), which included symbolic representations like dice, masks, and birds associated with Saturnalian games and gifts. Another mosaic from El-Djem in Tunisia shows slaves carrying torches and wax candles, reflecting their role in the celebrations. The role reversals during Saturnalia were often noted in ancient sources. Early Roman poet Accius wrote: > "In most of Greece, and above all at Athens, men celebrate in honor of Saturn a festival... at which each man waits on his own slaves. Athenaeus similarly observed, "*During the Saturnalia... it is customary for the Roman children to entertain the slaves at dinner*." The philosopher [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/) also reflected on the theme, discussing how Roman traditions aimed to mitigate the master-slave divide by dining together during Saturnalia. He wrote: > “They called the master 'father of the household' and the slaves 'members of the household…' > > They established a holiday on which masters and slaves should eat together.” Seneca, however, saw this as an opportunity for moral education, advocating that masters should treat slaves based on their character rather than their duties. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/12/A-sculpture-depicting-Saturnalia--by-Ernesto-Biondi.jpg) ## Literature from the period, including comedy and satire, often referenced Saturnalia’s role reversals. **A sculpture depicting Saturnalia, by Ernesto Biondi. Public domain* [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) described how, during a military campaign, [Roman soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) mockingly shouted "Io Saturnalia" at a slave attempting to quell unrest. In Horace’s satire, a slave named Davus used "*the license December allows*" to criticize his master, reinforcing the idea of Saturnalia as a temporary and controlled inversion of social norms. While most slaves likely experienced Saturnalia as a brief respite with better food and [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/), it also offered an opportunity for larger gatherings, open speech, and satirical commentary. Though fears of revolt occasionally arose, Saturnalia’s subversive potential was often restrained within the festival's boundaries. The festival’s origins tied back to a utopian myth. According to Justinus, quoting the Historiae Philippicae of Pompeius Trogus: > “The first inhabitants of Italy... lived under King Saturn’s righteous rule, where there was no private property, and all things were shared equally.” Macrobius also linked Saturnalia to this "Golden Age," a time of universal prosperity and equality. In Lucian’s words: > “I take over the sovereignty again to remind mankind what life was like under me... when everyone was good, pure gold. There was no slavery, you see, in my time.” While the Saturnalia echoed this mythical equality, the political adoption of the Golden Age imagery during [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/)’s reign conveniently ignored the reality of widespread slavery. Despite the propaganda, the Saturnalia served as a ritualized reflection of these utopian ideals, reminding all Romans—free and enslaved—of their aspirations for justice and equality. (*Meals in the Early Christian World Social Formation, Experimentation, and Conflict at the Table, by Dennis E. Smith and Hal E. Taussig*) ![Antoine-François Callet’s painting of Saturnalia, from the Louvre](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/12/Antoine-Fran-ois-Callet-s-painting-of-Saturnalia--from-the-Louvre.jpg) Antoine-François Callet’s painting of Saturnalia, from the Louvre. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### A Carnival of Rebellion and Return Saturnalia represents a temporary suspension of societal norms, celebrating equality and liberty while turning the established hierarchy on its head. The festival, as already mentioned, allowed slaves and masters to exchange roles, promoting a brief period of camaraderie and shared experiences. According to anthropological theories by Victor Turner and others, the festival embodies a liminal phase, where participants are momentarily detached from their fixed societal positions and experience a unique sense of "*communitas*"—an egalitarian unity. During Saturnalia, [Roman citizens](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/) wore plain attire, and both masters and slaves donned the *pileus*. Rituals included sacrificing bulls, unfettering Saturn’s statue, and appointing a temporary "King of Saturnalia," whose whims everyone had to obey. While this antistructure briefly dissolved societal distinctions, participants reverted to their usual roles after the festival. Victor Turner’s concept of liminality suggests such rituals expose the artificiality of societal hierarchies, allowing participants to experience an unstructured, egalitarian state. However, unlike transformative rites of passage, Saturnalia did not lead to lasting social change. Instead, it was a sanctioned escape from reality—a fleeting carnival where rebellion and revelry coexisted with the inevitability of returning to normalcy. This temporary inversion of roles, celebrated with feasting, gambling, and role reversals, reinforced rather than dismantled the existing social order. *(The Upside-Down World of the Saturnalia: A Carnival or a Pilgrimage?, by Ms. Samragngi Roy)* ![A gravure by John Reinhard Weguelin depicting the Roman Saturnalia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/12/A-gravure-by-John-Reinhard-Weguelin-depicting-the-Roman-Saturnalia.jpg) A gravure by John Reinhard Weguelin depicting the Roman Saturnalia. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### Saturnalia and the Evolution of Christmas: From Pagan Festivity to Christian Celebration In her work "*The Roman Saturnalia and the Survival of its Traditions Among Christians*", Orsolya Tóth (*the piece is Published by the Institute of History, University of Debrecen*) delves into the historical and cultural origins of Saturnalia, and explores its transition into Christmas under Christian influence. She provides a comprehensive examination of the carnival’s evolution, tracing its roots, rituals, and eventual adaptation into Christian traditions. It initially begun as a sowing festival, held to honor Saturn. The festival, marking the completion of winter planting, originally lasted one day, on December 17\. By the 1st century BCE, however, it had expanded into a week-long celebration, running from December 17 to 23\. Poets like Novius captured the festive length in lines like, “*Once eagerly awaited, the seven days of Saturnalia arrive*.” During this time, the feast coincided with other agricultural festivals, such as *Consualia* (celebrating the god of harvest, Consus) and *Opali*a (dedicated to Ops, the goddess of abundance). These overlapping feasts emphasized the agricultural roots of Roman society and symbolized gratitude for the harvest. Over the centuries, the celebrations evolved, with Saturnalia becoming less tied to its agrarian origins and more focused on social and cultural rituals. Tóth explores various accounts of the festival's origins, as recorded by Roman authors like Macrobius. Some traced it back to the Greek festival of *Cronia*, while others tied it to specific moments in Roman history, such as the dedication of Saturn's temple during the reign of Tullus Hostilius or Titus Larcius. ![The ruins of the Temple of Saturn in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/12/The-ruins-of-the-Temple-of-Saturn-in-Rome.jpg) The ruins of the Temple of Saturn in Rome The temple, symbolizing Saturn’s legacy, also served as Rome’s treasury, underscoring the god’s association with abundance and communal wealth. Saturnalia was often referred to as *the festum omnium deorum principis* (the feast of the prince of all gods), reflecting Saturn’s prominence in Roman religion. Macrobius, drawing from ancient traditions, suggested multiple theories regarding the festival’s origins. He favored an interpretation that depicted Saturn as a historical figure who brought agricultural knowledge and societal organization to early Italians, transforming chaos into order. During its festivities, (as already mentioned above) the hierarchical structure of Roman society was temporarily dismantled. Slaves dined with their masters, and symbolic acts, such as exchanging roles, reinforced the theme of equality. Citizens wore the pileus, a cap symbolizing freedom, to represent their shared status as equals. Public institutions, schools, and courts shut down, marking a collective pause from the usual order. The festival culminated on December 23 with the *Sigillaria*, a day dedicated to gift-giving. Clay figures and candles were exchanged, symbolizing light and renewal. These customs reflected the festival’s broader themes of generosity, community, and transformation. As Tóth notes, Saturnalia’s association with light and renewal made it particularly adaptable to Christian reinterpretation. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/12/A-Christian-cross-during-a-winter-sunset-1.jpg) ## Its timing near the winter solstice aligned with the symbolic birth of Jesus as the "light of the world." **A Christian cross during a winter sunset. Credits: GuentherDillingen from pixabay, by Canva* Early Christians adopted and recontextualized many Saturnalian traditions, such as candle lighting, gift-giving, and festive meals, into their celebration of Christmas. This transition allowed pagan customs to persist in a Christianized form, ensuring their survival even as the Roman Empire became increasingly Christianized. She highlights how, during the 4th and 5th centuries, Christian leaders worked to integrate these customs into the Christian calendar. Pope Leo the Great, for example, drew parallels between the birth of Christ and the renewal of light, framing Jesus as the bringer of salvation and a new world order. His sermons emphasized the spiritual significance of benevolence and reconciliation, aligning with Saturnalia’s ideals while infusing them with Christian theology. While its secular elements, such as revelry and feasting, persisted, its deeper themes of peace and solidarity found new expression in Christmas. The Christian reinterpretation transformed Saturnalia from a celebration of abundance and liberty into a reflection of divine grace and the unity of humanity under Christ. Tóth concludes by noting that this synthesis of pagan and Christian traditions not only shaped Christmas but also preserved the original Roman festival’s essence, highlighting the **enduring importance of community and generosity**,for the survival of civilization. --- 📜 For those that want to learn more about Saturnalia, we hope you’ll enjoy this video: ### What Romans Used More Than Stone URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-used-more-than-stone/ Last updated: 2025-12-18T20:34:47.000Z Rome is remembered in stone. Temples, amphitheaters, roads, and arches dominate both the ancient landscape and the modern imagination. Marble survives; bronze leaves traces; inscriptions endure. Yet the Roman world did not function on stone alone. Beneath the monuments lay a far more perishable infrastructure—one that rarely survives archaeologically, yet was indispensable to soldiers, farmers, craftsmen, traders, and officials alike. Without it, armies could not march, goods could not travel, tools could not work, and bodies could not be protected. What sustained the empire day by day was not what was meant to last forever, but what was used until it wore out. ### Leather as an Urban Necessity Leather was one of the most indispensable materials of Roman daily life. Long before stone, marble, or bronze entered a household, leather was already present—shaping footwear, clothing, military equipment, transport, storage, and trade. Its importance lay not in monumentality but in constant use. Every [Roman city](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) depended on a steady supply of hides transformed into durable goods that could withstand friction, moisture, and strain. Urban economies therefore required organized systems for acquiring raw hides, processing them, and distributing finished leather products. These processes were neither marginal nor occasional. They formed a permanent layer of urban production, closely tied to food supply, animal husbandry, and market exchange. Leatherworking was not a luxury craft but a foundational one, supporting movement, labor, and administration across the Empire. ### From Slaughterhouse to Workshop The leather industry began with animals raised primarily for meat, transport, or labor. Hides entered the production chain as by-products of slaughter, meaning that tanning was structurally linked to butchery and food markets. In cities, hides were collected locally from slaughterhouses or imported from surrounding rural areas, particularly in regions with strong pastoral economies. Once removed, hides required immediate treatment to prevent decay. This urgency shaped the spatial organization of tanning workshops. Leather processing was time-sensitive, water-intensive, and produced strong odors, which influenced where it could be carried out within the urban fabric. ### The Coriarii: Tanners and Their Craft Tanners (*coriarii*) occupied a clearly defined but socially ambiguous position in [Roman society](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/). Their work was essential, but it was also regarded as unpleasant. Tanning involved soaking hides in water, removing hair and flesh, and treating the skins with organic substances such as [urine](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-romans-go-to-the-toilet-and-use-urine-in-ways-we-cannot-imagine-today/), dung, or plant-based tannins. These processes produced waste, smells, and runoff that made tanning incompatible with elite residential areas. ![The large tannery of Pompeii](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/tannery-in-pompeii.jpg) The large tannery of Pompeii. Photo courtesy of Ministero della Cultura As a result, tanneries were typically located on the edges of cities, near rivers, streams, or drainage channels. This pattern appears repeatedly in archaeological and textual evidence. Tanneries required constant access to water, both for soaking hides and for flushing away waste, making proximity to natural water sources a practical necessity rather than a choice. Despite their marginal placement, tanneries were not informal or temporary. They were fixed installations, often consisting of vats, basins, and work areas that required investment and permanence. Their presence reflects long-term planning rather than ad hoc production. Because of its environmental impact, tanning was subject to regulation. Roman cities frequently imposed restrictions on noxious crafts, either through zoning practices or customary expectations. While explicit legal texts on tanners are limited, the consistent archaeological pattern suggests widely shared norms about separating polluting industries from civic and domestic spaces. This separation did not imply exclusion from the economy. On the contrary, leatherworkers were integrated into urban commercial networks. Their workshops were connected to markets through supply chains that brought hides in and finished goods out. Regulation shaped location, not legitimacy. ### Shoemakers and Secondary Crafts Once tanned, leather entered a second phase of production involving skilled artisans such as shoemakers (*sutores*), harness-makers, and other specialists. These crafts were less polluting and could operate closer to commercial centers and residential districts. Shoemaking in particular was ubiquitous. Footwear was essential for [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/), laborers, travelers, and urban populations alike. Roman shoes varied by function, status, and environment, but all required reliable leather supply. Shoemakers often worked in small workshops, sometimes combined with retail spaces, producing and repairing footwear for local customers. ![Vindolanda fancy Roman shoes in the museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Vindolanda-fancy-Roman-shoes-in-the-museum--1-.jpg) Vindolanda fancy Roman shoes in the museum. Photo credits: Victuallers, CC BY 4.0 Repair was as important as production. Leather goods were valuable and frequently mended, reshaped, or reused. This culture of maintenance extended the lifespan of leather products and reduced waste, reinforcing the material’s economic importance. ### Small Workshops, Empire-Wide Demand Leatherworking in Roman cities was primarily small-scale and workshop-based. There is little evidence for large centralized factories comparable to modern industrial production. Instead, tanning and leatherworking were carried out by numerous independent or family-run enterprises. This decentralized structure allowed flexibility. Production could respond to local demand, seasonal availability of hides, and fluctuations in population. It also meant that leatherworking was resilient: the loss of one workshop did not disrupt supply across the city. At the same time, the cumulative output of these workshops was substantial. When multiplied across hundreds of cities and towns, leather production formed a massive but largely invisible sector of the Roman economy. ### Necessary Work, Modest Status Leatherworkers occupied a modest social position. Like other manual craftsmen, they were rarely celebrated in elite literature, and their work carried none of the prestige associated with fine arts or monumental building. Tanners in particular were sometimes viewed with distaste due to the nature of their labor. 🏛️ In **Natural History*, Pliny the Elder repeatedly associates strong smells, animal by-products, and chemical processes with activities that are necessary but socially uncomfortable. He notes, for example, that “human urine is useful for fulling clothes and for cleansing wool, because of the strength of its acridity” (**Natural History* 28.18), a substance also central to tanning. Elsewhere, Pliny observes that “many things are necessary for life which are nevertheless disgusting” (28.5). Animal hides themselves are treated as raw, resistant matter requiring forceful intervention before becoming usable. Yet this social marginality should not be confused with economic insignificance. Leatherworkers earned steady incomes, participated in urban trade, and were embedded in local communities. Some belonged to professional associations (*collegia*), which provided social support, religious participation, and collective identity. Inscriptions and archaeological traces suggest continuity rather than precarity. Leatherworking was a stable occupation, passed down through generations, sustained by constant demand. ### Leather everywhere, for all seasons and all types of weather Beyond clothing and footwear, leather played a crucial role in transport and administration. Leather straps, harnesses, saddles, and coverings supported animal traction and long-distance movement of goods. Bags, pouches, and containers made of leather were used for storage and transport, especially where flexibility and durability were required. Administrative and military contexts relied heavily on leather. Writing tablets, scroll covers, and equipment cases depended on treated hides. While such items rarely survive archaeologically, their widespread mention in texts indicates routine use. ![An illustration model of the ancient tannery in Pompeii. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/tannery-restoration-in-pompeii-ezgif.com-avif-to-jpg-converter.jpg) An illustration model of the ancient tannery in Pompeii. Courtesy of La Conceria – Registrazione Tribunale di Milano The pervasiveness of leather meant that its absence from the archaeological record is misleading. Unlike stone or ceramics, leather decays quickly unless preserved under exceptional conditions. What survives represents only a fraction of what once existed. ### Pompeii and its leather market [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/) provides unusually clear evidence for the organization of leatherworking within a Roman city. Archaeological remains indicate the presence of both tanneries and shoemaking workshops, confirming the spatial separation between primary processing and secondary manufacture. Tanneries at Pompeii were located near water sources and away from elite housing, consistent with patterns observed elsewhere. Shoemakers operated closer to commercial zones, reflecting their role in retail and repair. Together, these workshops demonstrate how leather production was integrated into urban life without dominating it. Pompeii’s evidence confirms that leatherworking was not peripheral or rural but fully urban, adapted to city planning and economic rhythms. ### An Invisible Material Economy Leather rarely survives, and leatherworkers rarely speak in surviving texts. Yet the material was everywhere. It shaped how Romans walked, worked, fought, traded, and traveled. Cities functioned because leather absorbed stress, movement, and wear that stone and metal could not. Understanding Roman leather production therefore requires shifting attention away from what survives toward what was used. The industry’s scale, organization, and urban integration reveal a material economy that underpinned daily life across the Empire. (“Urban craftsmen and traders in the Roman world” edited by Andrew Wilson & Miko Flohr) If urban archaeology and literary sources allow us to reconstruct how leather was produced and distributed, they tell us far less about how leather objects were actually used, worn, and discarded. For that, an exceptional body of evidence is required—one where leather survived not by design, but by circumstance. Such evidence exists at Vindolanda. The Roman occupation of north-western Europe brought with it changes that reached far beyond politics or administration. At a basic technological level, it disrupted long-established local practices and reshaped everyday experience in ways that are only now being fully appreciated. Among the most significant—and archaeologically visible—of these changes were new methods of working animal skins and new approaches to making footwear. ### Leather and Life Along Hadrian’s Wall Before the Roman conquest, communities in north-western Europe did not generally use vegetable tanning. Instead, skins were preserved through techniques such as the application of oils and fats or by smoking. These methods continued to be employed in regions that lay beyond Roman control. None of them, however, produced leather that was permanently stable or resistant to moisture. As a result, objects made from treated skins could survive only in exceptional environments, such as extremely dry conditions, highly saline contexts, or peat bogs, where natural chemical processes could incidentally preserve organic material. ![Children's footwear, leather and iron, 200-213 AD, from Vindolandia (Bardon Mill, Roman Vindolandia Fort and Museum)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Children-s-footwear--leather-and-iron--200-213-AD--from-Vindolandia--Bardon-Mill--Roman-Vindolandia-Fort-and-Museum---1-.jpg) Children's footwear, leather and iron, 200-213 AD, from Vindolandia (Bardon Mill, Roman Vindolandia Fort and Museum). Photo credits: Sailko, CC BY 3.0 Vegetable tanning marked a decisive break from these earlier practices. By treating hides with plant-based extracts, it produced leather that was chemically durable and far more resistant to decay, particularly in damp, oxygen-poor environments. This technology was already known in the Mediterranean world by at least the fourth century BCE, although its origins and routes of transmission remain uncertain. Its introduction into north-western Europe had immediate archaeological consequences: from the beginning of Roman occupation, leather goods suddenly become far more visible in the material record. Footwear production underwent a similar transformation. Roman shoes introduced forms and construction techniques that had no clear antecedents in local traditions. Hobnailed shoes and sandals were entirely new, but even footwear types that appear superficially similar to earlier native forms—such as single-piece shoes—were based on different design principles and concepts of use. The appearance of leatherworking on a large scale in waterlogged archaeological contexts therefore reflects not the continuation of older customs using new materials, but the arrival of an integrated technological system encompassing both tanning and manufacture. Especially in the first generations after conquest, these changes likely carried strong cultural and political meaning. Roman shoemaking also differed fundamentally from both prehistoric and later medieval practices in its technical diversity. Shoemakers produced a wide range of shoe types, some of which appear to have been designed for specific activities or contexts. Evidence from a grain ship that sank in the Rhine around 210 CE, where each crew member possessed both closed shoes and sandals, suggests an awareness of functional differentiation in footwear. This implies a shift in attitudes toward clothing: shoes were no longer merely practical items but part of a broader system of social signalling, drawing on shared conventions that were widely understood across Roman society. The spread of vegetable tanning and Roman footwear technology is closely associated with the army. Both appear first in military contexts, not only in Europe but also in provinces such as Egypt. Throughout the Roman period, military installations remain among the richest sources of leather finds, followed closely by urban settlements. In many cases, however, the contexts that preserve leather—riverside refuse layers, ditches, and wells—are difficult to date precisely, making it hard to trace developments over time within organic assemblages. Some military sites provide clearer sequences. At Valkenburg in the Netherlands, for example, early phases dating to around 40–50 CE were sealed during later restructuring, preserving leather from the site’s initial occupation, while later phases yielded far fewer organic remains. ![Vindolanda lots of Roman shoes in the museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Vindolanda-lots-of-Roman-shoes-in-the-museum.jpg) Vindolanda lots of Roman shoes in the museum. Photo credits: Victuallers, CC BY 4.0 Vindolanda, by contrast, presents an exceptional case. There, a combination of local topography and repeated rebuilding episodes led to the preservation of unusually large quantities of leather artefacts. These finds are not only abundant but also stratified within a relatively well-dated sequence that spans the entire Roman occupation of the site. ### A Frontier Archive in Leather Excavations carried out between 1985 and 1988 at Vindolanda produced an exceptional volume of leather material. More than 2,600 individual find numbers were assigned to leather recovered. Among the finds, footwear dominates the assemblage. Of the 1,447 items that could be securely identified as shoes or shoe components, most consist of soles, though Vindolanda is notable for the unusually high survival rate of upper leather. This appears to reflect the frequent use of cowhide, which is thicker and more resilient than the skins commonly employed elsewhere. On technological grounds, the footwear can be divided into six principal types: single-piece shoes (*carbatinae*), nailed shoes, sewn shoes, sandals, slippers, and wooden clogs. While the majority of surviving uppers are associated with nailed soles, sewn constructions are also well represented. The original appearance of each shoe is primarily determined by the form of its upper. These uppers can be classified into distinct stylistic groups based on visual characteristics, most notably fastening systems, but also cutting patterns and the height of the shoe in relation to the ankle. Using these criteria, thirteen recurring styles can be identified, each represented by at least four examples within the assemblage. From the later second century onward, however, the material shows a marked diversification, with a growing number of styles represented by only one or two surviving examples. One of the most striking characteristics of Roman nailed footwear is the extent to which it transcends regional boundaries. Styles not only evolve quickly, but they do so in a broadly synchronized manner across the north-western provinces of the Empire and, where the archaeological record permits comparison, across Mediterranean regions as well. In this sense, it is not inappropriate to speak of something akin to “fashion”: a continuous and relatively rapid turnover of forms shared across wide geographical areas. This international consistency gives the Vindolanda sequence a value that extends far beyond the site itself. Because the stylistic changes appear to be contemporaneous across provinces, the chronological framework established at Vindolanda can be transferred to other archaeological contexts. At its most basic level, Roman footwear can therefore function as an independent dating tool. An otherwise undated assemblage from Old Penrith, for example, can be assigned to a style group, recognizable by its horizontal lacing that produces a raised ridge along the length of the foot. Comparison with the Vindolanda seriation places this style in the late second or early third century, allowing the associated material to be dated accordingly. ![Allendale military boot, in leather and iron, 105-120 AD, from Vindolandia (Bardon Mill, Roman Vindolandia Fort and Museum)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Allendale-military-boot--in-leather-and-iron--105-120-AD--from-Vindolandia--Bardon-Mill--Roman-Vindolandia-Fort-and-Museum---1-.jpg) Allendale military boot, in leather and iron, 105-120 AD, from Vindolandia (Bardon Mill, Roman Vindolandia Fort and Museum). Photo credits: Sailko, CC BY 3.0 The Vindolanda sequence also proves valuable in addressing assemblages recovered from riverside refuse deposits, where stratigraphy is often complex and mixed material has obscured chronological development. Footwear from the vicus at Valkenburg in the Netherlands illustrates this point. Although largely undated, the assemblage includes a small number of styles characteristic of the mid-second century, followed by a concentration of types associated with the transition from the later second to the early third century. A limited number of examples appear to post-date this phase, and some sandals may even extend into the middle of the third century. Comparable patterns are visible in the unpublished footwear assemblage from the fort at Vechten, suggesting that activity in the civilian settlements surrounding these forts continued well into the third century. Sandals represent the most visibly Mediterranean element introduced into footwear traditions of the northern provinces. Although their soles were fastened with leather thongs, they were typically reinforced with hobnails, leaving little doubt that they were intended for outdoor use rather than domestic wear. In the earliest military contexts, sandals occur only rarely. At Vindolanda, they are found mainly in small sizes, a pattern that strongly suggests an association with women and children and, by extension, the presence of military families rather than soldiers alone. In contrast, early civilian settlements show a much higher proportion of sandals. At Billingsgate in London, for example, they account for nearly a quarter of all recorded footwear, although once again smaller sizes dominate. This pattern points to civilian adoption rather than military issue as the main driver behind their early spread in the north. Unlike closed shoes, which undergo abrupt stylistic transformations, Roman sandals evolve gradually and consistently over a span of roughly four centuries. Their development follows a clear and continuous trajectory that appears remarkably uniform across provincial boundaries. Sandal soles generally retain a natural foot shape, often marked by two or three indentations corresponding to the toes. In some cases, particular emphasis is placed on the second toe—a feature that reflects long-standing Classical aesthetic preferences visible in Hellenistic sculpture and later artistic traditions. This suggests that the introduction of sandals carried with it not only a new form of footwear, but also inherited ideals about the body and its presentation. The gendered dimensions of this adoption are especially striking. Evidence from shoe sizes indicates that women were among the first in civilian communities such as London and Cologne to adopt the full range of Roman footwear styles. At Vindolanda, however, this pattern is complicated by the presence of two sandals from a specific period’s barrack block that are adult male in size. One of these bears a stamped [eagle](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-has-the-eagle-become-the-roman-symbol/) motif, identical to a stamp found on a sandal from London. This suggests that the uptake of sandals may also have carried connotations of status or official affiliation, rather than being determined by gender alone. ![Vindolanda Museum Sandal](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Vindolanda-Museum-Sandal.jpg) Vindolanda Museum Sandal. Photo credits: Colgill, CC BY-SA 4.0 Decorative stamping becomes increasingly common on sandal soles during this period. Simple motifs such as urns, concentric circles, and floral designs predominate, but more elaborate patterns—apparently impressed using metal dies—also appear. The sandals recovered from a specific period’s deposits at Vindolanda illustrate a moment of stylistic transition between earlier and later forms. They include a small number of earlier forms alongside a larger group that resembles the more developed styles found in another period’s (based on the excavator’s original stratigraphic dating) ditch, likely reflecting activity shortly before the ditch was cut. Post-depositional factors may also have influenced preservation, as the upper levels of the ditch fill show signs of repeated drying. Later sandal types are well attested at Birdoswald and numerous other sites in Britain and across the Continent. In Egypt, similar shapes were even reproduced using vegetable fibre, underlining the broad diffusion of the style. These later sandals are characterized by notably wide soles, which would have altered the wearer’s posture and movement, producing a distinctive, striding gait with the shoulders held back. This bodily effect has previously been linked to the wider militarization of Roman society. Alongside these bold forms, more restrained sandal types also emerge in the late third and early fourth centuries. These are often smaller in size and feature a deep, scroll-like indentation along the side, suggesting continued variation in gendered or social usage. Taken together, the sandal assemblage from Vindolanda indicates that most of the leather from the late ditch dates to the mid-third century, although footwear from the fourth century—particularly sewn shoes and *carbatinae*—is also present in significant numbers. ("Vindolanda and the Dating of Roman Footwear" by Carol van Driel-Murray) Stone may define how Rome is remembered, but leather defined how it functioned. It carried the weight of soldiers, absorbed the strain of labor, moved goods across roads and rivers, and shaped bodies in motion. Its disappearance from most archaeological contexts has obscured its importance, not diminished it. Where conditions allow it to survive, as at Vindolanda, leather reveals an empire sustained not only by monuments and law, but by a material economy of wear, repair, and constant use—one that made Roman power livable, mobile, and real. ### A History Written to Be Believed URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/a-history-written-to-be-believed/ Last updated: 2025-12-14T22:13:50.000Z Rome had conquered the Mediterranean, but it had not yet mastered its own story. Its past existed in fragments—family traditions, ritual memory, partisan accounts—repeated often, questioned rarely, and understood unevenly beyond Italy. At the very moment when Rome stood at the center of the world, its origins remained contested, vulnerable to misunderstanding, and open to dismissal. It would take an outsider, trained in another intellectual tradition, to reorganize that past and present it in a form that could command trust. ### A Greek Scholar in Augustan Rome Dionysius, son of Alexander, was born at Halicarnassus sometime before 55 BCE. He arrived in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) in 30 or 29 BCE, at the moment when [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) Caesar brought the civil wars to an end. Once established in the city, Dionysius devoted himself to mastering Latin and quickly became embedded in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s intellectual life, forming relationships with fellow scholars, pupils, and patrons. Alongside this activity, he composed a series of [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) works devoted to rhetoric and literary criticism. In 8 or 7 BCE, Dionysius published the opening portion of his major historical undertaking, Roman Antiquities. He appears to have remained in Rome for many years thereafter, continuing work on the remainder of the project. The history was ultimately conceived as a work of twenty books, tracing [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/)’s past down to 264 BCE. Of this ambitious composition, the first eleven books survive, along with a number of later excerpts. The circumstances of Dionysius’ death, including its date and location, are unknown. Beyond the Roman Antiquities, ten further works attributed to Dionysius have come down to us, and their relative chronology can be partially reconstructed. His earliest writings include On Imitation, preserved only in fragments and an epitome, and the initial section of On the Ancient Orators, which contains individual studies of Lysias, Isocrates, and Isaeus. Works associated with a later phase include On Demosthenes, On Composition (also known as On the Arrangement of Words), the Letter to Pompeius, and the First Letter to Ammaeus. His final period is represented by On Thucydides and its appendix, the Second Letter to Ammaeus, and On Dinarchus. Two additional treatises, On Figures and On Political Philosophy, are known to have existed but have not survived. Taken as a whole, Dionysius’ body of work reflects a sustained tension between cultural worlds and literary forms. His writings consistently move between [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) and Roman contexts, and between the practices of rhetorical criticism and historical narrative. This dual orientation shapes his intellectual project, in which his rhetorical and critical studies are closely bound to his account of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/)’s early history. Together, these strands reveal how his scholarship operated within—and responded to—the social, intellectual, literary, and political environment of Rome in the age of Augustus. ### Rhetoric and History as a Single Intellectual Project Modern scholarship has often treated Dionysius’ work as divided into two distinct domains. Despite frequent acknowledgment that his rhetorical criticism and historiography belong together, research has largely followed separate paths: some scholars focus on the Roman Antiquities, while others concentrate on the rhetorical and critical treatises. More problematic than this division itself is the tendency for specialists in one area to overlook the findings and perspectives of the other. A central goal of recent interpretation has therefore been to reunite these strands, understanding Dionysius’ rhetorical criticism and his history of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) as closely connected elements of a single, coherent intellectual and educational project. ![Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his study](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Dionysius-of-Halicarnassus-in-his-study.jpg) Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his study. Photo credits: roman Empire Times, Midjourney From a modern standpoint, it may appear unusual that a single author devoted his life equally to rhetoric and historiography, disciplines now often seen as fundamentally different. In antiquity, however, the connection between the two was widely recognized. Any historical narrative necessarily involves invention—the selection of material—along with arrangement and style, which are the basic instruments of rhetoric. The historian, no less than the orator, constructs a narrative by shaping and ordering events. In this sense, historical writing was understood as an act of composition closely related to forensic and deliberative speech. In the Roman Antiquities, Dionyssius, does not merely recount Rome’s early history but presents exemplary figures whose conduct should serve as models. As he declares: > “Rome from the very beginning, immediately after its founding, produced infinite examples of virtue in men whose superiors, whether for piety or for justice or for life-long self-control or for warlike valor, no city, either Greek or barbarian, has ever produced.” These figures are meant to shape the moral outlook of Dionysius’ readers, particularly Romans, by encouraging them to aspire to noble conduct: > “And again, both the present and future descendants of those godlike men will choose, not the pleasantest and easiest of lives, but rather the noblest and most ambitious, when they consider that all who are sprung from an illustrious origin ought to set a high value on themselves and indulge in no pursuit unworthy of their ancestors (μηδὲν ἀνάξιον ἐπιτηδεύειν τῶν προγόνων).” For Dionysius, history must provide moral exempla. This conviction underpins his criticism of earlier historians. In the Letter to Pompeius, he contrasts Herodotus, whose Greeks perform “wonderful deeds,” with Thucydides, whose account centers on a war that was “neither glorious nor fortunate” and, in Dionysius’ view, scarcely worth remembering. The principle of *μίμησις* is equally central to Dionysius’ rhetorical criticism. He examines the works of poets, orators, and historians in order to identify qualities worthy of emulation. The importance he assigned to imitation is underscored by his decision to devote a separate treatise to the subject, addressing its aims, techniques, and suitable models. Although On Imitation survives only in fragments, an epitome, and a substantial excerpt preserved elsewhere, the concept permeates all his writings. ![ Engraving depicting Dionysius of Halicarnassus from the Ambrosian Codex](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Dionigi-di-Alicarnasso.jpg) Engraving depicting Dionysius of Halicarnassus from the Ambrosian Codex. Public domain In the preface to On the Ancient Orators, Dionysius presents classical Athenian rhetoric as the standard to be revived in Rome. He claims that after the decline brought about by “Asian” influence following the death of [Alexander the Great](https://romanempiretimes.com/alexander-the-great-in-roman-thought-hero-rival-and-legend/), Attic eloquence had been restored under Roman leadership. As a result, he observes, many historical, political, and philosophical works were now being produced by “both Romans and Greeks” (*καὶ Ῥωμαίοις καὶ Ἕλλησιν)*. Rome, in this vision, becomes a new Athens, fostering a renewed classical culture grounded in selective imitation of the past. This emphasis on imitation extends beyond style to encompass moral and civic life. Dionysius frames his inquiry in explicitly ethical terms: > “Who are the most important of the ancient orators and historians? What manner of life and style of writing did they adopt? Which characteristic of each of them should we take over, or which should we avoid?” By juxtaposing lifestyle and literary practice, Dionysius reveals a third level at which rhetoric and historiography converge: moral education. His work consistently promotes a form of παιδεία inspired by Isocrates, in which rhetorical training is inseparable from civic virtue. Readers of the Roman Antiquities are invited to become better citizens by reflecting on Rome’s early figures, just as readers of his rhetorical treatises are trained to participate responsibly in public life. As Dionysius asks in On Isocrates: > “Who could fail to become a patriotic supporter of democracy and a student of civic virtue after reading Isocrates’ Panegyricus? (…) What greater exhortation could there be, for individuals singly and collectively for whole communities, than the discourse On the Peace? (…) Who would not become a more responsible citizen after reading the Areopagiticus?”. Across all his writings, Dionysius emerges as a committed teacher, concerned not only with technique, criticism, and historical narrative, but with virtue, civic responsibility, and the cultivation of human society. His vision of education—moral as well as intellectual—closely reflects the cultural and political concerns of Rome in the age of Augustus. ### Between Greece and Rome: Identity, Culture, and Historical Vision Dionysius’ writings stand as a key testimony to the complex negotiation of Greek and Roman identities at the end of the first century BCE. Greek authors living under Roman rule did not share a single, fixed sense of cultural identity. Literary works from across the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/) reveal a wide spectrum of responses to Roman power, shaped by genre, geography, audience, and intellectual tradition. Some writers emphasized continuity with the classical Greek past, while others embraced the political and cultural transformations brought about by Roman rule and the new opportunities it created. Identity, in these texts, was neither static nor singular, but constructed and re-constructed through differing literary strategies. A similar diversity of perspectives already existed among Greek authors of the Augustan period, who witnessed the emergence and consolidation of Roman imperial power. Because much Greek literature from this age survives only in fragments—or has been lost entirely—Dionysius of Halicarnassus occupies a particularly important position. Alongside figures such as Strabo of Amasia and Antipater of Thessalonica, he offers one of the fullest Greek perspectives on Rome during Augustus’ reign. In many respects, Dionysius remains unmistakably Greek. He originated from Greek-speaking Asia Minor, wrote exclusively in Greek, and devoted much of his scholarly energy to the literature of archaic and classical Greece, from Homer to Demosthenes. His rhetorical criticism consistently privileges Attic oratory and historiography as models worthy of imitation. More broadly, he displays a deep admiration for what he regarded as the finest achievements of Greek culture: the poetry of Pindar, the philosophy of Plato, the sculpture of Polyclitus, and the wider traditions of Greek music, art, and intellectual life. As a critic, he situates himself consciously within the Greek scholarly tradition, aligning his work with figures such as Isocrates, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Aristoxenus, and Chrysippus. ![Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ῥωμαϊκὴς Ἀρχαιολογίας βιβλία δέκα. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Dionysius-Halicarnasseus-Antiquitatum-Romanarum-libri.jpg) Dionysius of Halicarnassus, **Ῥωμαϊκὴς Ἀρχαιολογίας βιβλία δέκα*. Public domain At the same time, Dionysius is thoroughly Roman in orientation. He arrived in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) at a decisive historical moment and became fully bilingual, having, as he notes, > “learn\[ed\] the language of the Romans and acquir\[ed\] knowledge of their writings”. His research drew on both Greek and Latin historical traditions. He consulted early Greek-language Roman historians such as Quintus Fabius Pictor and Lucius Cincius Alimentus, but he also read extensively in Latin historiography, naming authors including > “Porcius Cato, Quintus Fabius Maximus, Valerius Antias, Licinius Macer, the Aelii, Gellii and Calpurnii, and many others of note”. Elsewhere he refers to [Varro](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-terentius-varro-the-polymath-who-catalogued-the-roman-civilization/) and additional Roman historians. Dionysius’ engagement with Rome was not limited to texts. He emphasizes that part of his knowledge came from direct conversation: > “Some information I received orally from men of the greatest learning, with whom I associated” (οἷς εἰς ὁμιλίαν ἦλθον). His social and intellectual network in Rome included both Greeks and Romans. Among his Greek associates were Demetrius, the addressee of On Imitation, and Caecilius of Caleacte, a prominent historian and rhetorician. Among his Roman connections was Metilius Rufus, to whom Dionysius dedicated On Composition as a birthday gift. Dionysius describes Metilius’ father as his “most esteemed friend”, suggesting a relationship of patronage—an impression reinforced by the inclusion of the Metilii among the Alban principes. Metilius later became governor of Achaea, where he was able to put his teacher’s rhetorical principles into practice. Another significant Roman connection was Quintus Aelius Tubero, the recipient of On Thucydides. Tubero himself wrote a history of Rome and belonged to an influential family known from Cicero’s Pro Ligario. Dionysius also corresponded with figures such as Ammaeus and Gnaeus Pompeius Geminus, whose precise cultural identities are unclear. What is evident, however, is that Dionysius was deeply embedded in Rome’s intellectual and elite social circles. His work was shaped not only by scholarly exchange but also by relationships with families who appear to have supported and sustained his broader project. Dionysius reflects explicitly on the relationship between Greece and Rome throughout his writings. In the preface to On the Ancient Orators, he praises Rome for fostering a cultural renewal, particularly for restoring the Attic Muse—symbol of morally serious and stylistically refined literature. ![The beginning of Lampugnino Birago’s Latin translation of the „Roman Antiquities“ in the dedication copy for Pope Paul II, the manuscript Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Dionysius-of-Halicarnassus--Antiquitates-Romanae--1-.jpg) The beginning of Lampugnino Birago’s Latin translation of the „Roman Antiquities“ in the dedication copy for Pope Paul II, the manuscript Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Public domain He credits Rome and its “leaders” with creating the political conditions under which great works could once again be produced in both Greek and Latin. Whether this praise is read as flattery or genuine appreciation, it situates Dionysius’ intellectual agenda firmly within the Roman context and invites reflection on how classical Greek models were meant to function within the political and cultural life of Augustan Rome. The relationship between Greece and Rome forms the central theme of the Roman Antiquities. There Dionysius advances the striking claim that the earliest Romans were Greeks—living according to Greek customs, practicing Greek virtues, and governed by Greek institutions. He traces a sequence of five Greek migrations into Italy: Arcadian Aborigines; Thessalian Pelasgians; Arcadians led by Evander; Peloponnesians guided by Hercules; and Aeneas with the Trojans, whom Dionysius also classifies as Greeks. Each group contributes to the gradual development of civilization in Italy. Pallantium, Lavinium, and Alba Longa mark stages in this process, culminating sixteen generations after Troy’s fall when the Latins enclosed Pallantium and > “called this settlement Rome, after Romulus”. This narrative reaches its climax in Dionysius’ emphatic declaration of Rome’s Greek identity: > “Hence, from now on let the reader forever renounce the views of those who make Rome a retreat of barbarians, fugitives and vagabonds, and let him confidently affirm it to be a Greek city (Ἑλλάδα πόλιν), – which will be easy when he shows that it is at once the most hospitable and friendly of all cities, and when he bears in mind that the Aborigines were Oenotrians, and these in turn Arcadians (. . .).” His portrayal of Roman institutions as fundamentally Greek—most fully articulated in the Constitution of Romulus —has long provoked skepticism and rejection. Yet more recent scholarship has responded with greater sympathy, particularly in light of archaeological and historical evidence for Greek influence on early Roman material culture. The question “Was Rome a polis?” has gained renewed relevance, and Dionysius’ thesis, though modified, has found partial support. As later scholars have observed: > “Greek culture leaves its mark on Rome at every moment we can document, and the more we learn about archaic Rome, the more we are inclined to accept, even if in a rather different sense, the argument of the Augustan historian, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, that Rome was from the first a Greek city.” ### Dionysius and Augustus: Praise, Distance, and a Politics of Hints Octavian—named as Augustus—appears only once across Dionysius’ surviving works, in a brief chronological marker: he says he came to Italy “at the very time that Augustus Caesar put an end to the civil war” (*ἅμα τῷ καταλυθῆναι τὸν ἐμφύλιον πόλεμον ὑπὸ τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ Καίσαρος*). That spare mention sits within a broader pattern: in the early Principate, many intellectuals from Greek-speaking regions moved to Rome, where elite interest in Greek teaching and scholarship created real opportunities for writers such as [Strabo](https://romanempiretimes.com/strabo-mapping-the-world-of-rome/), Antipater, Caecilius, and Dionysius. Their attitudes toward the new political order could differ widely—enthusiastic, critical, neutral, or simply complex—and in most cases the evidence does not allow certainty. Where Dionysius’ Augustan setting has been discussed, scholarship long concentrated on whether he was “pro-” or “anti-” Augustan. The debate has often depended on selective reading, and it resembles older arguments once applied to Roman poetry. Still, certain passages have repeatedly been used to map Dionysius’ political posture. On one side, his praise of Roman “leaders” (*δυναστεύοντες*) who are > “administer\[ing\] the state according to the highest principles” (ἀπὸ τοῦ κρατίστου τὰ κοινὰ διοικοῦντες,) has been read as broadly affirmative toward the present order. Even if these “leaders” are understood not as Augustus alone but as the aristocratic patrons who supported Greek culture, the opening of On the Ancient Orators clearly commends Roman administration for enabling literary production in Greek and Latin—an attitude that stands apart from the darker cultural pessimism of Longinus’ On the Sublime. ![Book cover of Dionysii Halicarnassei De Structura orationis](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Dionysii-Halicarnassei-De-Structura-orationis--1-.jpg) Book cover of Dionysii Halicarnassei De Structura orationis. public domain In Roman Antiquities Dionysius does not comment directly on Augustan policy, yet readers have identified indirect correspondences. One example is his praise of the Julian line: > “This house became the greatest and at the same time the most illustrious of any we know of, and produced the most distinguished commanders, whose virtues were so many proofs of their nobility.” Other moments often placed in this orbit include his portrayals of Evander, Aeneas, Hercules, and [Romulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-and-remus-the-legendary-founders-of-rome/)—figures prominent in Octavian’s visual and ideological repertoire. More generally, Dionysius’ sustained attention to early Roman religion and morality, and his emphasis on virtues such as piety, justice, and moderation (*εὐσέβεια, δικαιοσύνη, σωφροσύνη*), have been seen as compatible with the moral register of Augustan reform. Even so, the older claim that Dionysius functioned as a mere conduit for Augustan propaganda—at the cost of “betraying” Greek culture—has been largely set aside. Other passages have been used to argue for a sharper edge. A frequently cited example is Dionysius’ remark that ancient kings did not exercise power in the arbitrary manner found in his own time: > “the authority of the ancient kings (βασιλέων) was not self-willed (αὐθάδεις) and based on one single judgment (μονογνώμονες) as it is in our days” (οὐχ ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς χρόνοις). It is not self-evident that this targets Augustus specifically; it could just as plausibly evoke the wider landscape of monarchic power that Rome had confronted. But it does underscore a central point: Roman Antiquities does not reduce cleanly to regime praise, and Dionysius’ work resists being read as a straightforward political pamphlet. The rhetorical writings complicate matters further. Dionysius openly elevates classical Athens—the democracy that produced the Attic orators—and prefers Demosthenes not only as a master stylist but also as a remembered defender of democratic freedom. If Dionysius celebrates the Attic Muse’s return in Augustan Rome, he implicitly values not only literary and moral ideals but also political ones associated with Periclean and Demosthenic Athens. That tension becomes easier to understand if the early Principate is treated as a period still forming rather than as a fixed, uniform “Augustan” system. Cultural life was dynamic, not monolithic; and Rome’s literary scene cannot be assumed to have been directly orchestrated by Augustus at every point. In this light, Dionysius’ relation to Augustan Rome emerges as necessarily indirect and layered. What does seem firm is his strong investment in Rome—its structures, its past, and its intellectual environment—and a generally positive response to the way rhetorical and literary work could flourish under Roman rule. His classicizing programme, centered on Athenian exempla, aligned naturally with Roman elite interest in Greek culture and with broader eastern cultural currents often associated with the period. At the same time, Dionysius repeatedly encourages readers to connect past and present through explicit signals of continuity and personal observation: he refers to rites > “which the Romans performed even in my time”, notes > “the things that I myself know by having seen them” and points to the hut of Romulus that > “remained even to my day on the Palatine hill” . Yet his past-present relationship is not only continuity; it also includes contrast and development, as when he describes Pallantium’s destined transformation into imperial Rome: > “Yet this village was ordained by fate to excel in the course of time all other cities, whether Greek or barbarian, not only in size, but also in the majesty of its empire and in every other form of prosperity, and to be celebrated above them all as long as mortality shall endure.” The familiar opposition between Greek and barbarian remains operative here. Dionysius’ world is still divided along those lines, and Rome is folded decisively into the Greek side of the equation. Rome is presented as Greek in origin and character—indeed, as possessing an exceptional “Greekness” among contemporary cities—even if that moral and cultural Greekness can be shown under strain in later narratives such as the Pyrrhic War. Across genres, his broader project aims to affirm the durability of Greek civilization—rhetorical, literary, cultural, even political—so long as Rome continues to provide the conditions in which that project can thrive. ("Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Augustan Rome. Rhetoric, criticism and historiography" Edited by Richard Hunter and Casper C. de Jong) By writing Rome’s beginnings as a coherent moral narrative rather than a loose collection of legends, Dionysius of Halicarnassus offered more than antiquarian reconstruction. He presented Rome with a usable past—one grounded in Greek cultural authority, ethical exempla, and rhetorical discipline. In doing so, he helped stabilize Roman identity at a moment of political transformation, not by inventing tradition, but by shaping it into a form that could be taught, imitated, and believed. ### Gladiatrix: Scent of a Woman, in the Arena URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/gladiatrix-woman-gladiator-roman-arena/ Last updated: 2025-12-08T11:24:17.000Z A gladiatrix, was a female gladiator in ancient Rome. Like their male counterparts, gladiatrices engaged in combat with each other or with wild animals to entertain audiences during games and festivals. ### Gladiation in Ancient Rome [The gladiatorial combats](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/) are part of the broader context of the *ludi*, (public games for the entertainment of the Roman people) which have been recorded in Rome as early as the 4th-3rd century BC. In addition to the *ludi scaenici* (dramatic performances) and *circenses* (chariot races), the *ludi gladiatorii, venationes*, and *naumachia* increasingly captivated ancient audiences. Initially, these spectacles were organized in the Forum or other public spaces, but they later found their primary venues in amphitheaters. A notable aspect of the *ludi* is the sense of civic belonging that the spectators exhibited by participating in these events. The *ludi* also held a mystical-religious element, as the killings during the spectacles were seen as sacred ceremonies and served as exempla for the community involved. The *ludi gladiatorii* are also referred to as *munera gladiatoria*, particularly from the Imperial age onward. The term derives from the Latin word *munus*, indicating a duty performed for significant individuals and the public. ![Ludus Magnus in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/07/Ludus_magnus_Rome_2006.jpg) Ludus Magnus in Rome. Public domain [Gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/ave-imperator-morituri-te-salutant-what-did-gladiators-actually-say-before-fighting/) were officially introduced to Rome in 264 BC. According to primary sources, Marcus and Decimus Pera, sons of the late Brutus Pera, organized fights between three pairs of gladiators in the Foro Boario during their father's funeral rites. Livy writes about the gladiator games and suggests they were first introduced in Campania. The historian recounts that following the Roman and Campanian victory over the Samnites in 310/309 BC, the Campanians made the defeated Samnites' weapons part of the gladiators' attire during banquets, referring to these gladiators as Samnites. In Capua, Campania, there were notable gladiator schools. The [gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/spartacus-the-gladiator-who-defied-rome/) resided in barracks known as *familiae* and were overseen by a *lanista*, who was typically the gym's owner and sometimes the gladiators' instructor. The *lanista* was responsible for providing the *editores ludorum* (the ones responsible for organizing the games with the gladiators-the producers of the spectacle) with all necessities for organizing the games. From the [Augustan](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/) era onwards, gladiators were categorized into groups such as *thraeces*, *murmillones*, *retiarii*, *equites*, and *oplomachi*. While many fighters were slaves, freedmen, and prisoners, there were also instances of free men voluntarily becoming gladiators. Such cases were significant enough that in 11 AD and 19 AD, two Senatus Consults were issued to prohibit senators and knights from becoming gladiators. The *munera gladiatoria*, held in the afternoon segment of the *spectacula*, were regularly organized by emperors and wealthy private citizens until the Severan age. From this period, due to the economic decline in the western part of the empire, this type of entertainment began to wane. Additionally, the rise of Christianity and Constantine's Edict led emperors to distance themselves from gladiatorial combat. By the fifth century, there were no further records of *munera gladiatorial*. *(Angela Gatti, Munera gladiatoria and female gladiators in the ancient world)* ![Victorious female gladiator (gladiatrix) brandishing a sica, Hamburg Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/07/Female_gladiator.jpg) Victorious female gladiator (gladiatrix) brandishing a sica, Hamburg Museum. Public domain ### Female Gladiators in Roman Historical Records The term “gladiatrix” belongs to modern terminology. Some sources claim that female gladiators were referred to as *ludia,* the feminine form of ludius or ludio (stage performer). The actual meaning of the word *ludia* is the gladiator’s wife. Decimus Junius Juvenalis, (Juvenal) and Martial clearly describe a gladiator’s wife or lover when using the word *ludia*. When [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) refers to the "women of rank" (Annals) who appeared in the amphitheater, he uses the term *feminae,* denoting respectable wives and daughters of Roman citizens. Juvenal, on the other hand, uses the term *mulier* to describe a woman who shamelessly rejects her femininity to train as a gladiator, and Petronius uses the same term to describe a female gladiator. Thus, a distinction was made between the lady who does not willingly degrade herself by performing in the arena, and the woman who does. However, neither was ever referred to as a gladiator; *femina* and *mulier* were used out of necessity. References to female gladiators, or gladiatrices, almost always pertain to their appearances in Rome. Tacitus and [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) mention female gladiators during [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/)'s reign on one or possibly two occasions. Petronius refers to a female charioteer in Satyricon 45\. Martial and Dio document female beast-hunters at the games inaugurating the Flavian Amphitheatre under Titus, and Statius, Suetonius, and Dio record female gladiators under Domitian on at least two occasions. Juvenal's depiction of an elite woman training in a *ludus*, while published no earlier than AD 115, likely draws inspiration from Domitian's reign as well. It was in AD 200, that Septimius Severus prohibited women from participating in the arena. Cassius Dio records that during a gymnastic contest: > "…women took part, vying with one another most fiercely, with the result that jokes were made about other very distinguished women as well. Therefore it was henceforth forbidden for any woman, no matter what her origin, to fight in single combat" Emperors often spent more lavishly on games than the aristocracy. Suetonius describes how Domitian regularly hosted grand and costly spectacles in both the amphitheater and the [Circus](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-circus-maximus-and-why-there-is-nothing-left-of-it/), featuring not only male but also female combatants. Dio similarly recounts such events. Statius, in Silvae, praises the variety and generosity of Domitian’s [Saturnalia](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-saturnalia-the-roman-christmas/), which included combats between women. The games that dedicated the Colosseum were particularly magnificent, including female *venatores*, with Dio noting that 9,000 animals were killed during the bloody inauguration of the new arena. Thus, on both imperial and private levels, female gladiators were markers of noteworthy games, reflecting the benevolence and high status of the emperors who organized them. ![A 5th-century mosaic in the Great Palace of Constantinople depicts two venatores fighting a tiger](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/07/Mosaic_museum_Istanbul_2007_011.jpg) A 5th-century mosaic in the Great Palace of Constantinople depicts two venatores fighting a tiger. Public domain Post-96 AD, evidence becomes scarce, likely due to a decrease in literary production following [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/trajans-markets/)'s death. One inscription, undated but thought to be from the second half of the second century AD, was erected by Hostilianus, who claims to be **the first in Ostia since Rome's founding to make women fight**. Dio is the only literary source mentioning female gladiators after Domitian, referring to Septimius Severus' ban in AD 200\. Although he identifies the event that prompted the ban as a gymnastic competition and the participants as athletes, he states the ban was against women appearing in single combat (*monomachiis*). *(Anna McCullough, Female Gladiators in Imperial Rome: Literary Context and Historical Fact)* > *"*There was another exhibition that was at once most disgraceful and most shocking, when men and women not only of the equestrian but even of the senatorial order appeared as performers in the orchestra, in the Circus, and in the hunting-theatre \[Colosseum\], like those who are held in lowest esteem. > > Some of them played the flute and danced in pantomimes or acted in tragedies and comedies or sang to the lyre; they drove horses, killed wild beasts and fought as gladiators, some willingly and some sore against their will." > > *Cassio Dio, Roman History* --- > “Domitian presented many extravagant entertainments in the Colosseum and the Circus. Besides the usual two-horse chariot races he staged a couple of battles, one for infantry, the other for cavalry; a sea-fight in the amphitheatre; wild-beast hunts; gladiatorial shows by torchlight in which women as well as men took part.” Saetonius, *Life of Domitian* ![A Roman Gladiatrix (Female Gladiator) preparing herself mentally for the upcoming battle in the Arena](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/07/gladiatrix-female-gladiator-roman-empire-arena-battle.jpg) A Roman Gladiatrix preparing herself mentally for the upcoming battle in the Arena. Illustration: Midjourney ### Gladiatrix in Roman Archaeological Findings The sources associate female gladiators with particularly expensive and ostentatious games, showcasing personal wealth and imperial extravagance and decadence. This context explains the absence of references to female gladiators during the reign of Augustus. The opulent and costly games featuring women did not align with the image of the Empire and emperor that Augustus promoted through his literary circles or his policy of moral and cultural renewal. Although he did not explicitly ban mentions of women in the arena, Augustus discouraged praise of the extravagant context in which female gladiators appeared, both in literary depictions and in reality. Augustan (and later Neronian) propaganda highlighted "the court as a center of literary patronage and the expectation that the image of the reigning prince would be appropriately burnished and his policy goals depicted in a favorable light." This mission embodied the Golden Age principles of "peace, justice, beauty, and culture." The conservative, neotraditional Roman moral virtues Augustus sought to reinforce through legislation and literature conflicted with the decadence that produced female gladiators. With the priority on promoting these noble principles, authors aiming to celebrate imperial luxury and grandeur had to navigate Augustus' influence carefully. Beyond literary references, **archaeological findings** also substantiate the existence of female gladiators. Notable evidence includes an inscription at the Roman port of Ostia, a shard of inscribed pottery unearthed in Leicester, and a carved relief from Halicarnassus that depicts two female gladiators. The second piece of evidence is a fragment of red pottery with a drilled hole, possibly intended to be worn as a necklace. It is inscribed with: *VERECVNDA LVDIA LVCIUS GLADIATOR*, which Jackson R, translated it as "Verecunda the dancer (or female gladiator), Lucius the gladiator". The purpose of the item remains uncertain, but the inscription suggests Verecunda may have been a female gladiator, potentially fighting in the same troupe as Lucius. The final piece of direct evidence is a marble relief from the first or second century AD, found in Halicarnassus and now displayed in the British Museum. This relief is the most convincing evidence of female gladiators, as it explicitly depicts two women in combat. The figures are dressed and equipped similarly to male provocator gladiators, wearing a loincloth (*subligaculum*), greaves, and an arm protector (*manica*) on their sword-wielding arms. Both are armed with a shield and sword but lack helmets or shirts. ![Relief depicting a battle scene between gladiatrix Amazon and female gladiator Achillia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/07/Relief_depicting_a_battle_scene_between_Amazon_and_Achillia_-51234149344-.jpg) Relief depicting a battle scene between Amazon and Achillia. Credits: TimeTravelRome, CC BY 2.0 They are named *ΑΜΑΖΩΝ* (Amazon) and *ΑΧΙΛΛΙΑ* (Achillia), clearly indicating their gender through these "singularly appropriate" noms de guerre. The inscription *ΑΠΕΛΥΘΗΣΑΝ* (*missae sunt*) above them means they received an honorable discharge from the arena. The relief serves as a monument to their **valiant effort**, marking a significant event worthy of commemoration due to its rarity and the fact that the protagonists were women. The existence of this relief suggests that female gladiatorial combat was taken seriously enough to be commemorated in a lasting and valuable medium. *(Steven Ross Murrey, Female Gladiators of the Ancient Roman World)* --- > "Who has not seen the dummies of wood they slash at and batter > Whether with swords or with spears, going through all the moves? > These are the girls who blast on trumpets in honour of Flora. > Or, it may be, they have deeper designs, and are really preparing for the arena itself. > How can a woman be decent, sticking her head in a helmet, denying her sex she was born with? > Manly feats they adore, but they wouldn't want to be men, > Poor weak things (they think), how little they really enjoy it! > What great honour it is for a husband to see, at an auction > Where his wife's effects are up for sale, belts, greaves, manica and plumes! > Hear her grunt and groan as she works at it, parrying, thrusting; > See her neck bent down under the weight of her helmet. > Look at the rolls of bandage and tape, so her legs look like tree trunks. > Then have a laugh for yourself after the practice is over, > Armour and weapons are put down, and she squats as she uses the vessel. > Ah, degenerate girls of the line of our praetors and consuls, > Tell us, whom have you seen got up in any such fashion, > Panting and [sweating](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-legends-about-gladiator-sweat-heres-what-we-found/) like this? No gladiators wench, > No tough strip-tease broad would ever so much as attempt it." *The Satires of Juvenal* \- The Female Gladiators ### Flavors Rome Never Forgot URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/flavors-rome-never-forgot-roman-desserts/ Last updated: 2025-12-05T23:09:47.000Z Somewhere between the steam of the kitchen hearth and the glitter of banquet halls, the Romans created small pleasures that rarely make it into history books. They were not grand monuments or imperial decrees, but fleeting comforts—crafted, shared, and remembered in quieter moments. A handful of ingredients, a little fire, and a great deal of imagination were enough to leave echoes of sweetness that have survived in recipes, inscriptions, and the charred remains of ordinary homes. What follows is the story of how Rome satisfied its cravings. ### Quince Pastes in the Ancient Mediterranean Quince preserves were among the earliest sweets to close a meal in antiquity, and long before medieval confectioners refined them with sugar, both the [Greeks](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) and the Romans were already preparing concentrated quince pastes sweetened with honey. These pastes were often enriched with warming spices—cinnamon, ginger, or even [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/)—to create a dense, aromatic sweet that could be sliced, stored, and served alongside fruit or cheese at the end of a meal. ![Roman quinche](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Roman-Quince-Pastes.jpg) Roman quinche. Photo by Roman Empire Times, Midjourney In [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/), quince paste functioned not as a frivolous treat but as a kind of semi-luxury food with medicinal undertones, prized for its digestive qualities. Through the centuries this tradition endured: later medieval Arab confectioners replaced honey with sugar, and Iberian cooks carried the recipe forward as *membrillo* (Spain) and *marmelada* ([Portugal](https://romanempiretimes.com/felicitas-lulia-olisipo-lisbon-in-the-roman-times/)), but its origins lay squarely in the kitchens of Greece and Rome. ### Early Roman “Cheesecake”: Honeyed Cheese Discs, Not Modern Dessert Cakes The cheesecakes known to [Greeks and Romans](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) bear almost no resemblance to the creamy, tall desserts familiar today. Instead, ancient versions were compact discs made from fresh cheese blended with honey. Their dense, rustic texture reflected the ingredients available at the time—simple dairy, honey, and occasionally flour—rather than the rich, egg-laden recipes that emerged in later centuries. Though plain by modern standards, these early cheesecakes held an important place in Roman food culture. They were served during religious observances, used as offerings, or featured as simple sweet dishes after meals. Their longevity illustrates how deeply dairy-based sweets were embedded in Mediterranean culinary traditions long before sugar, spices, or complex baking techniques reshaped dessert as we know it. ### A Roman Name That Endured: Mostaccioli Romani *Mostaccioli* appears as a sweet whose very name carries a Roman lineage, described among its traditional variants as *mostacciole* or *mostaccioli romani*. Its naming preserves an ancient association with [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/), showing how certain confections retained a link to the city through their identity and vocabulary. To understand the deeper origin behind this name, ancient sources point to an earlier cake known as *mustacei*. These were prepared with grape must, combined with flour, anise, and soft cheese, then baked on bay leaves for fragrance. Mustacei appeared especially at weddings and festive rural gatherings, forming part of a longstanding tradition of sweet, aromatic cakes tied to celebration and season. (Cato, De Agri Cultura 121) ![Roman mustacei](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Mostaccioli-Romani--1-.jpg) Roman **mustacei*. Photo by Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### Fruit as the Roman Finale: The Earliest “Dessert” Course In the ancient world, including [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/), meals ended not with elaborate pastries but with fruit. Fresh, dried, or cooked fruits were considered appropriate closers for a meal according to long-held dietary beliefs. Dried dates, raisins, figs, melons, cherries, grapes, and pears all appear in ancient sources as suitable concluding foods. Humoral theory—which the Romans inherited from Greek medicine—classified raw fruits as “cold” and therefore potentially harmful unless balanced with something warming. Cooked fruit solved this problem, and [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-tavern-inn-wine-bar-the-hospitality-business-of-an-ancient-roman-city/) served alongside fruit was believed to counteract undesirable effects. Warm spices such as cinnamon, ginger, and anise reinforced this digestive purpose. As a result, a Roman “dessert” was not a sugar-heavy course, but a practical and health-oriented combination of fruits and occasionally cheese—an approach that shaped post-meal eating habits across Europe for centuries ![Fruits as a dessert.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/roman-desser-fruit.jpg) Fruits as a dessert. Photo by Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### Nuts, Wine, and Sweet Spices: A Shared Mediterranean Tradition The Roman preference for dried fruits, nuts, and spiced wines at the end of meals fits a larger Mediterranean pattern. Foods believed to “close” the stomach—aged cheeses, dried figs, raisins, walnuts, and warmed wine—were brought together to help complete digestion. Even though many medieval doctors later debated the dangers of raw fruits, their recommended remedies—cooking fruit in wine, adding warming spices, pairing nuts with pears—echo practices that were already familiar in [Roman dining](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/). While not all these medieval texts explicitly name Roman precedent, the parallels are clear: Rome’s final course was simple, fruit-forward, and medicinally aligned. ("Dessert, A Tale of Happy Endings" by Jery Quinzio) ### Rome Before Sugar: A World Sweetened by Honey Long before cane sugar entered Mediterranean kitchens, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/) relied on a very different palette of sweetness. Honey stood at the center of that world, shaping every level of Roman confectionery. It flavored the small cakes served at banquets, enriched thickened milk and soft cheeses, and bound together mixtures of nuts and grains. For Romans, honey was not an occasional embellishment but the foundation of all sweet dishes. It entered the [culinary tradition](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/) so early and became so deeply embedded that it held its place unquestioned for centuries, joining other staples of the Roman table as one of the pillars of [indulgence](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/). Across the broader Mediterranean, honey was collected in the wild long before systematic beekeeping appeared, and techniques for managing hives had been refined well before Rome rose to prominence. Roman cooks drew upon these older practices, using honey with an ease that suggests long familiarity. In feasts and private gatherings alike, honeyed cakes made regular appearances, affirming both abundance and hospitality. Whatever its form, sweetness in Rome meant honey above all, and its use was as widespread as it was expected. Because Romans had no access to cane sugar, their confections grew from what the region offered: honey, cheeses, thickened dairy, and grape must reduced to syrup. The transformation of grape must into syrup created another sweetening option, one that echoed through much of Mediterranean food history. With these elements, Rome formed a dessert tradition entirely distinct from the sugar-laden creations of later centuries. ![Honey. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/with-mahdy-FiksIuf61h0-unsplash--1-.jpg) Honey. Photo by Unsplash Every treat originated from the land itself—vineyards, orchards, hives, and pastures—rather than overseas plantations that would influence later eras. ### Sweet Makers in the Roman City Sweet dishes were not confined to household kitchens. Urban centers supported specialists whose work focused on creating confections for the public. Their presence underscores a sophisticated demand for dessert-like foods, long before refined sugar made such professions common elsewhere. These artisans crafted honeyed pastries, small cakes, and other delicacies tailored to city tastes. Their shops reflect a culinary world where sweets were not merely occasional offerings but part of the rhythms of urban life, available to those who wished to enjoy them beyond the domestic table. Across the empire, simple combinations formed the basis of beloved treats. Soft cheeses mixed with honey produced dishes that soothed and satisfied, while baked preparations enriched with eggs and flour emerged from the same instinct for comforting sweetness. These pairings stood at the heart of Roman dessert-making, echoing a Mediterranean habit of blending dairy with honey that long predated Rome and continued after it. Their appeal lay in harmony: richness tempered by sweetness, simplicity elevated by texture. The place of Rome in dessert history forms one link in a chain stretching backward into the ancient Near East and forward to the confections of the medieval Islamic world. Techniques Romans inherited from earlier cultures would one day evolve under the influence of sugar, producing desserts unimagined in antiquity. Yet for centuries, the Roman form of sweetness remained rooted in the land and the hive, in the natural abundance that allowed an empire to finish its meals with flavors both elemental and luxurious. (“Sweet invention. A history of dessert” by Michael Krondl) Alongside these simple combinations of honey, dairy, and nuts, there existed another, more fragile world of skill: the art of pastry, of which only fragments now remain. ### Reconstructing Rome’s Lost Pastry Tradition Any attempt to understand pastry in the ancient world immediately encounters the greatest gap in classical cookery: almost the entire literature of ancient patissiers has vanished. What remains are scattered remarks from writers who reveal only glimpses of a once-flourishing tradition. References to desserts made of fresh and dried fruit appear in Columella and [Plin](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/)y. [Martial ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/)speaks of a final course offered to Toranius—overripe grapes, Syrian pears, roasted chestnuts from Naples, Picenian olives, hot chickpeas, and wine. [Alexander](https://romanempiretimes.com/alexander-the-great-in-roman-thought-hero-rival-and-legend/)’s circle is said to have dipped fruits and nuts into gold for their dessert, while Trimalchio’s ingenious cook presented pastries stuffed with raisins and nuts, alongside quinces adorned with thorns to resemble sea urchins, as the spectacular conclusion of a banquet. ![Shaping tracta](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/shaping-tracta.jpg) Shaping tracta. (recreation) Photo by Ellen Schlick, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Many dinners ended with wine alone, which technically transformed them into drinking parties—*comissationes*, *convivia*, or *symposia*. Because many ancient wines were naturally sweet or enhanced with honey, such a drink could suffice as a satisfying final taste. Yet this did not mean the ancients refrained from solid sweets. Passages preserved by Athenaeus suggest that pastry making was a developed craft, practiced by skilled culinary technicians and enjoyed widely by diners. That modern readers are often left with the impression that Greco-Roman desserts consisted only of fruit, nuts, wine, and vague mentions of “cakes” reflects the near-total disappearance of a large corpus of pastry cookbooks that once circulated in domestic kitchens and libraries. Several authors wrote dedicated manuals: Aegimus, Hegesippus, Metrobius, and Phaestus each composed works titled *Artopoiētikon* (“Pastry Cookbook”). Chrysippus of Tyana included pastry preparations within his treatise on bread. Numerous general cookery authors—Glaucus of Locris, Mithaecus, Dionysius, Heracleides of Syracuse, Agis of Syracuse, Epainetus, Hegesippus, Erasistratus, Euthydemus, Crito, Stephanus, Archytas, Acestius, Acesias, Diocles, Philistion, among others—likely included pastry material that is now lost. Only one Roman cookbook survives intact enough to offer support: *the De Re Coquinaria* attributed to Apicius. It mentions several types of pastry—*tracta* and *laganum*—as components in various dishes. Apicius also records two flour-based sweets in which cubes of wheat bread or African must-bread are soaked in milk, baked, and then drenched in honey. Other Roman agricultural writers preserve additional examples. Cato and [Varro](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-terentius-varro-the-polymath-who-catalogued-the-roman-civilization/) give recipes for *globi*, round preparations of cheese, flour, honey, poppy seed, and oil. Cato also records several other pastries, including *placenta, spira*, *scriblita*, *encitum*, *erneum*, *spirita*, *savillum*, and *libum*. Varro mentions *circuli* and *thrion*, while Athenaeus cites several unnamed sweets. To create a full picture of ancient pastry would require a massive study of Cato, Varro, Apicius, Petronius, Horace, Martial, Plautus, Aristophanes, Athenaeus, the lost cookbooks, and most of the comic poets of Greece and Rome. Even then, the absence of the celebrated pastry manuals by authors like Aegimus or Metrobius would prevent any reconstruction from being complete. For now, only modest conclusions are possible, for the surviving material is too fragmentary. From this limited evidence, one type of dough—tracta—can be studied with some clarity, thanks especially to a detailed recipe in Cato. ### Cato’s Recipe for Tracta and the Structure of Roman Pastry Cato’s most extensive instructions for *tracta* appear within his recipe for placenta. > “Make placenta as follows. Take 2 pounds of fine wheat flour to form the base layer. For the tracta, take 4 pounds of flour and 2 pounds of the finest alica. Pour water over the alica. When it has become very soft, place it in a clean mortar and dry it well. Then knead it thoroughly. When it is well worked, add the 4 pounds of flour gradually. From this mixture make the tracta. Place them in a basket so that they may “arescant.” When they have “arescant,” arrange them evenly. > > When you shape each tracta, after kneading it, touch it with a cloth dipped in oil, wipe it, and lightly oil it. … Place each tracta in turn onto the base layer, spreading the cheese-and-honey mixture between them as you go, until all the cheese and honey is used. Place a final tracta on top. Then gather the edges of the base layer around it, arrange the fire, and set the placenta under a hot cover with coals above and around. When it is cooked, remove it and anoint it with honey.” ### Interpreting Cato’s Instructions for Tracta Cato calls for fine flour and very small-grained alica, which is to be soaked until soft, then placed in a mortar. The phrase “dry it well” (*siccatoque bene*) has caused difficulty: mortars had no holes, so the instruction cannot mean “drain through.” More likely, the softened alica was drained and then placed in the mortar to be worked until smooth. ![Placenta made with alica.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/placenta-made-with-alica-1.jpeg) Placenta made with alica. (Recreation) Photo Ellen Schlick, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Flour is added gradually, forming a kneadable dough. From this dough, the cook forms tracta and places them in a basket so they may arescant. The traditional translation of arescant as “dry” creates technical problems. If the dough were brushed with oil before drying, it would remain moist and not dry properly. If it dried completely, it would later be impossible to stretch and would certainly crack. A more practical understanding—consistent with how flour-and-water dough behaves—is to interpret *arescant* as “let them rest.” When dough rests, moisture distributes itself evenly, gluten relaxes, and the surface becomes smoother. This process can be described metaphorically as both “resting” and “drying,” since the tackiness of freshly kneaded dough diminishes. If the tracta rest and are then oiled, they can be pulled or stretched into thin sheets. The layers must be flat and extremely thin; otherwise they would not bake properly when stacked inside a placenta. The very name placenta (from Greek *πλακοῦς*, “flat cake”) supports this thin, flat structure. So does the word tracta, which appears derived from *trahere* (“to pull”), implying dough that is pulled or stretched out—much as strudel or phyllo is stretched by hand today. ### Other Forms and Uses of Tracta Cato shows that tracta were not limited to one form. In his recipe for *spira*, which uses the same ingredients as placenta but is shaped differently, a tracta brushed with honey is stretched out “like a rope” (*restim tractes facito*) and placed on the upper crust, forming a coil that gives the pastry its name. This instruction reveals that tracta could not have been fully dried, for stretching a dried sheet would cause it to break. A rested, oiled sheet, however, stretches readily. A related variation, *spaerita*, employs large balls the size of a fist *(sphaeras pugnum altas*) made from tracta, cheese, and honey. These are placed atop the pastry. This description provides some sense of scale: even if stretched thinly, a workable tracta sheet suitable for rolling into such a ball cannot have been excessively large, perhaps around 30 cm across. Athenaeus also preserves information about tracta, called *kapyria*, made with flour, wine, pepper, milk, and a small amount of oil or lard. The addition of wine and milk would increase moisture, requiring the cook to adjust the flour or water accordingly—something ancient cooks handled intuitively, since recipes rarely gave precise quantities. This flexibility, seen throughout ancient cookery, reflects a professional understanding of doughs whose correct consistency was known by feel rather than by measurement. Thus far, the evidence reveals only one side of tracta: a flat dough used in several distinct ways—first, as thin layers arranged within pastries such as *placenta, spira*, *scriblita, erneum, and spaerita*; second, as dough shaped with honey and cheese to form decorative elements placed on top of pastries, as seen in spira and spaerita; and third, as dough cut into small pieces and fried, as in the *catillus ornatus*, where the same preparation appears under the name *laganum*. ![Overly wet cheese mixture in the full-sized placenta.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/in-the-full-sized-placenta.jpg) Overly wet cheese mixture in the full-sized placenta.(Recreation) Photo by Ellen Schlick, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Yet the ancient cook employed tracta in another direction altogether. Although the dough seems to have been prepared with essentially the same ingredients and by the same method, its purpose was entirely different. In this second use, tracta did not serve as a pastry component—neither as a layered sheet nor as a formed garnish—nor even as a fried delicacy. Instead, it was incorporated into sauces, where it functioned not as a dessert element but as a thickening agent poured over savory dishes. Taken together, the scattered traces of Roman sweetness reveal a culinary world shaped by honey, fruit, nuts, cheeses, and a repertoire of pastries now mostly lost. What survives—whether in agricultural treatises, literary anecdotes, or the technical instructions of Cato—shows that dessert in Rome was neither incidental nor unsophisticated. It belonged to the rhythm of daily life, to ritual, and to the craft of cooks whose work rarely endured beyond the hearth. Through these remnants, the contours of a dessert tradition become visible, offering a view into tastes and techniques that once brought a gentle conclusion to Roman meals. ("Tracta": A Versatile Roman Pastry” by Jon Solomon) ### What Romans Carried on Their Hands Meant More Than We Think URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/what-romans-carried-on-their-hands-meant-more-than-we-think/ Last updated: 2025-12-04T23:44:19.000Z Amid the noise and movement of Roman life existed objects so small they rarely drew notice, yet they accompanied their owners everywhere—from marketplaces to military camps, from banquet halls to the silence of tombs. They were handled, exchanged, guarded, and sometimes lost, carrying with them stories of rank, allegiance, devotion, and the shifting patterns of an empire. In their worn surfaces and carved details lies a record of daily life that survives long after the hands that once shaped or wore them have disappeared. ### The Silent Storytellers of Roman Life Beneath the world of [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-mystery-of-the-lost-roman-legion-the-ninths-final-march/), and marble monuments lay objects so small they rarely earn a place in history books—yet they carried identities, loyalties, affections, and status on their tiny metal frames. These pieces were worn by senators and soldiers, matrons and merchants, inscribed with hopes, warnings, prayers, and the emblems of households. In their surfaces rested the traces of a society held together not only by laws and [armies](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/), but by the habits and symbols people carried on their hands. What survives today is not simply ornament but a parallel record of Roman life, revealing how individuals expressed power, affection, duty, superstition, and memory in the most personal forms imaginable. ### Tokens of Status, Law, and Everyday Life Finger rings in the Roman world served far more than decorative purposes. They appeared in wills, inventories, and legal disputes; they entered family treasuries and passed from one generation to the next. To receive a ring could signify a change in rank, a recognition of service, or the beginning of adulthood. Families often preserved ancestral rings, keeping them not only as heirlooms but as visible proof of lineage. In descriptions of funerary processions, mourners carried masks and symbols of ancestors; rings were among the objects that testified to the continuity of a household. ![ A tiny Roman gold finger-ring, intact and un-damaged. The hexagonal hoop has neatly-incised decorative edges and triangular shoulders with elaborate openwork. The small hexagonal box bezel, with sloping sides and flat surface, is set with a tiny oval gem, its surface now degraded. The remaining fragment of original surface appears black in colour and appears to retain part of an engraved design. Date: 3rd - 4th century AD.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Roman-Finger-Ring-1.jpg) A tiny Roman gold finger-ring, intact and un-damaged. The hexagonal hoop has neatly-incised decorative edges and triangular shoulders with elaborate openwork. The small hexagonal box bezel, with sloping sides and flat surface, is set with a tiny oval gem, its surface now degraded. The remaining fragment of original surface appears black in colour and appears to retain part of an engraved design. Photo credits: The Portable Antiquities Scheme/ The Trustees of the British Museum, CC BY-SA 4.0 Even the simplest bands had layered meanings. A plain iron ring marked military service, worn when soldiers were still barred from gold. Later, gold rings became emblems of citizenship and respectability, though debates about who deserved the privilege lasted for generations. One law distinguished sharply between freeborn citizens and those of lesser standing by restricting the right to wear gold. Such distinctions mattered. They were visible markers of honor, and a ring could reveal more about a man’s status than his clothing or hairstyle. Inscriptions give glimpses of personal emotions and expectations. Many rings carried short lines—“*Bene vale*,” “*Amica fidelis*,” “*Vivas in Deo*”—simple phrases expressing goodwill, loyalty, and remembrance. Others bore the names or initials of owners, suggesting that rings served not only as tokens of affection but also as identifiers. A ring inscribed with a name indicated property, affection, or legal claim. If lost, it might still speak for its owner. The archaeological record contains rings clearly worn for decades, their surfaces softened by daily life. Some bear deep grooves where a tool or repetitive task abraded the metal. Yet others seem scarcely touched, perhaps saved for ceremonies or placed into a grave on the day of burial. Each object reflects the life of the wearer, whether soldier, artisan, freedman, or senator. ### The Roman Seal Ring: Authority at the Fingertip Among the many types of rings worn in Rome, the *anulus signatorius* stood apart. This signet ring, with its engraved gem, acted as a legal instrument. By pressing the carved bezel into soft wax, a Roman authenticated contracts, validated transactions, or marked correspondence. To lose one’s seal could be disastrous, and ancient writers mention cases in which stolen rings were used to forge agreements or impersonate another person. The seal was an extension of the bearer’s identity, as recognizable as a signature. One episode illustrates this danger with striking clarity. When Cornutus was sought by hostile forces, his slaves attempted to save him by presenting another man’s corpse as their master’s. They placed a gold ring on the dead man’s finger—enough on its own to confirm the identity—and the soldiers accepted the deception. The ring, rather than the face or the body, carried the authority of recognition. The engraved gems—typically carnelian, jasper, amethyst, or sard—told stories in miniature. Masters of gem carving produced intaglios showing gods, heroes, mythological scenes, portraits, animals, or symbolic devices tied to a family. Some depicted Minerva for wisdom, Hercules for strength, Mercury for commerce, or Fortuna for prosperity. Others bore abstract emblems known only to the household. The precision of these carvings remains remarkable: tiny drapery folds, minuscule inscriptions, and expressive profiles rendered with astonishing finesse. ![Black Jasper intaglio portrait of a Roman lady.The art of gem cutting was highly prized in Roman. Julius Ceasar is said to have been a passionate collector of gems, and Augustus' signate ring was made by Dioskouride, the finest engraver of his time. Gems were often used to recall family traditions or political allegiances, but they also had a practical purpose, for when they were engraved in negative as intaglio, they could be used as seal stones in signet rings.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/3616253334_ba3a00c27a-1.jpg) Black Jasper intaglio portrait of a Roman lady. The art of gem cutting was highly prized in Roman. Julius Ceasar is said to have been a passionate collector of gems, and Augustus' signate ring was made by Dioskouride, the finest engraver of his time. Gems were often used to recall family traditions or political allegiances, but they also had a practical purpose, for when they were engraved in negative as intaglio, they could be used as seal stones in signet rings. Photo credits: Peter Roan, CC BY-NC 2.0 A seal ring could accompany a Roman throughout life. One might wear a formal seal for business and a second for private correspondence. A young man receiving a seal ring marked a transition into adult responsibility. In literature, giving someone a seal ring is treated as a sign of absolute trust. In grave goods, seal rings appear often enough to show how deeply they were tied to personal identity. Some seals bear traces of repeated use—wax residue clinging to carved lines or slight flattening of the bezel from countless impressions. Others show recutting, where a gem originally engraved with one design was altered to carry another, suggesting inheritance or changing political loyalties. Recutting was common when families wished to maintain continuity without wasting precious materials. Through these rings, the Roman world formalized agreements, expressed loyalty, and established legal claims. They embodied authority in a society that valued visible, tangible symbols of identity. ### Symbols of Love, Faith, and Household Identity Rings served as tokens of affection long before they became formal emblems of [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/). Romans exchanged rings as signs of partnership, remembrance, and devotion. Some contained linked hands—*dextrarum iunctio*—a visual representation of trust and unity. Others bore inscriptions of endearment, sometimes so personal that their meaning remains opaque to modern eyes. ![The symbol of the clasped hands was known in ancient Roman culture by the Latin term ‘dextrarum iunctio’. The depiction of the dextrarum iunctio was highly popular in Roman art. In the Roman world, the right hand was sacred to Fides, the deity of fidelity. The clasping of the right hand was a solemn gesture of mutual fidelity and loyalty at the conclusion of an agreement or contract, the taking of an oath of allegiance, or reception in the mysteries, whose initiates were referred to as syndexioi, "joined by the right hand"](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/dextrarum-iunctio-on-roman-ring--1--1.jpg) The symbol of the clasped hands was known in ancient Roman culture by the Latin term ‘dextrarum iunctio’. The depiction of the dextrarum iunctio was highly popular in Roman art. In the Roman world, the right hand was sacred to Fides, the deity of fidelity. The clasping of the right hand was a solemn gesture of mutual fidelity and loyalty at the conclusion of an agreement or contract, the taking of an oath of allegiance, or reception in the mysteries, whose initiates were referred to as syndexioi, "joined by the right hand". Photo credits: Stephen Chappell, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Religious motifs were equally widespread. A ring engraved with Venus might suggest love or beauty, while one showing Hercules symbolized courage or protection. Many bore miniature household gods, carried not as public statements but as private assurances of safety. Certain stones had protective associations. Green stones were believed to strengthen sight, while red stones guarded against injury. Amber was linked to healing and female virtue, and clear stones were thought to bring mental clarity. These beliefs threaded through [Roman daily life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/), shaping the stones chosen for rings and the functions ascribed to them. Household identity appeared in initials or monograms. These were not merely decorative; they signaled the social fabric of a family. Rings inscribed with abbreviations or symbols connected wearers to their backgrounds and indicated belonging. Inscriptions such as “DM” (*Domino Magistro*) or “*AVGVSTAE*” paired with initials show that rings communicated complex relationships—devotion to patrons, spouses, or households. These rings extend the emotional vocabulary of the ancient world. They tell of bonds formed in quiet spaces—between lovers, spouses, parents, and children. They mark promises kept and connections preserved across time. ### Materials That Marked Status Roman rings were made from a variety of materials, each indicating social position, economic means, or personal taste. Gold was the metal of prestige. By the late Republic and early [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/), the *ius aureorum anulorum* (a legal privilege granting someone—usually an equestrian or someone elevated by imperial favor—the right to wear the gold ring (*anulus aureus*), the traditional symbol of equestrian rank and high social status ), regulated who could wear gold rings, reserving them initially for senators and equestrians. Over time, restrictions softened, and successful merchants, officers, and even freedmen gained the right. Still, wearing a gold ring remained a clear declaration of rank. Silver rings were affordable for many freeborn citizens. They offered a respectable appearance and could house engraved gems of considerable quality. Their widespread use across workshops in Italy and the provinces shows how deeply jewelry was woven into Roman identity. Bronze and iron served the lower classes. [Soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) often wore iron rings because of early restrictions against gold. Even after such rules relaxed, iron remained common in military contexts, partly due to practicality and partly because rings could be lost easily during campaigns. These rings, though simple, testify to the universality of ornament. Glass rings and paste gems expanded access even further. Some glass rings imitated precious stones with surprising artistry. Surviving examples with bright colors and smooth polish show that desire for beauty transcended class. Materials intersected with personal expression. A wealthy [woman](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) might own several rings with different stones for different rituals or seasons. A merchant might prefer durable metal for travel. A soldier returning from service might purchase a silver ring engraved with a deity connected to his legion. The diversity of surviving rings demonstrates a society that communicated identity through everyday objects. ![Gold signet ring with intaglio with portrait of Commodus in Nicolo, 180 to 200 AD, find location - Tongeren, de Schaetzengaarde 22, 1998, loose find (possibly gold treasure), collection Gallo-Roman Museum Tongeren,](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Gold-signet-ring-with-intaglio-with-portrait-of-Commodus--1-.jpg) Gold signet ring with intaglio with portrait of Commodus in Nicolo, 180 to 200 AD, find location - Tongeren, de Schaetzengaarde 22, 1998, loose find (possibly gold treasure), collection Gallo-Roman Museum Tongeren. Public domain ### Craftsmanship and Engraving: The Art Beneath the Detail Behind each Roman ring stood specialized labor. Goldsmiths shaped bezels and hollowed bands; gem engravers carved intaglios with drills and abrasives; apprentices polished finished pieces to shine. Workshops across [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/), [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-tavern-inn-wine-bar-the-hospitality-business-of-an-ancient-roman-city/), Alexandria, and provincial centers produced rings of varying quality—from mass-made bronze bands to exquisite gold pieces set with expertly carved stones. Engraving required immense skill. Hard stones like carnelian or sard resisted cutting, yet Roman artisans achieved precision visible even under magnification. Some engravings depict entire mythological narratives compressed into a few millimeters. Others show lifelike portraits, suggesting that personal likenesses were deeply valued. Workshops often repeated popular designs—Victories, cupids, dolphins, or heads of [gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-religion-of-ancient-rome-how-roman-worshipped-their-gods/)—but bespoke commissions were common. Inscriptions indicate individualized demands. Many rings also show evidence of repair: replaced bezels, soldered cracks, or recut stones, suggesting lives of long service. Roman writers note the expertise of gem carvers and the pride associated with high-quality work. The popularity of such artistry spread across the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/), with certain patterns appearing from Spain to Syria. The diffusion of styles demonstrates both widespread access to ornament and the shared symbolism underpinning [Roman society](https://romanempiretimes.com/inside-roman-society-how-ordinary-life-shaped-an-extraordinary-empire-part-2/). ### Rings in Roman Ritual, Superstition, and Memory Rings also belonged to the realm of ritual. Some were worn as [protective amulets](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-supernatural-magic-omens-haunted-houses-ghosts-and-rituals/). Stones of particular colors or properties were believed to repel harm or confer blessings. Others bore inscriptions invoking divine guardianship. It was common to dedicate rings at [temples](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/), either in thanks or in hope of favor. Funerary contexts reveal their importance at life’s end. Rings accompany the deceased in many graves, worn on the finger or placed nearby. Their presence suggests they were considered essential markers of identity. In some tombs, rings appear in multiples, hinting that the dead were buried with objects that symbolized the chapters of their lives. Superstitions attached themselves to rings with symbolic imagery. Snakes indicated renewal, dolphins good fortune, lions strength. Some rings bore single letters or cryptic symbols meant to shield the wearer from misfortune. The belief that gems held powers—promoting health, courage, or insight—added layers of meaning to what might seem simple jewelry. Throughout their lives, Romans visualized protection through these rings. Whether through the image of a god, the engraving of a phrase, or the choice of a particular stone, people carried fragments of belief on their hands. ![Gem with Intaglio with Bellerophon and Pegasos. Gem engraving was a major art form in ancient Greece and Rome. Precious stones were thought to have healing and protective powers and were used as amulets and seals as well as jewelry.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Roman-Gem-with-Intaglio-with-Bellerophon-and-Pegasos--1-.jpg) **Gem with Intaglio with Bellerophon and Pegasos*. Gem engraving was a major art form in ancient Greece and Rome. Precious stones were thought to have healing and protective powers and were used as amulets and seals as well as jewelry. Photo credits: Walters Art Museum ### The Social Life of a Roman Ring The “life” of a ring often extended far beyond its first owner. Rings were inherited, gifted, altered, or repurposed. Some were upgraded with new stones; others had their bezels replaced. When styles changed, an older ring might be recut to suit new tastes. Rings also moved with people—merchants carried them along trade routes, soldiers across frontiers, and families through migrations. Lost rings appear often in ancient anecdotes. Writers mention rings dropped in rivers, stolen in [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), or found unexpectedly. Such mentions reflect how closely rings accompanied daily life. A Roman ring could live several lives: as a new ornament, a seal of authority, a token of affection, a repaired heirloom, and eventually an archaeological artifact. Each layer of use added to its story, allowing modern observers to glimpse not only craftsmanship but also the personal histories behind them. ### Anecdotes of Lost and Miraculous Rings in Ancient Literature Ancient writers filled their works with stories of rings lost, stolen, or returned in uncanny ways, each tale reflecting how deeply these objects were woven into daily life. One of the most famous accounts appears in Herodotus, who tells how Polycrates of Samos threw his cherished signet ring — a gold seal set with an emerald — into the sea to appease the gods who resented his good fortune. Days later, a fisherman presented Polycrates with a large fish as a gift, and inside its belly lay the lost ring. The episode became a moral emblem of inescapable fate. [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) repeats the story in his Natural History, treating it as evidence of divine intervention and the peculiar destinies attached to precious objects. Other anecdotes revolve around theft, especially in the [public baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/), where the shedding of clothing made valuables vulnerable. [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/) jokes about bathhouse thieves slipping rings from fingers slick with oil, while [Juvenal ](https://romanempiretimes.com/juvenal-the-poet-who-held-a-mirror-to-rome/)warns that even wealthy Romans avoided wearing jewelry there for fear of its disappearance. The baths, he suggests, made everyone equal—not in rank, but in the shared risk of being robbed. Stories of rings lost to water recur often. Aulus Gellius recounts an instance of a ring dropped into a river and found long afterward by chance, still bearing the intact seal that once validated legal acts. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/), too, refers to cases in which stolen rings were used to imitate another man’s authority, forging commitments or altering correspondence—a reminder that losing one’s seal was more than a matter of property; it threatened one’s legal identity. In another tale preserved by later compilers, a ring vanished at sea only to return years later inside a fish sold at market, echoing the pattern of Polycrates’ story and showing how widely the motif circulated. Across these accounts, from Herodotus to Pliny, Gellius, Cicero, Martial, and Juvenal, the same pattern emerges: rings, whether signets or ornaments, accompanied Romans everywhere, and their loss or recovery became the stuff of legend, wit, and moral reflection. 💡 “Finger-ring lore, historical, legendary, anecdotal" by F.S.A. William Jones.” **Credits: Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive*) Across centuries of Roman history, rings carried meanings that touched every part of life—law, affection, belief, status, and personal memory. Their surfaces held identities as surely as any inscription carved in stone, yet they remained objects of daily use, worn into familiarity by hands long vanished. In the weight of their metal and the delicacy of their engravings lies a record of Roman society that endures quietly, one small circle at a time. ### The Empire Below the Surface URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-below-the-surface/ Last updated: 2025-12-03T23:02:05.000Z Beneath the surface of Roman life lay structures rarely noticed and seldom celebrated—objects too ordinary to be heroic, yet too essential to ignore. They stood at the edge of fields, sunken in courtyards, clustered in workshops, and hidden behind the walls of estates, holding more than they revealed. In their stillness, they shaped production, movement, and the everyday rhythms that sustained the empire, forming a quiet system without which Rome’s abundance would have been impossible. ### A City That Consumed More Than It Produced Two thousand years ago, the people of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) drank such vast quantities of [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/) that the amount consumed in a single year would have filled the [Pantheon](https://romanempiretimes.com/unveiling-the-eternal-things-about-the-pantheon-you-did-not-know/) beyond capacity. Yet almost none of this wine came from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) itself. The metropolis was too crowded and intensely occupied to generate its own supplies, and its population relied on a far-reaching system that provided food and drink not only to the capital but also to the expanding territories of the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/). Moving and safeguarding such quantities presented a considerable challenge in a world without climate-controlled transport. Expectations added further pressure: wine was wanted throughout the year, but harvesting grapes and producing wine took place only once annually, beginning in the autumn, and could take much longer when aging was involved. Ensuring a steady supply for a large population required not only abundant production but storage on an exceptional scale. ![Dolia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Dolia.jpg) Dolia. Photo credits: Cinzia A. Rizzo, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. Across the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/), storage technology and infrastructure developed to unprecedented levels. Massive warehouses, or *horrea*, lined rivers and coastlines and marked the landscape of the ancient capital as well as many other urban and military sites. The output of vineyards, farms, and rural villas was increased through the use of extensive wine cellars that housed *dolia* (singular *dolium*), enormous ceramic vessels whose scale was rarely matched after the Roman period. ### The Scale and Reach of Rome’s Largest Vessels *Dolia* were by far the largest containers produced in antiquity. Their capacity ranged from several hundred liters to as much as three thousand, and many stood higher than an adult. They were used mainly for storing wine, though at times they held other goods such as oil, grain, or fish sauce. [Olive oil](https://romanempiretimes.com/olive-oil-in-the-roman-empire-how-the-romans-discovered-the-liquid-gold/) appears only intermittently in connection with dolia, as their use for oil in central Italy was limited; the region’s relatively low yields and consumption of olive oil, together with the availability of other storage options and prevailing production patterns, meant that dolia were not the primary choice for that commodity. Thousands of *dolia defossa*, vessels buried up to their shoulders to maintain a cool temperature, survive in ancient houses, farms, warehouses, and port complexes, often in dedicated storerooms known as *cellae*. Some examples were even set permanently into the hulls of ships. Their widespread use means that dolia appear across the Roman world, and numerous complete assemblages remain in situ, offering direct evidence for how wine and, at times, olive oil were stored in antiquity. ![ A warehouse with 20 dolia defossa (buried jars) for storing wine or olive-oil was built on the decumanus minor, near the temple of Diana](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Dolia-defossa.jpg) A warehouse with 20 dolia defossa (buried jars) for storing wine or olive-oil was built on the decumanus minor, near the temple of Diana. Photo credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ### When a Storage Jar Became Something More Although dolia survive in large numbers and are often well preserved, they remain insufficiently studied. One obstacle to a comprehensive understanding is the absence of agreement on what a *dolium* actually is. The term is frequently used informally for any very large jar that defies easy identification, and dolia are often confused with other oversized vessels. A clear distinction is therefore needed, separating dolia from the broader tradition of large storage jars that preceded them. Among these earlier containers were *pithoi* (singular *pithos*), which for centuries played an essential role in storing food in the Mediterranean. Holding several hundred liters, pithoi were substantial terracotta jars used for cereals, legumes, wine, and olive oil. Their thick walls protected contents by keeping them cool and dry and by shielding them from fluctuating temperatures, humidity, moisture, and pests. Usually cylindrical or pear-shaped, they had wide rims for easy access and were set on the ground or partly buried to stabilize them. Many bore geometric or figural decoration, especially in the early Iron Age, and some featured ornamental, nonfunctional handles, since the vessels were far too heavy to lift by such attachments. Pithoi carried symbolic significance as well, associated with surplus, sustenance, and life itself, and were used as status objects in households, communities, and even burials. Their usefulness ranged widely, serving domestic, communal, and palatial needs. In the Aegean Bronze Age, scholars have identified pithoi as essential to the palace system’s ability to gather, store, and redistribute agricultural surplus. Their contribution extended to central Italy as well: recent work on Etruscan pithoi has shown that these vessels supported large-scale economic growth and urban development in Etruria during the seventh to fifth centuries BCE by increasing agricultural productivity and enabling towns and cities to sustain their populations. Despite this long tradition of using large ceramic jars for food storage, dolia were not simply pithoi under a different name. Determining the moment when potters began producing dolia as distinct vessels is impossible, as the evidence is sparse. Their development was likely gradual, arising as skills expanded and demand grew. ![Large pithos with relief, island orientalizing work from the years 700-675](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Pithos--1-.jpg) Distinguishing dolia from pithoi can also be difficult because Latin authors often used dolia and [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) authors pithoi in overlapping ways to denote very large ceramic containers. Even so, differences existed. In antiquity, dolium referred to a specific kind of ceramic storage vessel designed for wine, and although dolia varied in size, ancient writers and archaeological evidence indicate that they commonly held around 550–750 liters. The [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) term pithos, by contrast, described a general storage jar not tied to any single product. The word dolium appears relatively late, first attested in Plautus’ Pseudolus and in Cato’s De Agri Cultura. Marcus Cato’s instructions for managing a farm included extensive lists of equipment, prominently featuring dolia for wine and oil cellars. In Pseudolus, the enslaved protagonist remarks that “we are loading words into a perforated dolium,” reflecting the expression *ingerere aliquid in pertusum dolium*, meaning to waste one’s effort. By the early second century BCE, dolia were well enough known to appear in everyday speech and proverbial expressions. [Varro](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-terentius-varro-the-polymath-who-catalogued-the-roman-civilization/) records that before the term dolium, an older word, *calpar*, was used for a wine vessel; calpar derived from the Greek *kalpis*, a vessel for sacrificial wine and associated with “new wine.” About a century later, [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) wrote that dolia were “invented for wine” (*doliis ad vina excogitatis*). A dolium was therefore designed primarily for storing wine. Archaeological evidence supports the idea that dolia had a particular form and emerged as a distinct type by the late third or early second century BCE. Whereas pithoi tended to be more cylindrical, dolia were strawberry-shaped or spherical and left undecorated to facilitate wine fermentation. Their thick ceramic walls and their partially buried placement (*dolia defossa*) kept wine cool. The earliest securely identified dolia come from mid-Republican contexts. The production of dolia in regions such as Latium, Tuscany, and Campania is not clearly attested before the third century BCE, and only a few possible production sites earlier than this have been tentatively identified. [Elite villas ](https://romanempiretimes.com/domus-romana-the-roman-villa-of-rabat-malta/)with dolia do not appear in significant numbers until the second century BCE. Taken together, literary and archaeological evidence shows that dolia formed a distinct category of vessel with a specific design and purpose, first developed by specialized potters around the third century BCE for a rapidly expanding Italian wine industry. By the time dolia emerged in their mature form, they were no longer simply jars but fixtures woven into the fabric of Roman agricultural space. ### More Than a Container: A Fixed Element of the Roman Farm Dolia were unlike ordinary pottery: their immense size meant they were not portable and were treated as fixed elements of a property, legally comparable to architectural features. They were produced in the same heavy-terracotta workshops that supplied bricks and tiles, and they often remained in use for decades, showing signs of repair that extend their working life. ![Dolia in the excavation area of Ostia Antica in Italy.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Ostia_Antica_Dolia--1-.jpg) Dolia in the excavation area of Ostia Antica in Italy. Photo credits: AlMare, CC BY-SA 3.0 Although usually overlooked in economic studies, dolia provide important evidence for the scale and organization of Roman wine production and storage. Their increasing number across central Italy and the Mediterranean reflected broader economic expansion, especially in the wine trade. Each dolium carries its own history, and details such as construction methods, transport, installation, use, repair, and eventual repurposing offer insight into the labor and skills involved. ### The Most Demanding Craft in Roman Ceramic Production Producing a dolium was the most challenging and specialized form of ceramic work in antiquity. Although classed as the largest type of pottery, dolia were not made simply by enlarging the methods used for ordinary vessels. Their size and distinctive form required mastery of different materials and techniques. The evidence for dolium manufacture makes it possible to consider not only how these vessels were constructed but also the skills and difficulties involved. Some ancient texts allude to the status of the craft, the high cost of the vessels, and the considerations a buyer should keep in mind when selecting one, but no surviving account describes the risks or demands of the process from the maker’s viewpoint. To reconstruct the steps, archaeological remains are combined with ethnographic studies of large ceramic vessels still produced today for fermentation—such as Greek *pithoi*, Georgian *qvevri*, Spanish and Portuguese *tinajas* and *talhas*, and Korean *onggi*. The few surviving traditions of this scale help illuminate ancient construction methods and logistical strategies. Dolium manufacture required specific clay mixtures, skilled shaping, and proper firing to produce a vessel suitable for wine, and these technical concerns remained consistent across time. Dolia were the most expensive ceramic objects available in antiquity. According to Diocletian’s Price Edict of 301 CE, they cost 1,000 denarii—approximately 2,500 times the price of ten lamps, which sold for 4 denarii. A new dolium would have been inaccessible to most people: its cost amounted to at least forty days’ wages for farm workers earning 25 denarii per day, and more than eighty days’ wages for weavers earning 12–16 denarii per day. Their high price reflected not only the large quantity of clay required—hundreds of kilograms—but also the expertise, time, and risks associated with their production. Only experienced specialists made dolia. As early as around 380 BCE, Plato’s Socrates referenced the difficulty of such work: > “In truth would it not be ridiculous that men should come to such folly that, without first practicing privately, sometimes with indifferent results, sometimes with success, and so getting adequate training in the art, they should, as the saying is, attempt to learn pottery by starting on a pithos, and attempt public service themselves and summon others of their like to do so?” The passage implies that a potter progressed through increasing levels of difficulty, with pithos production at the highest stage of training. Dolia exceeded pithoi in size, and their strawberry-like, top-heavy shape posed even greater manufacturing challenges, with increased risk of failures such as collapsing walls, cracking, or other flaws. Experimental work has shown that poorly made vessels could be overly porous, resulting in aeration, excessive oxygen exposure, unhygienic conditions, and losses of wine. ![View of dolia in situ from the Villa Regina in Boscoreale, Italy](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Villa_Regina_view_of_dolia_in_situ--1-.jpg) View of dolia in situ from the Villa Regina in Boscoreale, Italy. Photo credits: Carla Brain, CC BY-SA 4.0 The required knowledge extended to the earliest stages of production, beginning with clay collection. Gathering and preparing the raw material drew on practical experience and followed a seasonal rhythm similar to that for brick and tile manufacture. Clay was generally dug between late summer and early autumn and then left to weather until spring, making it more workable and less prone to later defects. Weathering broke down the clay minerals, allowing for tempering and processing, including the removal of large impurities and the addition of stable ballast. The coarse clay bodies used for dolia—rich in alumina and silica and often containing ground-up fired material such as [discarded pottery](https://romanempiretimes.com/monte-testaccio-the-roman-hill-composed-of-53-million-amphorae-fragments-2/), bricks, and tiles—provided strength and resistance to warping. However, a single impurity could lead to radiating cracks during air-drying or firing. Workshops developed their own clay mixtures, incorporating additives such as grog, sand, or plant fibers to improve workability and structural integrity. Shaping a dolium was laborious and required advanced skill. Ancient and modern evidence indicates that these vessels were too large to throw on a standard wheel and were instead coil-built over several days or even weeks. The fourth-century CE writer Anatolios, included in the Geoponika, observed that: > “potters do not raise all pithoi on the wheel, only the small ones; they build up the bigger ones placed on the ground in a warm room day by day, and make them large.” Dolia from the House of Stabianus in [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-tavern-inn-wine-bar-the-hospitality-business-of-an-ancient-roman-city/)—found freestanding at the time of the eruption—provide some of the clearest indications of this technique. Cracks and seams show that dolium makers constructed them gradually with coils on a slow-turning wheel or turntable. The potter began with a clay disc forming a small base six to ten centimeters thick, then added hand-shaped or rolled coils, likely only one or two per day, allowing each layer to dry sufficiently before adding the next. A good clay body allowed faster work and reduced the likelihood of flaws. Areas difficult to reach reveal that potters normally smoothed the seams between coils as the vessel rose and sometimes paddled or scored the surfaces to encourage adhesion. If one coil failed to bond properly with the next, horizontal cracks could develop or the vessel could break apart entirely. Once the body was complete, the potter formed the rim—typically thick and sturdy to support heavy lids. The rim offered the most variation: the potter might build a smaller coil and shape the lip after scoring, or form a coil for the rim and pull or fold part of it to create the finished edge. ### Installing and Using Dolia in Roman Wine Production Dolia were primarily used for storing and fermenting liquids, though they could be repurposed for dry goods once no longer suitable for wine or oil. Their shape made it easy to retrieve remaining liquid, and a two-part lid system insulated and protected the contents. Proper installation was essential, with dolia spaced and positioned according to their intended function, and wine and oil rooms designed with different environmental needs in mind. In winemaking, must was transferred into vats or dolia for fermentation, a process that could be forceful enough to damage vessels. Varro notes that after new wine was stored, > “not only the large vessels used in Spain but also dolia used in Italy are burst by the fermentation of the must,” illustrating the risks involved. Dolia were shaped to manage circulation, temperature, and gas expansion, and their resin coatings contributed to characteristic Roman wine flavors. Ancient advice also distinguished which vessel sizes were best suited to different stages of fermentation and wine quality. (“Dolia. The containers that made Rome an empire of wine” by Caroline Cheung) ![Dolia In Tavern Counter, Herculaneum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Dolia-In-Tavern-Counter--Herculaneum--1-.jpg) Dolia In Tavern Counter, Herculaneum. Photo credits: Tyler Bell, CC BY 2.0 ### How Dolia Shaped Roman Winemaking and Wine Quality The evidence suggests that dolia were not simply storage jars but vessels deliberately engineered for the different stages of Roman winemaking. Their form, placement, and material properties created conditions suitable for fermenting, maturing, and aging wine at considerable scale. Their buried position helped stabilize temperature, while their thick ceramic walls and interior treatments contributed to regulating the wine during fermentation. The combination of shape, size, and installation allowed dolia to manage the circulation of the must, the escape of gases, and the development of the wine’s texture. The oenological effects of dolia can also be inferred through the sensory characteristics reported by ancient authors. Features such as micro-oxygenation through the ceramic walls, resin coatings applied for sealing, and the interaction between the vessel’s volume and its contents help explain ancient descriptions of wine that was darker, more robust, and capable of long keeping. In many cases, must remained in contact with its skins, stems, and solids during fermentation, producing wines with deeper color and higher tannin levels than those familiar today. This prolonged maceration, together with the vessel’s controlled environment, resulted in wines with considerable stability—qualities that enhanced their suitability for storage, transport, and distribution. Ancient writers also refer to a surface layer known as *flos vini*, which formed during fermentation. This layer is consistent with the action of flor yeasts and suggests that oxidative processes took place within the vessels. Literary descriptions indicate aromas and flavors that align with these conditions, including notes that modern chemistry associates with compounds such as sotolon, which produces nutty or spicy characteristics. These observations show how the vessel’s environment shaped the organoleptic profile of Roman wine. The practice of pitching dolia is confirmed by both textual and archaeological evidence. Coatings of resin or pitch waterproofed the interior and added further aromatic elements, influencing how the wine aged and how long it could be kept. Chemical analyses of residues support the presence of these treatments, demonstrating a consistent approach to preparing dolia for use. ![Embedded earthenware dolia (storage jars) at the Oppidum d'Ensérune in southern France](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Embedded-earthenware-dolia--storage-jars--at-the-Oppidum-d-Ens--rune-in-southern-France.jpg) Embedded earthenware dolia (storage jars) at the Oppidum d'Ensérune in southern France. Photo credits: Mary Harrsch, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 The shape and capacity of dolia also played a significant role. Their volume varied widely, from moderate to extremely large sizes, and this variation affected fermentation temperatures, extraction levels, and the overall behavior of the wine. Larger vessels facilitated slow, stable fermentation, while their wide shoulders and narrow bases helped manage the expansion of gases and minimized risks associated with the process. The vessel’s geometry thus worked together with its installation and material to create controlled winemaking environments. These characteristics illustrate the role dolia played in producing stable wines suited for long-term storage and large-scale transport. The stability and durability of wines made in dolia supported the organization of Roman wine distribution, from estate-level production to broader commercial networks. Their technical design and the wine profiles they produced therefore contributed directly to the system that sustained Rome’s extensive wine consumption and trade. ("Making wine in earthenware vessels: a comparative approach to Roman vinification" by Dimitri Van Limbergen and Paulina Komar) Much of what sustained Rome unfolded out of sight, carried by forms that demanded skill, labour, and long experience. Their presence marked workshops, farms, and storehouses, linking distant regions through routine practices repeated season after season. In their scale, their permanence, and their capacity to hold the products of the land, they stood at the centre of a system that supported the empire’s daily needs and the wider patterns of its economy. ### Behind Rome’s Prosperity: A Guide Not a Myth URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/behind-rome-prosperity-a-guide-not-a-myth/ Last updated: 2025-12-02T21:52:31.000Z Rome’s prosperity didn’t emerge from legend or luck. Beneath the marble triumphs and military conquests lay a quieter force—one built not on myth, but on method. Somewhere in the rhythm of the seasons, in the ordered work of fields and farms, a Roman writer captured a system that outlasted emperors. What he preserved was more than knowledge; it was the blueprint of how an empire fed itself, survived itself, and imagined its future. Columella’s agricultural treatise *De Re Rustica* attracts far less attention than its scope and interest would suggest. Even finding a reliable text is difficult: the last complete edition appeared in the eighteenth century, and the only approximation of an English version is a small selection of passages printed in Dublin in 1732. ### A Roman Farm Expert Rediscovered Almost everything known about Columella comes from his own writings. His full name is given as Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella. He lived in the same era as seneca who was born in 4 B.C. and died in A.D. 65, and, like [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/), came from Spain. Seneca’s brother Gallio, also a Spaniard and later proconsul of Achaea, is known from the Acts of the Apostles and died in the same year. [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) frequently cites Columella. On this basis, *De Re Rustica* can be placed most probably in the 60s of the first century A.D. Columella states that he was born and spent his early years at or near Gades, modern Cádiz, in the south-west of Spain. He does not mention his parents, but he often refers to an uncle, Marcus, a keen farmer who lived in Baetica, the province where Gades was located. It is likely that part of Columella’s youth was spent in his uncle’s household. At some stage he served with the army at Tarentum, where an inscription describes him as military tribune of the Sixth Legion *Ferrata*, a unit known to have been recruited at Gades. Later, while composing his agricultural works, he lived in the countryside near [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) and held estates in Latium and Etruria. Alongside the twelve books of *De Re Rustica* and the *De Arboribu*s, which survive, he also composed a work Against the Astrologers and either wrote or planned a treatise on religious ceremonies connected with agriculture. ### How *De Re Rustica* Is Built, Book by Book The agricultural treatise follows a clear and deliberate plan. Book I deals with the site of the farm, the nature and layout of the buildings, and the staff required to run the estate. Book II turns to agriculture in the narrower sense: the treatment of soil, ploughing, and cropping. Books III, IV, and V are devoted respectively to fruit trees, [vines](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/), and [olive trees](https://romanempiretimes.com/olive-oil-in-the-roman-empire-how-the-romans-discovered-the-liquid-gold/). Book VI discusses the larger domestic animals—cattle, horses, mules, and donkeys—and includes sections on veterinary medicine. Book VII covers the smaller animals: sheep, goats, pigs, and [dogs](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-ancient-romans-have-pets/). Book VIII moves to the care of poultry and other birds, as well as the creatures kept in fish-ponds. Book IX is devoted to bees. Book X, written in hexameters, treats gardening. The eleventh and twelfth books form a kind of appendix and seem to have been added later. Book XI describes the duties of the bailiff; Book XII sets out the responsibilities of the bailiff’s wife and contains recipes for pickles, preserves, and preparations of wine and oil. The *De Arboribus* overlaps in part with Books III–V and was probably an earlier and shorter version of that material. ![Statue of Columella, holding a sickle and an ox-yoke, in the Plaza de las Flores, Cádiz](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Columella-Statue.jpg) Statue of Columella, holding a sickle and an ox-yoke, in the Plaza de las Flores, Cádiz. Public domain ### The Library Behind a Roman Farm Manual *De Re Rustica* is a practical handbook rather than a theoretical essay. Before composing it, Columella undertook a thorough reading of agricultural writers from Hesiod down to his own day and lists about fifty such authors, many of whom are now little more than names. Among those most frequently cited is the Carthaginian writer Mago, whose agricultural work the [Roman Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) had translated into Latin. Because there was no concept of copyright in antiquity, Columella freely takes over material he finds useful from earlier Roman authorities such as [Cato](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/) and [Varro](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-terentius-varro-the-polymath-who-catalogued-the-roman-civilization/). Any passage that suits his purpose may be adopted and worked into his own exposition. The language of *De Re Rustica* reflects the refinement and ease of Silver Latin at its best, without its more artificial tendencies. Columella rarely indulges in decorative writing; when he does, it is usually in passages attacking the moral condition of contemporary Roman society or describing the beauty of a well-kept vineyard. He shows particular skill in explaining complex arrangements with clarity—for example, when setting out the design of a sophisticated hen-house or describing a device that holds animals in position for surgical treatment. ### Virgil in the Garden: Book X in Hexameters Columella admired [Virgil](https://romanempiretimes.com/analysis-of-the-world-of-virgil-roman-poet-eclogues-georgics-and-the-aeneid/) deeply and quotes him often. His tenth book is written in hexameters in an attempt to echo Virgil’s manner. The chosen subject is gardening, a topic that Virgil, in Georgics IV, explicitly declares he leaves for others. Columella cannot be ranked as a major [poet](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/), but he does his best with a theme that is not naturally suited to elevated verse, even devoting lines to the cabbage. He appears quite aware of the gap between his own achievement and his model. At one point he interrupts himself, asking why he has let his “horses” run with loosened rein on so exalted a path and acknowledging that his muse calls him back to a humbler subject, to verse of a slighter kind that might be sung by a pruner in a tree or a gardener at work in a small plot. ### Serious Instruction with Fleeting Moments of Comedy The tone of *De Re Rustica* is consistently earnest. The purpose is to teach, not to entertain. Yet there are passages that become unintentionally humorous. Columella advises that the farmhouse should not be built too close to a main [road](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/), otherwise too many people will feel free to drop in at mealtimes. He recommends dried figs mixed with flour as excellent for fattening birds intended for sale. Some people, he reports, chew the figs before mixing them with the flour; this practice is rejected as unsuitable where many birds must be fed, because it is expensive to hire people simply to chew the figs, and they are likely to swallow part of the fruit themselves. The example at the same time reveals his constant concern with profit and his reluctance to endorse anything that does not pay. ### “The Soil Is Exhausted”: Columella’s Reply to His Contemporaries Columella devotes a good deal of attention to the attitudes of people in his own day. It is quite common, he says, to hear complaints that the soil is worn out and infertile. In his view, the fault lies not in the land but in the farmers, who do not take the trouble to learn how to cultivate it properly. If someone wishes to learn to sing, dance, or speak in public, they seek out the best teacher they can find. For agriculture, however, there are neither recognized teachers nor students, even though no human being can be fed without capable tillers of the soil. The old Romans, such as [Cincinnatus](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-cincinnati-ohio-get-its-name-the-story-of-lucius-quinctius-cincinnatus/), farmed the land awarded to them after their victories with the same energy that they had shown in battle. By contrast, people in Columella’s time care only for luxury and pleasure. Their hands are used mainly to applaud dancers on stage; their nights are spent in feasting and drinking, and their days in sleep and [gambling](https://romanempiretimes.com/fortunes-favors-exploring-the-gambling-culture-of-ancient-rome-romans-gamble/). ![Cincinnati - Sawyer Point: Cincinnatus Statue.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Cincinnatus-Statue.jpg) Cincinnati - Sawyer Point: Cincinnatus Statue. Photo credits: Wally Gobetz, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 In the very country where the gods of old taught humans how best to win the fruits of the earth, Romans now live on imported grain, and farming is dismissed as a craft for which no training is required. Columella rejects this so firmly that he declares his only fear is that his last day will come before he has mastered the subject himself. ### Running a Slave-Worked Estate: Bailiffs, Wives, and Work Gangs Since Roman farming was conducted entirely by [slave labor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/), Columella devotes substantial space to the choice and treatment of [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/). The bailiff is especially important. He should be strong and healthy, in middle age, and should have carried out heavy physical work earlier in life. Literacy is not essential if he has a good memory; in fact, a bailiff who cannot read may run the farm more profitably than an educated one, because he lacks the means to falsify written accounts and feels ashamed to ask anyone to help him do so. He must avoid too close a relationship with the slaves under his authority and still more with outsiders. He is to keep soothsayers and witches away from the farm, since they disturb the minds of the ignorant. He should only leave the property to make purchases or sales or to acquire some useful knowledge for his work. He is instructed to maintain roughly twice as many tools in reserve as are currently in use, because the value of work lost when tools are lacking far exceeds the cost of keeping spares. He should always eat at the same table and from the same [food](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/) as the workforce so that he can be sure they are fed properly. Columella also speaks about the wife of the bailiff. She should be young but not too young, and strong enough to endure hard work. Her appearance should be neither ugly nor very beautiful, so that her husband is neither repelled into seeking company elsewhere nor tempted to idle around the house. She must supervise everything indoors and ensure that her husband has as little domestic occupation as possible, because he needs to go out early to the fields with the other slaves and return only at sunset. As for the farm slaves themselves, Columella states that he talks to them more often and more freely than to town slaves, even joking with them from time to time, because friendliness lightens toil. He consults them about their work to gauge how much they understand. Justice in treatment and attention to their complaints are essential. Those who incite others to revolt must be punished promptly, while good conduct should be recognized and rewarded. ![Lucius Iunius Moderatus Columella, De re rustica. Published by Niccolò Bevilacqua in 1564](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Columella-_Lucius_Iunius_Moderatus_---_De_re_rustica-_1564_---_BEIC_9444751.jpg) Lucius Iunius Moderatus Columella, De re rustica. Published by Niccolò Bevilacqua in 1564\. Public domain Tasks must be matched carefully to character. Shepherds should be diligent and conscientious because they work alone, without constant supervision; great physical strength is less important. Ploughmen should have a loud voice and a fierce expression to command respect from the oxen but ought to be terrifying rather than cruel. Workers in vineyards should be broad-shouldered and muscular rather than tall; their trustworthiness is less crucial, since they are continually overseen. Unruly slaves are often intelligent, and vineyards, which require skill, can therefore be tended by [slaves in chains](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-zoninus-collar-the-iron-collar-that-spoke-for-the-silenced/). Nonetheless, Columella insists that there is nothing an honest man of equal intelligence will not do better than a rogue. Slaves are to be assigned to one kind of work only and organized into gangs of ten, with competition encouraged between the gangs. Female slaves who bear many children should be rewarded: those who have borne three sons are to be excused from heavy labor, while the mothers of four or more sons are to receive their freedom. ### Gods, Festivals, and Everyday Superstitions on the Farm When the owner visits the estate, he must look over all the buildings, fields, livestock, and equipment, and judge the discipline of the slaves. Yet his first action should be to pay respect to the household gods. Religious observance is treated as a serious matter, and proper attention to rituals is portrayed as having a favourable effect on the farm’s yield. A long chapter is devoted to which tasks may or may not be carried out on [religious festival days](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/). Among the prohibited actions are hauling felled trees, breaking new ground, sowing seed, cutting hay, gathering the grape harvest, and shearing sheep—unless a puppy has first been sacrificed. Columella also records a number of beliefs that, even by ancient standards, appear [superstitious](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-supernatural-magic-omens-haunted-houses-ghosts-and-rituals/). Eggs to be set under hens are always to be in odd numbers. The pains of oxen can be cured, it is claimed, by the sight of swimming birds, especially ducks. The plant lungwort, a remedy for cattle, should be picked only with the left hand and before sunrise if it is to work. To keep shrew-mice from harming an ox, one may enclose a living shrew-mouse in potter’s clay and hang it round the animal’s neck. Such rules can seem absurd, but a comparison is drawn with the quite common reluctance to sit down thirteen at a dinner table, which is hardly less irrational. ### Dogs as Essential Guardians of the Estate Among a farmer’s early priorities should be the purchase of a dog. Dogs guard the farm, its produce, and its flocks. Calling dogs “dumb animals” is declared completely wrong, since their loud bark is the very thing that warns of thieves and wild beasts. The shepherd is advised to prefer a white dog so that it can be distinguished clearly from the wild creatures it attacks. The dog that guards the farmyard should preferably be black, since a dark animal appears more alarming and is less visible at night. Dog names should be short and, ideally, two syllables long. Both Greek and Latin names are suggested: for male dogs, for example*, Ζκίρῃα* (“Puppy”), *Λάκων* (“Spartan”), *Ferox,* and *Celer*; for bitches, *Σπουδή* (“Zeal”), *Ἀλκή* (“Courage”), *Ῥώμη* (“Strength”), *Lupa*, *Cerva*, and *Tigris*. It is also stated that cutting a dog’s tail prevents it from developing rabies, although no explanation is offered. Pliny later repeats this view and explicitly gives Columella as his source. ![Marble statuettes of dogs, Roman artwork from the Imperial period, Naples National Archaeological Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Marble-statuettes-of-dogs-Roman-artwork-from-the-Imperial-period-Naples-National-Archaeological-Museum-1.jpg) Marble statuettes of dogs, Roman artwork from the Imperial period, Naples National Archaeological Museum. Photo credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 At the close of the twelfth book, Columella remarks that, now his task is complete, it seems appropriate to address any future readers who may concern themselves with such matters. The range of possible topics is described as virtually endless, yet he has chosen to set down only those points that seemed most essential. Practical knowledge of all things, he says, has not been granted even to the grey-haired. Even the men reputed to be the wisest of mortals are thought to have known many things, but not everything. In later centuries his work did not always receive close attention, but there were important admirers. Milton, in his Tract on Education, speaks highly of Columella and recommends that boys should read him early in their studies. The subject matter is described as straightforward; if the language is demanding, so much the better, since it poses a difficulty not beyond their years and can become a means of encouraging them, and of equipping them one day to improve the cultivation of their own country. ("Columella and His Latin Treatise on Agriculture" by E. S. Forster) While the agricultural treatise presents Columella as a practical writer shaped by experience, training, and a strong sense of the farmer’s responsibilities, the work also relies on a carefully constructed literary framework. The opening address to Publius Silvinus, which at first appears to be a conventional dedication, plays a far more significant role in the structure of the books. This figure becomes an essential device through which shifts of topic, criticisms of contemporary farming, and contrasts between genuine expertise and fashionable theory are expressed, revealing an additional layer of intention beneath the surface of the manual. ### Silvinus as a Deliberate Literary Device The agricultural treatise opens by addressing Publius Silvinus, following the tradition of framing technical instruction as if directed to a particular person. His name appears twenty-six times, each use signalling a calculated shift in topic through rhetorical *praesumptio*, anticipating what Silvinus might raise next. He is invoked formally at the opening of each book, typically with his full name, especially when placed in the company of notable figures. The omission of the praenomen at the start of Book 5 is treated as an intentional stylistic choice. Although presented as a “country-man and neighbour,” Silvinus is likely fictitious. His role extends beyond that of addressee: he represents qualities associated with contemporary agricultural decline — the fashionable landowner who purchases an estate for prestige, depends on a vilicus, spends little time on the land, and values literary erudition over practical skill. He embodies the “book farmer,” aligned with authorities whose advice is described as *uelut inlectus nimio fauore priscorum de simili materia disserentium falso credidit* (“as if captivated by the excessive favour shown to the ancients who wrote on the same subject, he believed them wrongly”). ### Silvinus as Foil and Personification of Agricultural Problems Silvinus appears as a visitor to the farm, encouraged to attest to its efficiency. He reads the treatise sequentially, and his questions allow the author to return to earlier points and strengthen his arguments. Though not wholly ignorant and owner of his own farm, he reflects the absentee master who seeks intellectual approval more than agricultural competence, set in contrast with the *ueteres Romani* (“the ancient Romans” ) who worked their own land. ![Olive tree at the Valley of the Temples in Sicily. The cultivation of olive trees is covered in Book V of the Res Rustica](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/olive-tree-at-the-valley-of-the-temples-in-sicily--1-.jpg) Olive tree at the Valley of the Temples in Sicily. The cultivation of olive trees is covered in Book V of the Res Rustica. Photo credits: Dennis Jarvis, CC BY-SA 2.0 He stands within a wider shift in Roman farming: the rise of large estates, the prestige tied to rural ownership, and the increasing detachment of proprietors from the land. Estate management had become impersonal and financially driven, reflected in the criticism of using citizens *occupatos nexu et ergastulis* (“bound by debt and confined in work-gangs”). Silvinus thus becomes a composite figure that encapsulates these tendencies. This also explains the tone of Book 5, where Silvinus criticises omissions, prompting a rebuttal of exhaustive and abstract approaches. The response insists on practical experience, followed by a geometric digression introduced with a request for indulgence for any scientific errors — a gesture coloured by irritation. Silvinus is connected with the *studiosi*, not students of the author but newcomers to fashionable intellectual agriculture. They offer both praise and criticism, uncertain in judgment. Their arguments are described as *quae utroque reprehensio ambiguam magis habet aestimationem quam ueram* (“a criticism from both sides that has a judgment more uncertain than true”). Their anticipated objections are dismantled through rhetorical praesumptio. ### Practical Knowledge Against Abstract Theory The treatment of stock-raising shows the tone applied to these critics. What might seem like hesitation is revealed as sarcasm, especially in the use of *prudentes*. Stock-raising and agriculture are depicted as inseparable, contrary to the purist view that separates them. Older Roman practice acknowledged their unity. The emphasis falls repeatedly on experience, captured in the phrase “Experto mihi crede, Siluine.” (“Trust me, Silvinus, for I speak from experience”) Silvinus’ objections allow a contrast between practical farming and the pedantic classifications favoured by intellectual agriculturalists. By setting out his positions and countering them with more grounded responses, the treatise reveals itself not only as instruction but also as an indictment of the habits and assumptions shaping contemporary agriculture. ("Columella the Reformer" by Peter D. Carroll) The portrait that emerges is not only that of a skilled agricultural writer but of a work shaped by structure, intention, and a quiet firmness of judgment. Technical instruction, social observation, and literary design are woven together in a treatise that reaches beyond its immediate purpose. Through its careful organisation, its appeals to experience, and its use of figures such as Silvinus, the text reveals the practices, expectations, and tensions that defined Roman farming at a moment when tradition and fashion met on the same ground. ### The Ancient Blueprint Behind Every Modern Stadium URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-ancient-blueprint-behind-every-modern-stadium/ Last updated: 2025-12-01T21:00:05.000Z Every modern stadium, from the roar of football fans to the echo of concerts under open skies, owes something to a forgotten masterpiece of the ancient world. It wasn’t just a venue — it was an idea so advanced that its echoes still shape the way we gather today. Built for speed, spectacle, and the spirit of competition, this place became the heart of an empire long before it inspired ours. ## The Rise, Fall, and Rediscovery of the great stadium The Circus Maximus was the first and largest structure ever built for the Roman *ludi* — the public games that blended religion, politics, and spectacle. Its size and design made it a model for circuses across the Roman world. Modern understanding of the site owes much to more than a century of research. Early investigations began with Bigot in 1908 and were continued through the twentieth and twenty-first centuries by numerous scholars and institutions. Excavations, core drillings, and more recent geophysical surveys have revealed the gradual transformation of the area over two millennia. The first permanent masonry structures were built under [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/). After enduring fires, reconstructions, and imperial enhancements, the Circus reached its grandest form under Emperors [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/) and [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/). It remained active until 549 CE, when the Ostrogothic king Totila hosted the final games. After the sixth century, neglect and looting reduced the site to a quarry for building materials. Over time, floods and sediment buried the original track beneath ten meters of earth. The valley of the Circus Maximus changed character repeatedly through the centuries: farmland during the Middle Ages, a Jewish cemetery in the seventeenth century, and an industrial zone by the nineteenth and early twentieth. Gasometers, workshops, and warehouses stood where chariots once raced. In the Fascist era, the space was cleared and reused for trade fairs and national exhibitions, including the 1934 Textile Show and the 1939 Exhibition of Italian Autarkic Minerals. It was reshaped into a park preserving the form of the ancient arena. By the mid-twentieth century, the site was formally designated as the Circus Maximus Monumental Area. Archaeologists then removed the industrial remains, uncovering the lower seating tiers, outer porticoes, and sections of the curved hemicycle. These can still be seen today beside the medieval *Torre della Moletta*, a square tower with battlements erected by the Frangipane family. ![Circus Maximus seen from Palatine hill. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Circus-Maximus-seen-from-Palatine-hill--1-.jpg) Circus Maximus seen from Palatine hill. Photo credits: Livioandronico2013, CC BY-SA 4.0 Further excavations in 1998, using large-diameter shafts, examined the remains of the central barrier — the *spina*. For the first time, researchers could visually study the structural core of the *euripus* (the central water channel) and confirm that Roman layers survive eight to eleven meters below ground. Two main anthropic layers were identified: a modern one, up to four meters thick, and deeper strata containing the ancient remains themselves. (*“Cultural Heritage Sites Conservation and Management: The Case of the Circus Maximus in Rome”* by Valerio Ruscito) ## The Scale of the Circus Maximus The Circus Maximus stands among the oldest and most remarkable monuments in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) — an [arena](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/) that dwarfed every other structure of its kind. Built for the thrilling spectacle of[ chariot racing](https://romanempiretimes.com/fury-on-wheels-the-legendary-chariot-races-of-ancient-rome/), it stretched roughly 600 meters in length and 140 meters in width, capable of seating more than 250,000 spectators during the height of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) (circa 100 BCE–300 CE). Its sheer scale made it the beating heart of Roman entertainment, and a model for racetracks across the ancient world. ## A Valley Turned to Stone: Building in the Murcia Basin The stadium rose in the wide, marshy Murcia Valley, nestled between the Palatine and Aventine Hills. This valley once carried one of the major tributaries of the [Tiber River](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/), flowing down from the volcanic Alban Hills. At first glance, it was an unlikely location for such a colossal construction — a flood-prone plain of soft, unstable alluvium. Yet this very quality may have determined the choice. The valley’s waterlogged soil, unsuitable for [housing](https://romanempiretimes.com/insulae-apartment-buildings-ancient-rome-romans/) or [temples](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/), offered open space ideal for the long, sweeping track that the *ludi circenses* required. The Romans faced the challenge of transforming a geologically young landscape marked by steep slopes, seasonal torrents, and unstable ground into a foundation capable of supporting one of the largest stadiums ever built. Understanding how they achieved this feat has long fascinated engineers and archaeologists alike. Through careful drainage, leveling, and the use of robust retaining structures, they stabilized the valley floor and created an enduring base that would support centuries of races, [festivals](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-lemuria-to-halloween-romes-ancient-festival-of-spirits/), and triumphs. Recent geophysical studies have allowed researchers to piece together the environmental history of the Murcia Valley. Beneath the modern surface lies evidence of the original floodplain that once made the site inhospitable. Surveys and excavations reveal how the Romans drained, filled, and reinforced the ground to form a stable arena platform — a marvel of [ancient engineering](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-engineering-the-backbone-of-an-empire/) that kept the Circus standing until well into the Middle Ages. (*“Geology of the Murcia Valley and Flood Plain Modifications in the Construction of the Circus Maximus, Rome, Italy”* by Elena Carpentieri, Donatella de Rita, and Giuseppe Della Monica) ![Picture of the Circus Maximus, Rome, Italy](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/picture-of-the-Circus-Maximus--Rome--Italy-1.jpg) Picture of the Circus Maximus, Rome, Italy. Photo credits: Carptrash, CC BY-SA 3.0 ## The Circus and the Birth of Rome’s Spectacle For over a millennium, horse racing formed one of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)’s defining entertainments, and its most iconic arena — the Circus Maximus — was steeped not only in sport but in myth. Tradition holds that this vast space was also the setting of the rape of the [Sabine women](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-truly-happened-with-the-sabine-women/), a foundational tale in Roman lore. [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/), writing at the turn of the first century BCE, explains that [Romulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-romulus-kill-remus-the-tragic-tale-of-the-founders-of-rome/) deliberately chose the Circus as the stage for this fateful event: > “The Roman state had become strong enough to hold its own in war with all the peoples along its borders, but a shortage of women meant that its greatness was fated to last for a single generation … Romulus, to gain time till he found the right occasion, hid his concern and prepared to celebrate the *Consualia*, the solemn games in honour of equestrian Neptune. He then ordered that the spectacle be announced to the neighbouring peoples. He gave the event great publicity by the most lavish means possible in those days. Many people came … from Caenina, Crustuminum and Antemnae; the entire Sabine population came, wives and children included … they marvelled that Rome had grown so fast. When it was time for the show, and everybody was concentrating on this, a prearranged signal was given and all the Roman youths began to grab the women. Many just snatched the nearest woman to hand, but the most beautiful had already been reserved for the senators and these were escorted to the senators’ houses by plebeians who had been given this assignment.” > — Livy, *History of Rome* From its mythical foundation under the Etruscan kings of the sixth century BCE (Livy), through its monumental reconstructions under the [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), and down to its modern incarnation as a public park, the Circus Maximus has embodied the evolving relationship between power, space, and spectacle. This progression — from regal ritual ground to republican [festival](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/) arena to imperial monument — reveals how the aristocracy continually reshaped the Circus to project authority, celebrate divinity, or win popular favor. ![The Palatine seen from the Circus Maximus with the large arcaded foundations built by Septimius Severus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Circus-Maximus-et-Domus-Augustana-Rome---1--1.jpg) The Palatine seen from the Circus Maximus with the large arcaded foundations built by Septimius Severus. Photo credits: Jean-Pol GRANDMONT, CC BY-SA 3.0 The architectural and functional transformations of the Circus, spanning more than two millennia, illustrate not only the adaptability of public venues but also their power as instruments of social negotiation. Ancient sources attest that the Circus was both a space of unity and distraction. It could dissolve class distinctions as people from every stratum gathered to watch the *ludi* ([Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/), *Claudius*; [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/), *Annals*), yet it also induced a collective frenzy — an intoxication of sight and sound that erased awareness and restraint. As [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/) observed, it was uniquely permissive: > “The Circus was the only place where men and women sat together.” > — Ovid, *Ars Amatoria* In the legendary abduction of the Sabine women, this loss of awareness — the surrender to spectacle — becomes the very instrument of destiny. The Circus Maximus, born in myth as the scene of deception and desire, would remain the enduring theater of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s passions: a place where glory, pleasure, and power forever raced side by side. ## The Etruscan Origins: When Kings and Gods Shaped the First Circus The beginnings of the Circus Maximus reach back to the twilight of Rome’s monarchy, before the Republic and long before imperial grandeur transformed the valley. Tradition credits its foundation to Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, Rome’s fifth king (616–579 BCE), during the era of Etruscan dominance over the city — *vae victis*, “woe to the conquered,” as Livy remarks (*History of Rome*). Though Livy attributes the commission to Tarquinius Priscus, modern historians suspect this to be more legend than fact, molded by Livy’s political motives and his tendency to shape early Roman history into a moral narrative rather than a verifiable account. Whether begun by Tarquinius Priscus or completed by his grandson Tarquinius Superbus, it is clear that the Circus was an early royal project. The kings allowed [Rome’s aristocracy](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) to construct raised viewing platforms — the *pulvinar* (cushioned couch) — where they could enjoy an elevated view of the horse races and boxing contests said to have been imported from Etruria. While the elder Tarquin’s existence may be debated, the younger Tarquin was almost certainly real, and scholars generally agree that the Circus was completed before the fall of the monarchy, around 509–500 BCE. Archaeological findings corroborate this early date. A stone seat inscription discovered near the shrine of Murcia, dated to 494 BCE, records a magistrate named Manius Valerius Maximus who occupied a private seat. Such[ inscriptions](https://romanempiretimes.com/whispers-on-the-walls-graffiti-as-a-voice-of-ancient-rome/), considered among the most reliable evidence for early Roman chronology, confirm that the Circus was already functioning in the early Republic. The Murcia Valley, where the Circus stood, lay between the Aventine and Palatine Hills, stretching roughly 621 meters in length and 118 meters in width. In early times, it was fertile farmland nourished by floods from the Tiber River and a now-lost tributary stream that divided the valley. This stream — later re-excavated by Pope Calixtus II and renamed the *Acqua Mariana* — once powered mills at the eastern end near the *Torre della Moletta* and irrigated crops in the surrounding fields. The earliest Circus must have been a simple pastoral track, “with nothing more than turning posts, banks where spectators could sit, and some shrines and sacred spots” as John Humphrey, the American archaeologist and classical scholar, says. Wooden stands and seating, vulnerable to rot from flooding and damp soil, required constant repair — offering the elite opportunities to display generosity through *munera*, gifts to the people. The first turning posts (*metae*), located near the banks of the old stream and perhaps linked to the goddess Murcia, consisted of three conical stone pillars on each end of the track. Between them ran an open drainage canal, which likely served as the earliest form of the *spina*, the central barrier that would later become the Circus’s defining feature. As Ovid recalls in his *Metamorphoses*, these early markers shaped the very rhythm of Roman sport — where kings, [gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/), and earth itself laid the foundation for the city’s most enduring spectacle. ![Circus Maximus: reconstruction rendering.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Circus-Maximus-reconstruction-rendering-1.jpg) Circus Maximus: Reconstruction rendering. Photo credits: The Architecture and Landscape Architecture Library at Penn State University, CC BY-NC 2.0 ## Where Gods, Games, and Emperors Collided: The Sacred Power Behind the Circus Maximus The Circus Maximus was far more than a racetrack — it was the beating heart of [Roman religion](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-religion-of-ancient-rome-how-roman-worshipped-their-gods/), politics, and public life. From its earliest days, the arena fused cultic ritual and spectacle, embodying a uniquely Roman blend of piety (*pietas*) and propaganda. Even as political systems shifted from monarchy to republic and empire, the Circus remained a stage where sacred rites, civic devotion, and elite ambition intertwined. The valley’s early shrines reveal how the Romans blurred the line between worship and entertainment. The southeastern turn of the track passed between two ancient sanctuaries: one dedicated to Murcia, a mysterious goddess associated with Venus, fertility, and the valley’s stream, and another to Consus, the hidden god of grain and underground stores. At the *Consualia*, horses and mules were crowned with flowers and released from labor to race — an agricultural thanksgiving turned public spectacle. This merging of sacred ceremony and civic showmanship laid the foundation for Rome’s culture of *munera*, political gifts to the people disguised as religious offerings (Juvenal, *Satires*). As [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/) warned, > “There is nothing so damaging to good morals as to hang around at some spectacle. There, through pleasure, vices sneak in more easily.” *Letters* Archaeology confirms that horse racing was already practiced here in the sixth century BCE, and the earliest dimensions of the track may have been determined by the distance between the shrines of Murcia, Consus, and the Ara Maxima of Hercules, a pre-Roman altar that anchored the valley’s sacred geometry. In later centuries, the altar of Consus became a fixed feature beneath the southeastern *meta*, while Murcia’s shrine was rebuilt near the *euripus*, the channel dividing the track. As the Circus evolved, so did its theology. By the Imperial period, the site reflected a solar and lunar cosmology: Apollo (Sol) and Luna, with their temples crowning the Palatine and Aventine Hills, represented the chariots of the sun and moon racing across the heavens. The Circus itself became a cosmic arena, its track symbolizing the circuit of time — day and night, life and eternity. The [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/the-year-of-the-four-emperors/), identified with Sol, presided as both ruler and divine charioteer. [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/)’ placement of an Egyptian obelisk at the Circus’s center fused Roman statecraft with solar worship, turning architecture into imperial theology. By the first century CE, the Circus Maximus could seat up to 150,000 spectators (some claimed 250,000), an amphitheater of faith and frenzy. Fires, floods, and rebuildings under [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/), [Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/), and [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/) transformed it from wood to stone, culminating in the grand structure that became the largest stadium of the ancient world. Trajan’s all-stone reconstruction secured its final form — a monument where divine order and imperial ambition met in a single, thunderous spectacle. In the end, the Circus Maximus stood as [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s cosmic theater — where gods raced across the heavens, [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/) claimed their divinity, and the people of the Eternal City learned to worship through the thrill of the games. (*“Rome’s Seat of Passion: An Assessment of the Archaeology and History of the Circus Maximus”* by Cody Scott Ames) ![Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae: Circus Maximus, print, Nicolas Beatrizet, after Pirro Ligorio. Metropolitan Museum of Art](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/A-Mirror-of-Roman-Magnificence-Circus-Maximus--1--1.jpg) Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae: Circus Maximus, print, Nicolas Beatrizet, after Pirro Ligorio. Metropolitan Museum of Art. Public domain ## Inside the Spectacle That Ruled the City Tradition cast Tarquinius Priscus as founder (Livy). Livy later notes the first permanent starting gates in 329 BCE and their rebuilding in 174 BCE, when seven wooden eggs were set on the *spina* to count laps; the turning posts he mentions must have been restorations, not novelties. [Julius Caesar ](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/)lengthened the track and ran an encircling *euripus* (Suetonius). In 33 BCE, Agrippa added seven bronze dolphins and a second set of eggs by the *carceres* for lap-marking ([Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/)). After the 31 BCE fire (Livy), Augustus built the *pulvinar* beneath the Palatine — an imperial shrine-box for viewing, where divine images were seated after the *pompa*, and in 10 BCE he set an obelisk on the *spina* to honor the Sun and memorialize Egypt. Dionysius of Halicarnassus wrote: > Tarquin \[fifth king of Rome\] also built the largest of the Circuses, which lies between the Aventine and Palatine hills ... in the course of time this work was to become one of the most beautiful and remarkable buildings in Rome; the Circus being 3.5 stadia long \[2100 feet\] and four plethra wide \[400 feet\]. There is a canal around it on the two long sides and on one of the shorter ones: this is ten feet wide and ten feet deep. Behind this are three tiers . . . seating 150,000 persons. On the outside of the Circus there is another portico of one storey, which has shops with apartments over them. These have entries and stairways for the spectators at each shop, so that thousands of people may enter or leave without congestion. *Roman Antiquities* Those wooden arcades — home to cooks, astrologers, and prostitutes — kindled the AD 64 blaze (Tacitus). [Pliny the Elder ](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/)ranked the [Circus](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/encyclopaedia%5Fromana/circusmaximus/circusmaximus.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com) among the world’s great works and gave a higher capacity, 250,000, likely counting hillside sightlines (Pliny, *Natural History*). After another great fire (perhaps AD 80), Trajan completed the all-stone rebuild by AD 103 — > “rivaling the beauty of temples,” says [Pliny the Younger ](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/)— with three tiers, arched orders below, marble in the lowest seating, and zoned terraces. Unlike the [theater](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-epic-roman-theater-of-philadelphia-amman/) and amphitheater, seating here was less segregated: senators had the podium front (Suetonius), equites sat behind (Tacitus), and men and [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) sat together — a fact Ovid mined for flirtation. Though born for *ludi circenses*, the Circus staged [gladiatorial shows,](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/) *venationes*, athletics, and processions. By Augustus’ time, seventy-seven festival days filled the year, with races on seventeen; ten to twelve races a day were standard until [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-caligula-mad-or-just-sick/) doubled them and twenty-four became typical (Dio). Extremes occurred — [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/dining-with-domitian-and-the-enigma-of-domitian-black-dinner/) ran one hundred short-lap races in a day (Suetonius); [Commodus](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-commodus-truly-the-megalomaniac-gladiator-emperor/) crammed thirty into two hours (Dio) — but logistics (horses stabled on the Campus Martius) kept such marathons rare. Starts came from twelve *carceres* (six per side) near the Forum Boarium entrance; the presiding magistrate signaled the release. The far *sphendone* held the processional gate, rebuilt in AD 80 as a triumphal arch for Titus’ Judaean victory. Shrines on the *spina* honored Consus and Murcia; at each end stood the *metae* — triples of gilded cones atop semicircular plinths. A race ran seven laps (*spatia*) — thirteen turns counter-clockwise — just over three miles, often eight to nine minutes, the cinematic pace of *Ben-Hur*. For fairness, the *carceres* were set on a curve so each team hit the break line at equal distance; drivers kept lanes until that line, then fought for position. Lots assigned gates; the magistrate dropped the white *mappa*, gates flew, and the surge began. ![Circus Maximus north view - from center](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Circus-Maximus-north-view-fromcenter.jpg) Circus Maximus north view - from center. Photo credits: PsyCat, CC BY-SA 3.0 The classic *quadriga* matched two central yoke horses with two trace horses; the right yoke-mate was prime, and the inside *funalis* had to be stout to take the turns. It suffered most from concussions, strains, or fractures between *spina/metae* and the yoke. Pelagonius lists hazards: whip-strikes to the eyes, tongues cut by harsh bits, and wheel or axle blows. Tails tangled in reins — often bound or even cut. Breeding was meticulous; racing began near age five, with long careers. Studs in North Africa and Hispania shipped horses on *hippagoi* (horse transports). *Aurigae* were mostly slaves or freedmen, legally *infames* like [gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-legends-about-gladiator-sweat-heres-what-we-found/). They wrapped reins around the waist for leverage — deadly in crashes unless the curved knife in their harness freed them. Fouls were routine; emperors’ whims could weigh heavily — [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/) hints that prudence sometimes counseled restraint. The crowd, though, could force restarts — Ovid speaks of[ toga](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-toga-to-today-how-ancient-rome-still-echoes-through-modern-culture/)\-waving protests; the reruns became so many that Claudius capped them (Dio, LX.6.4–5). Fame and fury mixed. Ammianus tells of witchcraft trials; one driver burned despite having > “given such general pleasure". Curse tablets begged demons to > “torture and kill the horses of the Greens and Whites,” to > “bind every limb … and knock out their eyes.” Yet fortunes were made: purses of 15–60,000 sesterces per win; [Juvenal](https://romanempiretimes.com/juvenal-the-poet-who-held-a-mirror-to-rome/) gripes a driver earns a hundred times a lawyer; Martial brags [Scorpus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-circus-maximus-to-amazon-the-real-story-of-scorpus/) won > “fifteen bags of gold in an hour.” [Gaius Appuleius Diocles](https://romanempiretimes.com/gaius-appuleius-diocles-a-billionaire-on-wheels-the-richest-athlete-ever/) amassed 35,863,120 sesterces, with 1,462 wins in 4,257 starts over 24 years; Scorpus died at twenty-six with 2,048 victories. > Gaius Appuleius Diocles, Charioteer of the Red Stable, a Lusitanian Spaniard by birth, aged 42 years, 7 months, 23 days. He drove his first charuiot for the White Stable in \[122 A.D.\]; he won his first victory for the same Stable in \[124 A.D.\]. He drove for the first time for the Green Stable in \[128 A.D.\]. He won his first victory for the Red Stable in \[131 A.D.\]. > > Grand Totals: > He drove chariots for 24 years, started 4,,257 times, won 1,462 times, of which 110 were in the opening race. > In single-entry races he won 1,064 victories, winning 92 major purses > 32 of them (including three with six-horse teams) at 30,000 sesterces. > 28 of them (including two with six-horse teams) at 40,000 sesterces. > 29 of them (including one with a seven-horse team) at 50,000 sesterces. > 3 of them at 60,000 sesterces. > In two-entry races he won 347 victories, including four with three-horse teams, at 15,000 sesterces. > In three-entry races he won 51 victories. > He won or placed 2,900 times, taking 861 second-places, 576 third-places, and 1 fourth-place at 1000 sesterces. > He tied a Blue for first-place 10 times and a White 91 times, twice for 30,000 sesterces. > > He won a total of 35,863, 120 sesterces. > > In addition, in races with two-horse teams for 1000 sesterces, he won three times, and tied a White once and a Green twice. He took the lead and won 815 times, came from behind to win 67 times, and won under handicap 35 times, won in various styles 42 times, land won in a final dash 502 times—216 over the Greens, 205 over the Blues, 81 over the Whites. > > He made nine horses 100-time winners, and one horse a 200-time winner. *Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum* XIV. 2884 (Rome, 146 A.D.) The Circus was also [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s loudest political barometer — the people petitioned between heats; emperors were expected to attend and look delighted. Dio records crowds crying, > “How long are we to be waging war?” (AD 196). Push too far — as [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-caligula-really-declare-war-on-neptune/) did — and cheers turned to peril; he dragged dissenters from the stands. ![Model of Rome by Paul Bigot, MRSH University of Caen: Colosseum and Circus Maximus area](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/12/Plan-Rome-Caen-Circus-Mximus-Colis--e--1-.jpg) Model of Rome by Paul Bigot, MRSH University of Caen: Colosseum and *Circus Maximus area*. Public domain Factions — Reds, Whites, Blues, Greens — grew from private stables into monopolies. By the fourth century, the emperor absorbed control; senior charioteers managed operations and horses came from imperial stables. Devotion bordered on madness: Ammianus laments a populace whose > “temple … dwelling … meeting-place … is the Circus Maximus,” rushing there before dawn, living and dying by a turn at the post. [Christian](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/) critics condemned the place as a school of vice: Tertullian calls its allure a “madness”; Cassiodorus sees Blues and Greens trading “frantic insults” as if the state itself were at stake (*Variae)*. Ironically, their polemics preserve details we’d otherwise lack — eggs for Castor and Pollux, dolphins for Neptune, and the *mappa*’s origin when [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-romes-most-infamous-ruler-part-1/) tossed his napkin to signal lunch’s end and the races’ start. After AD 541, consuls vanished and funding waned; Procopius notes the last races in AD 550 (*Gothic Wars*). For a thousand years, Rome’s people forgot themselves here — laughing, pleading, cursing, praying — while horses and men traced the city’s fortune in sand and thunder. ### Unlike Other Civilizations, the Romans Used These Methods to Cope With Winter Cold URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/unlike-other-civilizations-the-romans-used-these-methods-to-cope-with-winter-cold/ Last updated: 2025-11-10T17:46:14.000Z There is not a simple answer as to 'how the Romans kept warm'; the Roman Empire used various methods to tackle the winter conditions, with some being truly ingenious for their time. Beneath the impressive structures of Roman architecture lay an equally extraordinary innovation: the hypocaust heating system. This underfloor design transformed how the Romans maintained warmth, providing heat to [villas](https://romanempiretimes.com/domus-romana-the-roman-villa-of-rabat-malta/), [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), and even some [city homes](https://romanempiretimes.com/insulae-apartment-buildings-ancient-rome-romans/) during the colder months. By skillfully utilizing fire and controlled airflow, the Romans developed a heating method that was both efficient and luxurious. The hypocaust, along with other advanced techniques, highlights their ability to merge practicality with comfort, leaving a lasting legacy of engineering brilliance. 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in January 2025\. It was updated in November 2025.* As [Vitruvius](https://romanempiretimes.com/vitruvius-the-roman-who-shaped-modern-architecture/) said in his [*Ten Books of Architecture*](https://amzn.to/3W8VmTh?ref=romanempiretimes.com), > “Divine providence has so ordered it that the metropolis of the Roman people is placed in an excellent and temperate climate, whereby they have become the masters of the world.” ![A detail from Vitruvius’ descriptions of Ancient Roman temples](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-detail-from-Vitruvius--descriptions-of-Ancient-Roman-temples.jpg) A detail from Vitruvius’ descriptions of Ancient Roman temples. Credits: MET, CC0 1.0 Still, during the winter, the Romans were cold and needed some heating solutions. The Romans employed a variety of techniques to stay warm during colder months, showcasing their resourcefulness and ingenuity. Among their methods were some of the earliest forms of central heating, portable heaters, warm beverages, and a practical approach to utilizing sunlight. In winter, they abandoned the cooler, north-facing rooms favored in summer and shifted to west-facing spaces, where the sun's warmth and light were more abundant, following Vitruvius’ advise: > “I shall now describe how the different sorts of buildings are placed as regards their aspects. Winter triclinia and baths are to face the winter west, because the afternoon light is wanted in them; and not less so because the setting sun casts its rays upon them, and by its heat warms the aspect towards the evening hours. > > Bed chambers and libraries should be towards the east, for their purposes require the morning light: in libraries the books are in this aspect preserved from decay; those that are towards the south and west are injured by the worm and by the damp, which the moist winds generate and nourish, and spreading the damp, make the books mouldy.” ### Baths, Light, and Heat Windows play an essential role in architecture, yet their design and usage have varied significantly over time. In medieval Romanesque churches, small windows punctuated thick stone walls, creating dimly lit interiors. In contrast, the Gothic style later embraced expansive windows supported by external buttresses. Interestingly, Roman architecture predating these styles frequently featured large windows, particularly in public bathhouses of the Early Empire. ![Charred Ancient Roman window shutters of a house in Herculaneum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Charred-Ancient-Roman-window-shutters-of-a-house-in-Herculaneum.jpg) Charred Ancient Roman window shutters of a house in Herculaneum. Credits: Jebulon, CC0 1.0 [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/), writing in the first century AD, offers an insightful commentary on this trend, noting that baths of his time were designed to let in sunlight throughout the day through wide windows. He remarks with a hint of nostalgia on the simpler, darker baths of the Republic, contrasting them with the sunlit, grandiose structures of the imperial era. [Roman baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/), particularly during the Early Empire, represented significant advancements in both architectural and technological innovation. Scholars like Yegul and Nielsen have highlighted these contributions, which included the integration of Greek and Roman styles, the introduction of hypocaust systems to heat large spaces, and the invention of *tubuli*—hollow walls that ensured even heat distribution and prevented condensation. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-photo-of-the-tubuli-in-the-Ancient-Roman-baths-of-Ostia--I.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-photo-of-the-tubuli-in-the-Ancient-Roman-baths-of-Ostia--II.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-photo-of-the-tubuli-in-the-Ancient-Roman-baths-of-Ostia--III.jpg) 🏛️ Photos of the **tubuli* in the Ancient Roman baths of Ostia, by AlMare, CC BY-SA 2.5 The Romans’ architectural ingenuity extended to using large south-facing windows to harness sunlight for heating and lighting. Glassblowing techniques had advanced by this period, enabling the production of flat panes of glass for windows. These developments, combined with vast aqueduct systems, allowed the baths to accommodate thousands of visitors in comfortably heated environments. In 1956, Edwin Thatcher, an architectural historian, highlighted the sophistication of Roman heating methods, describing the unglazed, south-facing windows of Ostia’s second-century Forum Baths as a remarkable demonstration of radiant heating. He argued that Roman engineers had a deeper understanding of radiant heat's potential than modern architects, allowing them to create expansive, open spaces unmatched in contemporary designs. The Romans’ strategic use of sunlight in these baths exemplifies their advanced grasp of architecture, engineering, and sustainable heating practices. ### Interdisciplinary Insights into Heating Systems In recent decades, the focus on everyday life and microhistory has become central to studies in history, art history, and archaeology. This shift has brought increased attention to ancient technologies, including Roman innovations. While archaeologists have advanced our understanding of Roman heating systems, the technical complexities often demand interdisciplinary collaboration, which is becoming more common yet remains underutilized. For example, the study of heat transfer in Roman baths, or *thermae,* requires both engineering expertise and archaeological evidence. Despite attempts to measure temperatures in [Roman homes](https://romanempiretimes.com/insulae-apartment-buildings-ancient-rome-romans/) and baths based on ancient texts, archaeological finds, and experimental reconstructions, such efforts often face limitations due to incomplete data. As a result, any conclusions must remain open to revision with future discoveries. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-gravure-by-Robert-Adam--of-the-ruins-of-the-Palace-of-the-Emperor-Diocletian-at-Split--Croatia.jpg) ## A notable case study is the heating system of the baths in [Diocletian](https://romanempiretimes.com/diocletian-architect-of-the-roman-empires-renewal/)’s palace in Split, Croatia. **A gravure by Robert Adam, of the ruins of the Palace of the Emperor Diocletian at Split, Croatia. Public domain* In the past two decades, scholars have made significant progress in understanding Roman baths, shifting focus from grand baths in Rome to smaller-scale *balnea*, which were central to everyday life across the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/). These studies highlight the importance of the hypocaust system, the revolutionary Roman invention that used an underfloor heating system supported by brick or stone pillars (*pilae*) to circulate hot air beneath elevated floors. The hypocaust system typically connected the *praefurnium* (furnace) directly to the *caldarium* (hot room), ensuring the highest temperatures in this space. This proximity became a key feature in interpreting bath layouts. Additional indicators, such as room apertures regulating airflow, floor thickness, and architectural design, further aid in identifying the function of individual rooms like the *tepidarium* (warm room) and *sudatorium* (dry sauna). ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/The-hypocaust-system-of-the-Roman-baths-of-Berytus--modern-Beirut-.jpg) ## The introduction of the hypocaust system not only improved living standards across Italy, but also transformed daily life in colder provinces. **The hypocaust system of the Roman baths of Berytus (modern Beirut). Credits: JossK from Getty Images, by Canva* However, while much is known about the design and function of *balnea*, the exact ambient conditions of rooms like the caldarium, tepidarium, or sudatorium remain elusive. Many theories and experiments over the past century have provided only partial insights, often focusing on private baths and yielding inconclusive results. For instance, the famed baths of the imperial villa near Piazza Armerina in Sicily continue to generate debate about the actual temperatures achieved in their caldarium and sudatorium. Despite speculation and experimental reconstructions, questions about the thermal properties of Roman baths remain unanswered, emphasizing the need for further interdisciplinary research to fully understand the environmental and technological sophistication of these iconic structures. *(Heating System in the Ancient Worls: The example of the Southwestern Balneum in Diocletian's Palace in Split, by Turkovic T., Bogdan Z., and Jurkovic M.)* ![The Roman baths of Berytus (modern Beirut) and their hypocaust system](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/The-Roman-baths-of-Berytus--modern-Beirut--and-their-hypocaust-system.jpg) The Roman baths of Berytus (modern Beirut) and their hypocaust system. Credits: JossK from Getty Images, by Canva ### Glazed Windows and Roman Innovation The Forum Baths of Ostia, constructed in the early second century AD, featured large south-facing windows designed to capture sunlight throughout the day, particularly during popular bathing hours from early afternoon to evening. These windows, typical of Roman bath architecture across the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-roman-empire-a-brief-history/), played a key role in heating and lighting. One prominent room, identified as a warm *tepidarium*, has sparked debate among scholars regarding its heating efficiency and glazing. E.D. Thatcher, argued in 1956 that radiant heat from the sun and heated surfaces could alone maintain a comfortable temperature for bathers, even without window glazing. He emphasized the ability of the hypocaust system, which heated floors, walls, and ceilings to high temperatures, to create sufficient radiant warmth. However, Yegul, a Roman bath expert, has critiqued Thatcher’s claims as overly optimistic, pointing out that extensive evidence for glass and window frames in Roman baths suggests that glazing was a common and more energy-efficient solution. According to Yegul, unglazed windows would result in significant heat loss, making it economically impractical to maintain warmth in large open spaces, especially during cold winter months. Additional insight comes from historians Jordan and Perlin, who discuss the increasing scarcity of timber by the first century BC. The Roman Empire’s heavy reliance on wood for bathhouse furnaces and growing industries led to steep rises in fuel costs, necessitating innovations like glazing to conserve energy. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/The-hypocaust-system-of-a-Roman-bath.jpg) ## They note that by the third century AD, Rome boasted over 800 baths, highlighting the logistical challenges of fuel consumption and heating efficiency. **The hypocaust system of a Roman bath. Credits: syolacan from Getty Images, by Canva* Thatcher’s hypothesis assumes that the heated surfaces of the tepidarium were maintained at approximately 100°F (±38°C), radiating sufficient warmth to offset the cold air from open windows. However, experimental studies, such as those by Rook in England and Kretzschmer in Germany, indicate that even with hypocaust systems reaching temperatures of up to 400°F (±205°C), unglazed windows would lead to substantial heat loss. Modern studies on thermal comfort suggest that glazed windows would have provided a more balanced and sustainable environment for bathers, particularly during colder seasons. While Thatcher admired the Romans' confidence in radiant heating, modern perspectives highlight the practicality of combining glazing with hypocaust technology. The debate underscores the ingenuity of Roman engineering and the ways in which they adapted their architectural designs to maximize comfort while managing resources efficiently. (*Windows, Baths, and Solar Energy in the Roman Empire, by James W. Ring*) ### Sergius Orata and the Mystery of Roman Heating Innovations [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-the-author-of-the-worlds-first-encyclopaedia-was-roman/) offers the most detailed account of Sergius Orata, a curious figure in Roman history, whose entrepreneurial activities have sparked debates among scholars. While some suggest Orata invented the hypocaust, archaeological evidence disproves this claim, showing similar systems existed in Greece and Magna Graecia over a century before Orata's time. Instead, it has been proposed that **Orata refined the technology** or contributed a variation distinct from earlier Greek systems. The central question revolves around the term *pensiles balineae*, translated as "hanging baths," attributed to Orata. Literary sources like Pliny and [Cicero ](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)describe Orata as a wealthy fish farmer in Campania during the late Republic. Cicero refers to him as a man of comfort and business acumen, possibly linking the pensiles balineae to his ventures. However, these sources provide limited insight into the exact nature of this invention, and no clear archaeological evidence has been found to support specific claims. Modern interpretations often equate *pensiles balineae* with hypocausted baths, as the term *suspensura*—used by Vitruvius to describe underfloor heating—resembles the description of Orata's invention. Yet this identification is problematic. The terms suspensura or *hypocaustum* are conspicuously absent in discussions of Orata’s invention, and *pensiles balineae* are not directly associated with baths for human use. Some scholars propose an alternative explanation: that pensiles balineae were raised or terraced fishponds rather than bathhouses. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Freshly-opened-oysters-1.jpg) ## Orata was actually renowned for his expertise in fish farming, particularly oysters, which were highly prized by the [Roman elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). **Freshly opened oysters. Credits: heinstirred from Getty Images Pro, by Canva* Terraced fishponds, possibly built above ground or cascading into one another, would align with Orata’s reputation as an innovator in aquaculture. Such structures might also explain the poetic use of the term pensiles, referring to their elevated or suspended appearance. Further complicating matters, the physician Asclepiades of Bithynia is said to have adapted Orata’s pensiles balineae for medical purposes, introducing hot water to the system for therapeutic treatments. While this connection suggests a link to bathing, it is more likely that Asclepiades repurposed Orata’s invention rather than expanding its original function. In summary, the widespread belief that Orata invented the hypocaust is unsupported by both literary and archaeological evidence. Instead, his pensiles balineae were likely connected to fish farming, with their application to human bathing appearing later and in limited contexts. This reinterpretation removes Orata from the developmental history of Roman baths, allowing a clearer understanding of the transition from Greek to Roman hypocaust systems. (*Sergius Orata: Inventor of the Hypocaust?, by Garrett G. Fagan*) ![The Ancient Greek bath of Asklepios in Epidaurus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/The-Ancient-Greek-bath-of-Asklepios-in-Epidaurus-1.jpg) The Ancient Greek bath of Asklepios in Epidaurus. Credits: Zde, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### The “Indirizzo” Baths of Catania The “Indirizzo” Baths in the historic center of Catania, Italy, are a fascinating example of Roman engineering ingenuity. Built over the underground Amenano River in a once-thriving commercial district, these baths date back to the 3rd or 4th century CE, though some scholars suggest they could be even older. Their name and history are tied to the nearby church of Santa Maria dell’Indirizzo and the Carmelite Convent, which incorporated the baths into its structure, preserving them remarkably well over centuries. First excavated in 1779 by Prince Ignazio Paternò Castello, who identified its grand octagonal domed hall as a *laconicum* (sweat room), the baths remained largely hidden until restoration work in the 1930s. Despite their excellent state of preservation, the site remains little-known and seldom visited. The baths followed a traditional Roman layout, with an *apodyterium* (changing room) leading to a *frigidarium* (cold room) and *tepidaria* (warm rooms), eventually reaching the central octagonal *caldarium* (hot room). The design aligns with Vitruvius’ principles, placing cold rooms on the cooler north side and heated areas toward the south. Heat distribution relied on the hypocaust system, with brick pillars supporting raised floors and terracotta pipes embedded in walls to channel warmth. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/The-Thermal-baths-of-Indirizzo-in-Catania--detail-of-the-thermal-architectural-structure-1.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/The-Thermal-baths-of-Indirizzo-in-Catania--detail-of-the-walls-in-squared-lava-stone-blocks-1.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/The-Thermal-baths-of-Indirizzo-in-Catania--dome-roof-1.jpg) 🏛️ The Thermal baths of Indirizzo in Catania, photos by Carmelo Bongiorno **Photo #1: Detail of the thermal architectural structure* **Photo #2: Detail of the walls in squared lava stone blocks* **Photo #3: Dome roof* The heating process was intricate, involving several stages: - Wood-fired furnaces (*praefurnia)* produced heat. - The heat was distributed horizontally through the hypocaust beneath the floors. - The floors and baths were warmed by this heat, while hot water tanks were fed by cisterns. - Warm air was directed vertically through hollow terracotta pipes (*tubuli*). - Finally, flue gases were expelled through chimneys, ensuring efficient ventilation. Though the baths’ original entrance and some features remain uncertain, studies and reconstructions provide valuable insight into the advanced thermal engineering of Roman society. The “Indirizzo” Baths exemplify how Romans combined functionality with architectural elegance, creating spaces for both hygiene and socialization. (*Thermo-hygrometric behaviour of Roman thermal buildings: the “Indirizzo” Baths of Catania (Sicily), by A. Gagliano M. Liuzzo G. Margani W. Pettinato*) ### Quintilian: A Theory of Education that Left its Mark from Antiquity Onwards URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/quintilian-a-roman-theory-of-education-that-left-its-mark-from-antiquity-onwards/ Last updated: 2025-11-08T22:50:03.000Z In an age when power was measured by words as much as by swords, Quintilian shaped Rome’s voice. Born in Hispania and educated in the capital, he rose to become the Empire’s foremost teacher of rhetoric — a man who believed eloquence was not merely technique but virtue in speech. His [*Institutio Oratoria*](https://amzn.to/3LRwDQU?ref=romanempiretimes.com), the most comprehensive treatise on education and oratory ever produced in antiquity, guided students from cradle to courtroom, blending moral discipline with intellectual rigor. To Quintilian, the perfect orator was not simply persuasive; he was good, for only a good man could truly speak well. ### Quintilian: From the Provinces to the Heart of Rome Born in Calagurris (modern Calahorra) on the river Ebro around 35 CE, Quintilian rose from Spain’s quiet hinterland to become the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/)’s greatest teacher of rhetoric. His province, Hispania Citerior, was known, as [Pliny](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/) wrote, for its *iudicium et gravitas* — its “good judgment and seriousness.” These were the very qualities that defined Quintilian himself. Although later generations recorded his Spanish origin, his own writings reveal little trace of it. Long residence in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/incense-in-ancient-rome-smoke-ritual-and-power/) made him, in spirit, a citizen of the capital — yet one whose provincial roots gave him sobriety, discipline, and moral steadiness. He came from a family of rhetoricians. His father taught the art of speech, and an older Quintilian mentioned by [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/) may have been his grandfather — suggesting that eloquence was the family’s inheritance. Whether raised first in Spain or brought early to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/), the young Quintilian received the best Greco-Roman education. He was likely bilingual from infancy, hearing [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) nurses at home and learning both languages in parallel. > “It is the nurse,” he wrote, > “whom the child first hears and imitates.” From these beginnings he would build his lifelong conviction that moral character must shape speech as much as grammar or logic. At twelve he entered the grammar schools, [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) and Latin alike, where he was trained in: > “the art of correct speaking and the explanation of the poets.” His teachers still wrote *seruom* for servum and banned hybrid words like *piratica* or *fabrica*, reminders of a Latin still in motion. Alongside grammar came mathematics and music — > “for,” he noted, > “no discipline stands alone.” ![Quintilian, portrait engraved by Étienne Jehandier Desrochers](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Quintilian--portrait-engraved-by---tienne-Jehandier-Desrochers.jpg) Quintilian, portrait engraved by Étienne Jehandier Desrochers. Public domain The final step was the rhetorical school, where ambition burned fiercely: pupils declaimed in ranked order, striving each month to remain at the head of the class. Quintilian recalled with wry humor one popular exercise: > “Why is Venus armed at Sparta?” or > “Why is Cupid believed to be a boy with wings and arrows?” myth turned into training for logic and persuasion. He advanced rapidly. Rejecting teachers who detained pupils: > “to prolong their wretched fees,” he left the school early and began his career at the bar, much as Pliny did in youth. By his own counsel, > “the student, having gained some mastery of invention and style, should choose an orator to follow and imitate.” For Quintilian, that model was Domitius Afer, the brilliant but morally ambiguous advocate of Gaul. [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) condemned Afer for greed and cruelty; Quintilian, however, revered his professional mastery, recalling how the old man taught him to question witnesses and how Afer would sigh, > “It is all over with our profession.” Their exchanges ranged beyond the courtroom — when asked who came nearest to Homer, Afer answered, > “Virgil — nearer to first than to third.” By the 60s CE, Quintilian had made his name as an advocate and soon returned to Spain, where he practiced law and met Galba, then governor of Tarraconensis. When Galba became emperor in 68, he summoned Quintilian to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) — a call that changed his life. Quintilian was the first to hold a publicly funded chair of rhetoric, his salary set at 100,000 sesterces, an honor later poets would recall with awe. [Juvenal](https://romanempiretimes.com/juvenal-the-poet-who-held-a-mirror-to-rome/) quipped about wealthy parents begrudging Quintilian his two thousand sesterces, proof of his eminence and prosperity. He taught for twenty years, guiding pupils who would later fill [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s courts and [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/). His teaching blended rigor with conscience: rhetoric, he held, must serve justice, not vanity. He continued to plead cases, among them the defense of Berenice, mistress of Emperor [Titus](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-titus-darling-of-mankind/), and earned [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/)’s tribute as “the glory of the Roman bar.” His success, he admitted, came not from dazzling wit but from diligence — > “to know every document, to question every witness, and to consider the cause from both sides.” Retiring in his later years, he dedicated himself to writing. His *Institutio Oratoria* distilled a lifetime’s learning — a complete education of the orator from cradle to perfection. [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/) honored him with consular insignia and entrusted him with the emperor’s great-nephews, the young heirs of the Flavian house. > “How could I spare any pains,” Quintilian wrote, > “in shaping their character, that they might deserve the praise of so chaste a guardian of morals?” Such loyalty, however, placed him in a perilous proximity to power. When Flavius Clemens and Domitilla, the boys’ parents, fell under charges of “atheism” — likely Christianity — Quintilian remained silent. Perhaps, as he wrote bitterly elsewhere, > “one cannot be too careful under a despotism.” He endured personal tragedy: his wife died young, and both sons followed her. The *Institutio* closes with the voice of a man who has lost much yet remains steadfast: > “I have long retired; death may overtake me before my work is done.” He probably did not live beyond the first years of [Nerva](https://romanempiretimes.com/nerva-the-first-of-the-good-roman-emperors/)’s reign. Quintilian’s name stands for the union of eloquence and ethics. His Rome was not that of conquest but of conscience — a [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/niche-perfumes-in-ancient-rome-how-did-emperors-smell-like/) where the orator’s highest duty was to truth, and where, in his own words, > “the good man who speaks well” (vir bonus dicendi peritus) was the true measure of civilization. (*Quintilian: A Biographical Sketch, by M. L. Clarke*) ![Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria in Florence](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Quintilian--Institutio-Oratoria-in-Florence.jpg) Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria in Florence. Public domain ### The Measure of Quintilian: Virtue, Eloquence, and the Roman Ideal Quintilian’s reputation rests not only on his mastery of rhetoric but on the moral vision that shaped his teaching. In an age when eloquence was too often divorced from virtue, he restored their unity, arguing that: > “the good man, skilled in speaking” (vir bonus dicendi peritus) was the only true orator. The formula, deceptively simple, defined an entire philosophy of education — one where character was the foundation of art. He lived at a moment when the old Republic’s civic eloquence had waned, and rhetoric risked becoming an ornament of tyranny. Yet Quintilian stood apart. He refused to sever speech from ethics, insisting that the orator must not merely persuade but deserve to persuade. In his view, no amount of technical skill could redeem corruption of soul. > “It is not enough,” he warned, > “to know what should be said — one must also be worthy to say it.” Quintilian’s *Institutio Oratoria* was the summation of this creed — a vast architecture of moral and intellectual formation. It led the student from infancy to maturity, shaping not only the voice but the conscience. He envisioned education as the slow, deliberate growth of judgment (*iudicium*), nurtured by memory, imitation, and virtue. The process began at home, with the choice of a nurse of pure speech and morals. From there, the young mind advanced through grammar, literature, and philosophy, each stage meant to refine both intellect and character. For Quintilian, knowledge was inseparable from moral purpose. He admired the great stylists of the past — [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) above all — yet he measured them by ethical gravity, not verbal brilliance. The orator’s task was to defend truth, not to dazzle with artifice. > “Art is perfected by nature, and nature by art,” he wrote, blending[ Stoic](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/) integrity with Roman practicality. His method united the moral discipline of the philosopher with the precision of the rhetor. Quintilian’s influence lay in his moderation. He rejected both the austerity of pedants and the excess of declaimers. The true orator, he taught, must combine wisdom with emotional power — a harmony of reason and feeling that mirrored the balance of the well-governed state. He cautioned against false passion: > “Let the heart feel what the lips utter.” Such restraint, rare in his age, gave his teaching its lasting dignity. His work was both technical and ethical, offering [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/) an ideal of eloquence as moral service. To speak justly was, for him, to act justly. He turned rhetoric from a weapon of ambition into an instrument of conscience. The *Institutio* thus became not merely a manual but a vision of civic virtue preserved through education. In its pages, speech was the breath of duty — a means by which empire itself might recall its better self. Quintilian’s legacy endured because it reconciled two traditions: the Roman sense of law and order with the Greek pursuit of moral beauty. He gave form to a principle as old as the Republic and as enduring as the Empire — that words, when rightly used, are the guardians of the soul. (*An Estimate of Quintilian, by George Kennedy*) ![Frontispiece of Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Frontispiece-of-Quintilian---s-Institutio-oratoria.jpg) Frontispiece of Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria. Public domain ### The Architecture of Eloquence: Inside Quintilian’s *Institutio Oratoria* Around 95 CE, a retired teacher Marcus Fabius Quintilianus entrusted to his friend, the bookseller Trypho, one of the most ambitious intellectual works of antiquity — the *Institutio Oratoria*, or The Orator’s Education. Across twelve lengthy rolls of papyrus, nearly 700,000 words in total, Quintilian undertook what he called an audacious aim: > “I am proposing to educate the perfect orator.” For two years, he devoted his life to this project, consulting countless sources and shaping his long experience into a single system of moral and rhetorical training. His letter to Trypho — something like a modern preface — reveals a mix of persuasion and fatigue. Trypho, sensing a best-seller, urged him to publish, while Quintilian, already honored and wealthy, had little to gain but posterity. Writing for profit was unthinkable for a man of his rank; only the bookseller’s staff of scribes would benefit commercially. His motive was different: the preservation of Roman eloquence through the education of conscience. In his General Preface, Quintilian explains why he wrote. After two decades of teaching, he wished to reconcile conflicting theories of rhetoric and to provide a complete guide for his friend Marcus Vitorius Marcellus and the boy Geta, to whom the work is dedicated. Unauthorized notes from his lectures were already circulating, and he feared that partial versions might distort his principles. His solution was to produce the definitive map of an orator’s life — from cradle to old age — an encyclopaedia of virtue and voice. ![Allegorical copper engraving by F. Bleyswyk on the title page of Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Allegorical-copper-engraving-by-F.-Bleyswyk-on-the-title-page-of-Quintilian---s-Institutio-oratoria.jpg) Allegorical copper engraving by F. Bleyswyk on the title page of Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria. Public domain ### The Twelve Books of Formation Quintilian carefully outlines the design of his monument to education. - Book I begins before the rhetor’s art, teaching the earliest formation of speech, moral discipline, and home education. - Book II turns to the foundations of rhetoric itself, defining its nature and aims. - Books III to VII explore invention and disposition — the finding and ordering of arguments — what he calls “the sinews of speech.” - Books VIII to XI cover style, memory, and delivery, the outward grace that animates thought. - Book XII stands apart, portraying the finished orator: his character, his conduct in court, his retirement, and his intellectual afterlife. The sequence moves from infancy to maturity, from theory to practice, and finally to the moral philosophy that must crown eloquence. > “I shall there discuss,” he writes, > “his character, the principles of undertaking, preparing, and pleading cases, his style, the end of his active career, and the studies he may undertake thereafter.” ![The word encyclopedia (ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία) as it appears in a 15th century manuscript of Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/The-word-encyclopedia--------------------------------------as-it-appears-in-a-15th-century-manuscript-of-Quintilian-s-Institutio-Oratoria.jpg) The word encyclopedia (ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία) as it appears in a 15th century manuscript of Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria. Public domain ### A Method for the Whole Man Quintilian defends the scale of his work with clarity and irony. He refuses to write another: > “dry textbook,” (*nudae artes*) that > “drains off all the juice of the mind and exposes the bones.” His goal was not to produce a skeleton of rhetoric but a living body — sinew, flesh, and spirit united. To teach eloquence, he insists, one must nourish the student’s powers of judgment and moral sense, not merely the tongue. In this vision, rhetoric is inseparable from ethics. The orator, trained from childhood in purity of speech and thought, matures through grammar, literature, and philosophy into a figure capable of uniting wisdom with persuasion. The teacher’s task is to cultivate both the intellect and the heart, guiding a youth whose earliest words — > “for the words first heard cling longest” will shape the citizen he becomes. The *Institutio Oratoria* thus unfolds as four intertwined works: a treatise on education, a manual of rhetoric, a reading guide to the finest authors, and a moral handbook for the *vir bonus dicendi peritus* — “the good man skilled in speaking.” The rhetorical books themselves, nine in number, are only instruments; the true design lies in the ethical structure built around them. Eloquence is not an end but a form of virtue expressed in words. ### Reading the Monument For ancient readers, such a monumental text demanded patience. Divided into twelve scrolls without modern aids, it could only be navigated through Quintilian’s own plan. Later copyists added divisions, headings, and chapters; Renaissance printers supplied numbered sections; modern translators, like Donald A. Russell, imposed fresh order upon its labyrinth. Yet no amount of segmentation can diminish its unity of purpose. Quintilian wrote as a craftsman of civilization. Each page mirrors the balance he preached: discipline tempered by humanity, method softened by moral vision. He often interrupts his argument to consider opposing views, to offer personal advice from the courtroom, or to apologize for excessive detail — > “I may seem to dwell too long,” he admits, > “but nothing is unnecessary in forming the perfect orator.” This generosity of thought is what makes the *Institutio* timeless. It is less a system than a life unfolded in twelve acts — a journey from the first word of a child to the last counsel of an old teacher who believed that eloquence, rightly taught, could refine the world. ![Woodcut used as final ornament on page 209 of Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Woodcut-used-as-final-ornament-on-page-209-of-Quintilian---s-Institutio-oratoria.jpg) Woodcut used as final ornament on page 209 of Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria. Public domain ### The Making of a Monument: How Quintilian Wrote the *Institutio Oratoria* Quintilian’s *Institutio Oratoria*, appears to have been written in the very sequence we read today. Only its short preface, the letter to his bookseller Trypho, came last. Some modern editors think the General Preface was also a late addition, but its forward-looking tone and future-tense verbs show it was conceived as a prologue, not an afterthought. That the letter to Trypho survived at all is remarkable. It was never meant as part of the book, merely a covering note for delivery. Perhaps Trypho preserved it as an advertisement for his distinguished author — a bit of literary marketing that scribes continued to copy over the centuries. Yet within it lie small but telling clues about how the *Institutio* was made. Quintilian tells Trypho that he had already finished the work before the bookseller approached him. The treatise, he explains, was first written for his friend Marcus Vitorius Marcellus and his son Geta, not for the general public. He spent > “a little more than two years” completing it, then, following Horace’s advice in the *Ars Poetica*, > “put it away, so as to go over it again with a reader’s eyes.” The act of setting a finished work aside for revision was part of his method, as it was for any disciplined rhetor. In Book X, he urges his students to correct their written speeches before delivery, conceding that though orators may be pressed for time, > “the work must be returned to the file,” since > “the same care that shapes the speech refines the speaker” . Quintilian seems to have written the twelve books gradually, sending each new installment to Marcellus as it was completed. In the preface to Book IV he remarks that his appointment as tutor to the emperor’s grandnephews had > “changed the nature of our relationship” a clear sign that the correspondence continued through composition. Later, in Book VI, he apologizes for delay: > “When grief subsides, I shall have some justification for asking pardon for my slowness, caused by the death of my son”. These moments of personal voice — grief, fatigue, renewed resolve — mark the progress of a living work rather than a polished academic system. It ends as it began, in friendship: > “This, then, Marcus Vitorius,” he writes in the closing line, > “is the best contribution I think I can personally make to the teaching of oratory”. ![A drawing of Marcus Fabius Quintilianus from the Liber Chronicarum by the workshop of Michel Wolgemut](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/A-drawing-of-Marcus-Fabius-Quintilianus-from-the-Liber-Chronicarum-by-the-workshop-of-Michel-Wolgemut.jpg) A drawing of Marcus Fabius Quintilianus from the Liber Chronicarum by the workshop of Michel Wolgemut. Public domain ### Writing for Posterity, Not Publication Quintilian never meant to publish in the modern sense. “Publication” in ancient Rome had little to do with business. There were no copyright laws, no printing houses, and no royalties — anyone could copy a text and sell it. Speeches were often taken down by shorthand writers and sold as scrolls; authors might read their work aloud to select audiences in a *recitatio*, or entrust copies to friends. [Virgil](https://romanempiretimes.com/analysis-of-the-world-of-virgil-roman-poet-eclogues-georgics-and-the-aeneid/) had read passages of the [*Aeneid*](https://amzn.to/4nRgDMh?ref=romanempiretimes.com) to [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) himself. Quintilian, comfortably wealthy from his career and imperial pension, would have regarded writing for profit as undignified. His motive was civic and moral: to set down a complete programme of education, a legacy for [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/). What seems to him a burden of two years’ labor appears to us astonishing speed — seven hundred thousand words composed, edited, and copied with only wax tablets, parchment, and the hands of [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/). ### The Teacher at Work It is easy to imagine Quintilian’s study: wax tablets stacked like pages of a private notebook, the stylus scratching into their smooth surface. He may have followed what we might call today a “storyboard” — a written plan or checklist of the twelve books to keep track of what had been completed. His adherence to his outline is clear: the work follows the order promised in the General Preface almost exactly, with only minor slips. At times, he loses his place — > “I might be thought by some to have left this out”, he admits when repeating an earlier point on judgment; elsewhere, he says, > “I spoke (I think in Book Seven)...”. Such self-corrections show that no later editor “cleaned” the manuscript; what we read today is the voice of a writer caught in motion, not after revision. Scholars have called the *Institutio*, the most complete and detailed collection of the theories and techniques of communication in Greece and Rome up to the first century. Indeed, it feels encyclopedic — yet Quintilian himself remained humble about its limits. Discussing figures of speech, he concedes that more remain to be discovered. On the proofs of argument, he writes, > “I have not the confidence to assert that this is all there is; indeed I urge further research”. Even where he sounds most certain, he reconsiders — on arguments and on the number of issues — treating study as a living art rather than a closed ledger. ![A Roman Scribe Writing Dispatches, a painting by Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/A-Roman-Scribe-Writing-Dispatches--a-painting-by-Sir-Lawrence-Alma-Tadema.jpg) A Roman Scribe Writing Dispatches, a painting by Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema. Public domain ### The Tools of Composition In Book X, Quintilian turns from philosophy to the physical act of writing. He distinguishes three methods: dictation, writing on parchment, and writing on wax tablets. Dictation, > “the luxury of the rich,” he says, > “achieves neither the accuracy of writing nor the spontaneity of speaking”. The scribe might be slow, or misunderstand, and: > “our chain of thought may be broken by delay or irritation.” As for surfaces, his preference is clear: > “It is best to write on wax, where it is easiest to erase,” unless poor eyesight demands parchment — though parchment: > “delays the hand and breaks off the flow of thought”. Wax tablets were the working pages of Rome — small wooden boards covered in wax, joined by cords, and inscribed with a stylus whose blunt end smoothed away errors. They were portable, erasable, and ideal for teaching or composing drafts. In Book I, Quintilian recommends them to beginners: > “Let the child write first on wax, so that mistakes may be corrected easily”. Later, in Book XI, he describes orators preparing their speeches on such tablets before transferring them to more permanent rolls. ![Quintilian bust in the choir of the Ulm Cathedral](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Quintilian-bust-in-the-choir-of-the-Ulm-Cathedral.jpg) Quintilian bust in the choir of the Ulm Cathedral. Credits: Zinnmann, CC BY-SA 4.0 The *Institutio* must have followed that process. Each passage was probably drafted on wax, then copied onto papyrus by household scribes. Quintilian, like Cicero before him, almost certainly dictated the final version to a secretary once the structure was fixed. Cicero’s scribe, Tiro, had invented shorthand to record such dictation; Quintilian may have had a similar servant, though he never names one. He seldom names anyone — not even his late wife or his two sons. His library, meanwhile, must have been vast. He cites nearly eighty authors, from Plato to Seneca, quoting four major rhetorical treatises and most of Cicero’s speeches. In twenty years of teaching he had gathered a scholar’s treasury, likely by purchase or by private copying, for public libraries were rare. His mastery of sources gives the *Institutio* its depth: a lifetime’s reading distilled into one continuous work. The making of the *Institutio Oratoria* was an act of endurance as much as intellect. Between teaching, loss, and imperial service, Quintilian sustained two years of unbroken writing — drafting, revising, dictating, and assembling the twelve rolls that would define rhetorical education for a millennium. His method combined rigor with humility, perfection with progress — the mark of a teacher who believed wisdom itself must remain a living art. > “Prolonged study would be waste of time,” he confessed, > “if one were forbidden to improve on one’s past opinions.” That single line captures the restless spirit of a teacher who believed that wisdom itself must remain a living art. ([*The Oxford Handbook of Quintilian*](https://amzn.to/4oY7DG3?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, edited by Mark Van Der Poel with Michael Edwards and James J. Murphy*) ### Aelian: The Roman Who Wrote in Greek URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/aelian-the-roman-who-wrote-in-greek/ Last updated: 2025-11-06T23:11:35.000Z In an empire where Latin ruled law and power, Claudius Aelianus chose another tongue. Born in Praeneste around 170 CE, Aelian lived under the high tide of Roman order yet wrote in the language of Plato. His Greek flowed so pure, contemporaries called him “the honey-tongued” — *meliglossos*. From his pen came not the rhetoric of conquest but a treasury of wonder: animals that reason, cities that reveal their customs, and men who, through their deeds, expose the nature of virtue and folly. His world was one of moral parable and observation, where curiosity became philosophy and the natural world a mirror of the human soul. ### Claudius Aelianus and the Art of Memory Aelian was an early third-century Roman who swore he never left Italy, wrote [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) with Attic purity and a sweet, flowing style that earned him a reputation as a native voice. What survives—twenty rustic letters, On the [*Nature of Animals*](https://amzn.to/43jljTM?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (*De natura animalium*), the unfinished [*Varia Historia*](https://amzn.to/3LOhi3B?ref=romanempiretimes.com), and scattered fragments—belongs to the imperial revival of [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) eloquence. He avoids systems and novelties; instead, he curates Greece in pieces. The fragment is his favored unit: brief, vivid, recombinable notes that preserve and re-animate classical memory for a post-classical world. In the Nature of Animals epilogue he even asks to be counted among [poets](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/), natural philosophers, and historians—staking a claim that remembering is itself an art. Memory is the thread that binds his pages. On the surface he praises beasts gifted with remembrance; beneath, he probes how cultures remember—by nature (*phusis*) or by art (*tekhnē*). Hoopoes haunt wastelands and smear their nests, behavior read through mythic recall; they: > “seem to have a recollection of their formerly human qualities… and a hatred for the race of women” (δοκοῦσι… ἐν μνήμῃ… μίσει τοῦ γένους τοῦ τῶν γυναικῶν, A bull: > “will never forget” a blow (οὐκ ἂν ποτε λήθην λάβοι,); under the yoke > “he is like a prisoner and is tranquil” (ἔοικε δεσμώτῃ καὶ ἡσυχάζει), yet once freed he exacts justice. The Indian elephant, once shackled, > “longs for freedom and becomes murderous… and does not endure to be a slave and a prisoner” (τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ποθῶν φονᾷ… δοῦλος εἶναι καὶ δεσμώτης οὐκ ὑπομένει). Other creatures shame us with piety: > “Dolphins are mindful of their dead” (δελφῖνες… νεκρῶν μνήμονες), lifting corpses for burial and trusting just, music-loving men (οἱ ἀπὸ Μουσῶν καὶ Χαρίτων) to honor them; Aelian counters with human scandals—distinguished dead refused burial—and laments those who: > “have forgotten themselves” (σφᾶς αὐτοὺς λελήθασι). ![Fictional drawing of Claudius Aelianus in his De variae historiae](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Fictional-drawing-of-Claudius-Aelianus-in-his-De-variae-historiae.jpg) Fictional drawing of Claudius Aelianus in his De variae historiae. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times [Eagles](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-has-the-eagle-become-the-roman-symbol/) keep vigil like lovers; in one tale, when “the boy” dies, the eagle > “threw himself upon the pyre” (ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὴν πυρὰν ἐνέβαλεν,). Lions remember benefaction: > “that memory is a constant attribute even of animals” (Μνήμην… παρακολουθεῖν καὶ τοῖς ζῴοις), proven by Androcles and the grateful lion. From nursery to throne, remembrance underwrites virtue. The mare is praised because she can: > “remember the foal” (τοῦ πώλου… μεμνῆσθαι δεινή); elephants guard their young with exemplary mindfulness. Set against them stands Laenilla, a Roman noblewoman who: > “placed lust before her own sons” (τὸν ἔρωτα ἐπίπροσθεν τῶν υἱέων ποιησαμένη). For Aelian, τὸ *μνημονεύειν*—active, ethical remembering—supports *philoteknia*, *dikē, charis,* and *sōphrosynē* alike: it is the mental habit that holds Greco-Roman society together. He distrusts artificial memory. Animals: > “have no need of the artifice pertaining to memory” (δεῖταί γε τέχνης τῆς ἐς τὴν μνήμην οὐ…, ). He mocks mnemonic theater with the glowing kunospastos plant: men set markers (σημεῖα) at night because by day they “could not remember” (μνημονεῦσαι); a dog plucks the root and dies, buried with rites “when Helios sees the roots” — knowledge won against nature leaves guilt in its wake. Law, too, is second to nature: elephants honor elders without statutes— > “how could Lycurgus compete with the laws of nature?” (ποῦ… τοῖς τῆς φύσεως νόμοις;). Yet Aelian concedes the paradox: only writing can conserve this “natural” ethic. His book is a cabinet of remembrance that keeps pointing to its own stitches— > “as I noted above…” (ἀνωτέρω μνήμην ἐποιησάμην)— playful proof that human memory rides on signs. Under [Severan](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-severan-marble-plan/) skies—an age of erased portraits and chiselled names—this obsession reads like quiet resistance. Fraternal murders are avenged by a faithful serpent; a hoopoe’s crest becomes a “memorial” (*μνημεῖον*) of filial piety in exile. Even the catalog of animal voices (“roars, bellows, whinnies…”) hints at courtly circles that once delighted in such philology. The result is not zoology but a moral anthology: fragments that remember—of beasts, of men, and of the fragile art that keeps both from being forgotten. (*"Claudius Aelianus: Memory, Mnemonics, and Literature in the Age of Caracalla" by Steven D. Smith. In* [*Greek Memories, Theories and Practices*](https://amzn.to/3Lvj1e4?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, edited by Luca Castagnoli and Paula Ceccarelli*) ![Charles Meynier's painting, Androcles and the lion](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Charles-Meynier-s-painting--Androcles-and-the-lion.jpg) Charles Meynier's painting, Androcles and the lion. Public domain ### Between Fame and the Page Claudius Aelianus was born in Praeneste, some 35 kilometers east of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/), between 161 and 177 CE — during the reign of [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-marcus-aurelius-meditations-survive/) and the youth of [Commodus](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-commodus-truly-the-megalomaniac-gladiator-emperor/). By the time [Septimius Severus](https://romanempiretimes.com/septimius-severus-founder-fighter-and-father-of-a-new-rome/) celebrated his tenth anniversary as emperor in 202, Aelian was a mature man, and he lived through the violent transitions that followed: the deaths of Severus and [Geta](https://romanempiretimes.com/brothers-divided-the-tragic-tale-of-emperors-caracalla-and-geta/), the rise of [Caracalla](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/), and the eccentric reign of [Elagabalus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/). A student of the sophist Pausanias, who held the Roman chair of rhetoric in the late second century, Aelian became renowned for his mastery of Attic Greek — the refined literary language of his age. A priest by office and a man of letters by vocation, he also composed two religious treatises (*On Providence* and *On Manifestations of the Divine*), a biting invective against [Elagabalus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-divine-chaos-of-elagabalus-romes-most-unconventional-emperor/) titled *Indictment of the Little Woman*, and perhaps a series of epigrams once inscribed on *hermai* that adorned his villa garden. All of his works were written in Greek. Though some once imagined him part of Julia Domna’s literary circle, evidence for any such salon is lacking. What is certain is that Aelian’s elegant compositions earned admiration in his lifetime and shaped learning across a millennium of the Roman and Byzantine worlds. Among his writings, *On the Nature of Animals* stands as his masterpiece. Despite its title’s resemblance to Aristotle’s *Historia animalium*, Aelian’s approach is far from philosophical system. He was no natural scientist but a moralist and stylist, offering readers a treasury of stories — [elephants](https://romanempiretimes.com/hannibal-ad-portas-how-37-african-elephants-crossed-the-alps/) that dance, asps that whisper to boys in dreams, monstrous octopuses haunting Italian shores. The pleasure of his prose draws the reader in; beneath its sweetness lies sharp moral reflection. Aelian was disenchanted with the pretensions of his age, and his book becomes a mirror for the failures of human virtue. The work’s deliberate lack of order — no taxonomy, no linear argument — is itself a statement. Its seventeen books are arranged like scattered jewels, fragments that can be read in any order, forming a [mosaic](https://romanempiretimes.com/asarotos-oikos-mosaic-unswept-floor-roman-elite/) of thought rather than a system. Each vignette stands as a finished miniature, polished and self-contained. There is no guiding voice explaining how one story leads to the next; the reader may wander freely, reading in sequence or at random, tracing meaning through association and contrast. This deliberate openness reflects the anthologizing taste of Aelian’s era — a culture that prized quotation, collection, and the display of learned fragments. ![Histories, from Aelian](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Histories--from-Aelian.jpg) Histories, from Aelian. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times His anecdotes, gathered from myth and observation, were the perfect currency of *paideia*, the cultivated knowledge of the educated [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). Like the witty exchanges in contemporary romances and sophistic dialogues, Aelian’s narratives transformed animal lore into moral allegory and social critique. For Aelian, such fragments formed a kind of intellectual treasure (*keimelion*), a storehouse of memory. Each story could be lifted, recombined, and reused — a mark of the virtuoso rhetorician who dazzled not by invention but by mastery of tradition. Yet beneath this apparent disorder runs an organizing current: a steady moral “I,” a narrative consciousness seeking pattern amid chaos. His voice moves through the tangle, invoking the divine power that unites nature’s mysteries. This tension — between order and multiplicity, between the voice and the fragments — gives the Nature of Animals its peculiar vitality. Aelian’s self-conscious “I” emerges not as an imperial authority but as a composite presence, shaped by intersecting discourses of nature, morality, gender, kingship, and pleasure. The author does not disappear behind his citations; he redefines authorship itself as the art of assembling knowledge, editing the voices of the past into new harmony. His book stands, as he himself did, between the statue and the library: between the public monument of reputation and the private archive of memory. Turning away from public oratory, Aelian withdrew from the arena of palaces and acclaim to a quieter world of writing. In that retreat, he embraced what might be called a minor stance — a humility before the clamor of empire and an affinity with the creatures he described. He identifies with the irrational beasts of his pages: not a [slave](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/), as he proudly notes, but close to them in voice and sympathy. He writes like them, borrowing their polyphony, their foreign tongues. His book becomes both garden and burrow — a field of blossoms and a network of tunnels undermining the grand architecture of imperial rhetoric. Behind its conservative moral tone lies the possibility of transformation. The reader who enters Aelian’s labyrinth confronts questions of culture, divinity, gender, and power. His contemporaries may have seen in him a model of Roman virtue; yet his text imagines a different reader — one who will slip from the shadow of the statue into the living maze of the library, seeking metamorphosis in the act of reading. ([*Man and animal in Severan Rome. The literary imagination of Claudius Aelianus*](https://amzn.to/4hJkae6?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Steven D. Smith*) ![A painting from Johannes Wierix, depicting Alexander the Great as he surrenders his mistress Campaspe to Apelles, who depicts her naked, a story from Claudius Aelianus' Variae historiae](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/A-painting-from-Johannes-Wierix--depicting-Alexander-the-Great-as-he-surrenders-his-mistress-Campaspe-to-Apelles--who-depicts-her-naked--a-story-from-Claudius-Aelianus--Variae-historiae.jpg) A painting from Johannes Wierix, depicting Alexander the Great as he surrenders his mistress Campaspe to Apelles, who depicts her naked, a story from Claudius Aelianus' Variae historiae. Public domain ### The Scholar and His Mosaic: Aelian and the Varia Historia Among the works of Claudius Aelianus, the *Varia Historia* stands apart as a testament to the refined curiosity and literary artistry of its author. It is not a history in the conventional sense but a constellation of brief prose chapters — anecdotes, moral reflections, philosophical observations, and marvels of nature and humanity — all presented without systematic order. Yet this deliberate disorder, far from careless, reveals Aelian’s purpose: to capture the variety of human experience and the accumulated wisdom of the Greek world as it survived into the Roman age. The *Varia Historia* belongs to a long-standing tradition of miscellanies, but its texture and tone are uniquely Aelian’s. Each passage gleams with the polish of Attic prose, composed by a Roman who loved Greek as his native tongue. The work’s very lack of structure evokes a moral principle — that knowledge, like the world itself, resists neat classification. From the behavior of kings and the follies of philosophers to stories of animals, temples, and omens, Aelian gathers fragments of the past and arranges them as one might arrange tesserae in a mosaic. Together they form an image of a cultured mind preserving what might otherwise be lost to time. What defines the *Varia Historia* is not only its content but its attitude toward learning. Aelian writes as both custodian and critic of memory. He collects the sayings and deeds of earlier ages, yet his selection reflects judgment and irony. Through this assembly of fragments, he allows readers to glimpse the moral landscape of the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) — a world where Greek wisdom met Roman power, and where a man’s education became a measure of virtue. ![Detail from Aelian's Peri Zoon Idiotetos, in Greek](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Detail-from-Aelian-s-Peri-Zoon-Idiotetos--in-Greek.jpg) Detail from Aelian's Peri Zoon Idiotetos, in Greek. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### A Life Between Rome and Greece: The World of Claudius Aelianus Claudius Aelianus belonged to an Italy still proud of its Latin traditions yet captivated by Greek culture. Educated under the sophist Pausanias, who taught rhetoric in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/), Aelian mastered the Attic dialect so perfectly that he was celebrated as “the honey-tongued,” as aforementioned. Though he never left Italy, his intellectual geography stretched from Athens to Alexandria. In his works, he called upon the entire Hellenic past, fusing it with Roman moral ideals to create a hybrid vision of civilization. Aelian’s life, viewed through his writings, was that of a scholar-priest, a man of leisure and letters who turned away from public ambition. He was said to have held priestly office in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/), but his true temple was the written word. His prose, musical and urbane, was steeped in the moral gravity of Greek tradition yet tinged with the realism of Roman society. The world he inhabited — that of the Severan court — was one of opulence and instability. Aelian’s voice, in contrast, was contemplative and measured. He lived through the reigns of Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Elagabalus, observing from a distance the excesses and moral fractures of imperial politics. His moral tone, shaped by the [Stoic](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/) and Platonic schools, positioned him as a quiet dissenter against the turbulence of his age. While others sought prominence in the imperial palaces, Aelian sought permanence through literature. His writings — from the *Varia Historia* and *On the Nature of Animals* to his lost invective against Elagabalus — reveal a mind at once nostalgic and defiant, convinced that Greek learning remained the truest measure of civilization. ![Roman Denarius coin of Emperor Elagabalus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Roman-Denarius-coin-of-Emperor-Elagabalus.jpg) Roman Denarius coin of Emperor Elagabalus. Public domain ### A Living Text: The Transmission of the Varia Historia The *Varia Historia* reached later generations through a complex and uneven manuscript tradition that mirrors the fragmentary spirit of the work itself. Copied and recopied throughout late antiquity and the Byzantine period, the text was valued less for its structure than for its inexhaustible store of stories — a treasury of quotations, moral examples, and curiosities ready for reuse. Each brief chapter could stand on its own, inviting readers to approach the collection as they might a cabinet of wonders. The earliest manuscripts reveal the fascination the work inspired among scholars and moralists, who mined it for evidence of ancient customs and lost authors. When the first printed editions appeared in the Renaissance, humanists embraced Aelian as both a moralist and an antiquarian. His *Varia Historia* was read not as an exercise in philosophy but as a mirror of the ancient world’s mind — a text that preserved the voice of a man who revered Greek wisdom while living in the heart of Rome. Even in its textual imperfections, the *Varia Historia* retains its peculiar charm. Its disorder is its design; its variety, its coherence. Through it, Aelian invites the reader to partake in the intellectual play of recollection — to wander among fragments that, though scattered, preserve the shape of a lost whole. It is a book of memory, not of method, and in that lies its enduring life. (*Claudius Aelianus Varia Historia and the tradition of the miscellany, by Diane Luise Johnson*) --- Though centuries have passed since his “honey-tongued” prose delighted the Roman salons, Aelian’s voice still carries a quiet defiance. He reminds us that civilization endures not through monuments or conquest, but through the preservation of memory — in stories, fragments, and the written word. His works, suspended between Rome and Greece, between the statue and the library, speak of a man who sought truth not in power, but in recollection. To read Aelian is to enter a world where **the past is never lost**, only waiting to be **remembered anew**. ### The Plague of Justinian: When Death Came to Constantinople URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-plague-of-justinian-when-death-came-to-constantinople/ Last updated: 2025-11-05T23:34:51.000Z In the spring of 542 CE, the Roman Empire awoke to silence. Ships brought not only grain to [Constantinople](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) but death—an invisible passenger that crept from the ports of Egypt to the heart of the imperial capital. Within weeks, the streets that once echoed with trade and prayer lay still. Bodies filled the squares; dogs starved beside their masters; and the emperor himself fell ill behind the marble walls of his palace. It was the beginning of what Procopius called “a [plague](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-roman-pandemics-and-plagues-allowed-ecosystems-to-recover-from-pollution/) beyond all measure,” a visitation that would empty cities, cripple armies, and mark the first pandemic of recorded history. Beneath the golden domes of Justinian’s empire, the ancient world met its most relentless enemy: the unseen breath of death. ![Greatmartyr Saint Procopius of Caesarea, in Palestine](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Greatmartyr-Saint-Procopius-of-Caesarea--in-Palestine.jpg) Greatmartyr Saint Procopius of Caesarea, in Palestine, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### The Coming of the Justinianic Plague In 540 CE, [Emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) Justinian ordered the destruction of the ancient temple of Isis at Philae, determined to extinguish the last remnants of pagan worship. Isis had once been revered as the goddess who taught humankind the arts of healing and renewal; her silencing seemed to mark the triumph of Christian empire over the old [gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/). Yet within a year, Egypt was struck by a pestilence that mocked that victory—a [plague](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-plague-of-cyprian-disease-faith-and-crisis-in-the-roman-empire/) so vast and indiscriminate that even the faithful began to wonder whether the divine had turned away altogether. According to Procopius of Caesarea, the disease first appeared at Pelusium on Egypt’s eastern frontier. From there, it crept through Alexandria and the Delta, advancing along the Mediterranean coast into [Palestine](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-emperor-hadrian-vengeance-modern-palestine-israel/) and Syria, before following the grain ships northward toward Constantinople. In his [*Wars*](https://amzn.to/4oUcoAo?ref=romanempiretimes.com), Procopius described the calamity with the precision of a witness and the anguish of a survivor: > “Men dropped suddenly as they walked,” he wrote, > “and the streets were filled with corpses.” At first the dead were buried in family tombs, > “but when all the tombs that had existed previously were filled, they dug up every place about the city, one after another, and laid the bodies there as they could.” Soon even these makeshift graves proved too few. > “Those who were making these trenches, no longer able to keep up with the number of dying, mounted the towers of the fortifications in Sycae, tore off the roofs, and threw the bodies in there in complete disorder.” The air was heavy with incense and the stench of death. Procopius wrote that: > “on some days ten thousand died,” though no one could count with certainty. The [markets](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/) stood empty, the law courts silent, and the sea itself seemed choked with the dead. Even Justinian fell ill, and for a time it was said that the empire itself lay fevered. ![Emperor Justinian and Members of His Court, from The MET Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Emperor-Justinian-and-Members-of-His-Court--from-The-MET-Museum.jpg) Emperor Justinian and Members of His Court, from The MET Museum. Public domain Further south, John of Ephesus, traveling from Alexandria through Palestine and Syria, saw the plague’s devastation unfold across the countryside. > “It was told of one city on the Egyptian border,” he wrote, > “that it perished completely, with only seven men and one boy of ten years remaining.” He spoke of villages erased, roads lined with bodies, and > “houses and waystations occupied only by the dead.” Cattle roamed untended across deserted fields, and the harvest rotted where it stood. Evagrius Scholasticus, who as a child survived the [plague](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-antonine-plague-devastation-reshaped-roman-empire/), later recalled in his Ecclesiastical History how the disease returned in cycles, > “each fifteenth year laying low those whom the earlier visitation had spared.” He described the symptoms that marked the afflicted: > “boils in the groin, fevers that burned like fire, and a darkness before the eyes.” The pestilence, he wrote, > “spared neither age nor condition—rich and poor alike were laid in the same dust.” By the spring of 542, the plague had reached the imperial capital. Constantinople, the most magnificent city of its age, became a place of silence. [Funeral chants ](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/)echoed through the streets, and barges loaded with corpses drifted out into the Bosporus. The [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/)’s agents dug vast trenches in the suburbs, and when the ground could hold no more, they hurled the bodies into towers and cisterns. The living avoided one another’s gaze, for none could tell who would fall next. From Constantinople, the contagion spread outward—to Antioch, Illyricum, and Africa by year’s end; then to Spain, Italy, and Gaul; finally, to the distant British Isles. Merchant ships carried the unseen enemy from port to port. The Mediterranean, once the sea of trade and empire, had become a sea of death. ![Geographic extent of the Justinian Plague or the First Pandemic and sampled sites, maps of historically documented occurrences](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Geographic-extent-of-the-Justinian-Plague-or-the-First-Pandemic-and-sampled-sites--maps-of-historically-documented-occurrences.jpg) Geographic extent of the Justinian Plague or the First Pandemic and sampled sites, maps of historically documented occurrences. Credits: [PNAS](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1820447116?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Its origin remained uncertain. Some said it arose from India; others, from the heart of Africa. Evagrius himself wrote that > “it was said to have begun in Ethiopia,” echoing the old belief that pestilence came from the burning lands of the south. The geography of empire made such a path plausible: Byzantine merchants traded with Axum and the Red Sea ports, whose ships reached deep into the African interior. From there, the contagion may have traveled north with the grain fleets that fed the capital. By the end of the 540s, the plague had circled the known world. Cities shrank, armies thinned, and harvests failed. In some regions, whole generations vanished. The survivors described the years that followed as an age of silence—fields untilled, temples and churches alike echoing with unanswered prayers. For those who lived through it, the Justinianic Plague was not simply a natural disaster but a divine withdrawal. The gods, it seemed, had fallen silent. Procopius confessed that: > “the whole human race came near to being annihilated.” John of Ephesus could only record what he saw and admit that “no tongue can describe” the horror. From Alexandria to Constantinople, [incense burned](https://romanempiretimes.com/incense-in-ancient-rome-smoke-ritual-and-power/) night and day, the air thick with supplication. Yet the pestilence moved on, indifferent to prayer or [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/). In those years, faith itself became a test of endurance. The [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) that had silenced the goddess of healing now faced an affliction no power could cure. The world of reason and revelation alike trembled before a darkness that neither science nor scripture could name. In the silence that followed, history itself seemed to hold its breath. (*The Justinianic plague: origins and effects, by Peter Sarris*) What began as a calamity beyond imagining soon revealed a rhythm—a cycle that rose and fell like breath. The plague that first silenced Constantinople did not end with its retreat. It lingered in the air, returning in waves across the empire’s heartlands, reshaping the pulse of daily life and the machinery of survival. ![The great Plague from Constantinople in Justinian's time, in the background the Arch of Theodosius, illustration for Ancient History magazine, july 2017 by Radu Oltean](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/The-great-Plague-from-Constantinople-in-Justinian-s-time--in-the-background-the-Arch-of-Theodosius--illustration-for-Ancient-History-magazine--july-2017-by-Radu-Oltean.jpg) The great Plague from Constantinople in Justinian's time, in the background the Arch of Theodosius, illustration for Ancient History magazine, July 2017 by Radu Oltean, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### How The First Pandemic Unfolded The first great pandemic of recorded history unfolded not as a single catastrophe but as a cycle of devastation that returned again and again. Beginning in the mid-sixth century, the plague spread outward from the eastern Mediterranean, carried along sea lanes and river routes that linked the empire’s major ports. Its advance was uneven—some towns were left desolate while others, separated by a few days’ march, escaped almost untouched. The rhythm of the outbreak depended on trade, season, and the fragile machinery of administration that kept grain, labor, and burial moving. In Constantinople and other cities, life collapsed in recognizable stages. Markets closed, workshops fell silent, and bread grew scarce as carters and bakers sickened. Graveyards filled within days; when there was no room left, bodies were carried to porticoes, warehouses, and even the recesses of the sea walls. Those who still stood hauled the dead through deserted streets by night, their paths lit only by torches and the dim glow from the harbor. Officials imposed price controls, requisitioned ships and carts, and pressed laborers into burial service, but where civic order faltered, silence and fear spread faster than the disease. The symptoms appeared suddenly—fever that rose with violent heat, swellings in the groin or neck, dizziness, and a darkness before the eyes. Many collapsed within a day or two; a few survived, frail and trembling. The sick lay in doorways or by fountains where they had fallen; others died alone in their beds, unnoticed until the air itself turned heavy. Even the palace was not spared. The emperor was struck down but lived, an emblem of the empire’s own struggle between endurance and collapse. The plague’s grip extended far beyond the body. With every wave, shortages deepened and confidence drained away. Labor grew scarce, wages shifted, and property changed hands through inheritance as families vanished. Cities that survived reopened slowly, only to be struck again. Across the empire, the plague’s mark was not total ruin but exhaustion—a long, uneven draining of life and order. Through it all, the living kept to ritual: the washing of hands, the covering of faces, the measured step through streets lined with the dead. In their endurance lay the strange rhythm of this first pandemic—its horror balanced by the will to continue, its memory inscribed not only in chronicles but in the silence that followed each wave. ![A typical symptom of the bubonic plague, after an incubation period of 2-6 days, pain and swelling appear, or adenopathy, in the affected regional lymph nodes, also known as buboes](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/A-typical-symptom-of-the-bubonic-plague--after-an-incubation-period-of-2-6-days--pain-and-swelling-appear--or-adenopathy--in-the-affected-regional-lymph-nodes--also-known-as-buboes.jpg) A typical symptom of the bubonic plague, after an incubation period of 2-6 days, pain and swelling appear, or adenopathy, in the affected regional lymph nodes, also known as buboes. Public domain ### Empire Under Strain: The Burden of Survival The plague did not merely empty streets; it thinned the sinews that held the empire together. Tax rolls fell into disorder as households vanished or split apart, and officials struggled to assess what no longer existed. Estates lacked hands to harvest and press; caravans arrived light or not at all; workshops opened late, then closed for good. Where receipts once moved like clockwork from village to city to capital, gaps appeared—first weeks long, then months—until the rhythm of revenue turned irregular, and the state learned, grimly, to make do with less. Shortages rearranged daily life. In some towns, [bread](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) cost more than [soldiers’ pay](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/); in others, grain lay unground for want of millers. The price of skilled work rose and fell unevenly—stonemasons suddenly scarce in one district, weavers gone in another—so that rebuilding a [bathhouse](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/) or mending a bridge could take a year where it once took a season. Families consolidated under single roofs; shops merged; fields were leased hastily to whoever could still lift a plough. The city called to the countryside for help, and the countryside, reeling, answered as it could. Authority responded in fragments, then in patterns. Edicts tried to steady wages and keep vital trades at their benches. Requisitions moved grain along river and sea to the hungriest markets. In places where *curiales*, the city councillors, had once shouldered civic burdens, clerics and monasteries began to supply the missing ligatures of care—distributing [food](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/), buying timber, funding repairs, burying the dead when no family remained to claim them. The line between charity and administration blurred; necessity made new habits look like institutions. Military logistics strained but did not snap. Garrisons were refilled from districts less afflicted; pay chests were lightened elsewhere to keep a frontier quiet here. Campaign timetables stretched: a spring offensive became a summer skirmish; a promised siege slipped into the next year. Ships carried soldiers one way and grain the other, and often as not, they also carried the sickness. ![Tremissis Gold Coin of Justinian I from the Getty Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Tremissis-Gold-Coin-of-Justinian-I-from-the-Getty-Museum.jpg) Tremissis Gold Coin of Justinian I from the Getty Museum. Public domain Yet the command structure learned to factor absence into plans, to field forces that assumed loss, and still to hold the crucial forts and passes. Recovery arrived unevenly. Coastal hubs revived when shipping resumed; inland towns waited on the return of herds and harvests. Some regions learned quickly to rotate labor, to pair orphaned fields with land-poor neighbors, to accept partial harvests and count them as victories. Elsewhere, entire quarters remained shuttered for years, their bathhouses dry, their streets narrowed by the silent drift of wind-blown dust. What returned first was not abundance but predictability: markets on the same days, tolls at the same bridges, the same bell at dusk. In law and custom, the plague left its print. Contracts lengthened to share risk; leases added clauses for interruption; guild rules softened to admit new hands and keep skills from dying out. Land changed owners more frequently; archives show chains of transfer that once took generations now compressed into a decade. Yet beneath the churn lay a stubborn continuity: roads still carried goods, scribes still tallied dues, ships still beat the same coastal tracks. The empire contracted, adapted, and kept going. What endured, finally, was a new way of measuring strength. Not by surplus alone, but by the capacity to absorb shock: to collect less and still pay troops; to rebuild slowly and still keep baths warm in winter; to bury the forgotten without forgetting oneself. After the first terror receded, the state and its cities learned the discipline of scarcity—how to balance loss against order, so that the fabric held, thinner in places, patched in others, but serviceable still. ### Echoes of the Plague: Memory, Faith, and the Shape of Survival When the dying eased and the carts stopped creaking, the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/) did not simply return to itself. The plague left behind more than empty houses and altered ledgers; it altered how time was felt. Years began to divide into a before and an after. What had first been described as an inexplicable calamity hardened in memory into a sign—proof that history could turn overnight, that cities could be humbled in a single season, and that fortune was no shield against invisible enemies. Public language adapted first. Homilies and chronicles folded the catastrophe into a moral grammar, reading drought, earthquake, and pestilence as linked warnings. The pestis became a measure against which other troubles were weighed: sieges, tax burdens, even bad harvests were narrated in its shadow. Calendars filled with commemorations of deliverance; processions and fasts set a permanent rhythm of supplication and thanks. In law and administration, too, a residue remained: remissions of tax, provisions for orphans and abandoned estates, rules for inheritance when whole lines had vanished. The state that had counted men for armies now learned to count the missing. Households reassembled with different shapes. Survivors inherited suddenly and unevenly; workshops reopened with fewer hands; neighborhoods learned new boundaries around absence. The vocabulary of care—nurses, gravediggers, stewards of the poor—became part of civic identity. Monasteries grew in number and authority, not only as refuges but as keepers of memory, places where the names of the lost could be spoken and where divine mercy could be asked with regularity. The habit of intercession deepened; so did the expectation that catastrophe might return. ![Mosaic of the former basilica Hagia Sophia of Constantinople), the Virgin Mary is standing in the middle, holding the Child Christ on her lap, on her right side stands emperor Justinian I, offering a model of the Hagia Sophia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Mosaic-of-the-former-basilica-Hagia-Sophia-of-Constantinople---the-Virgin-Mary-is-standing-in-the-middle--holding-the-Child-Christ-on-her-lap--on-her-right-side-stands-emperor-Justinian-I--offering-a-model-of-the-Hagia-Sophia.jpg) Mosaic of the former basilica Hagia Sophia of Constantinople), the Virgin Mary is standing in the middle, holding the Child Christ on her lap, on her right side stands emperor Justinian I, offering a model of the Hagia Sophia. Public domain Over time, the empire repainted its past in the light of that lesson. Golden ages were remembered as healthier ages; decline was described in the language of contagion. Yet the same story that mourned also affirmed endurance. Courts resumed, fleets sailed, grain reached the harbors. The rebuilt quarter or reopened market became its own argument—proof that order could be restored, that institutions could bend without breaking. Survival itself turned into policy: redundancy in supply lines, reserves of grain and cash, the quiet art of governing through shortage. Thus the plague’s legacy was double. It taught fear of how quickly life could be undone, and it taught confidence in how much could be remade. Between those poles—penitence and pragmatism—Byzantine society found a new poise. The experience of pestilence became part of its moral weather, a permanent horizon of possibility that shaped prayer, law, and the telling of history. What began as a fever became a frame: a way of understanding trial and deliverance, fragility and repair, and the stubborn rhythm by which a great city learns to live with loss and still plan for tomorrow. (*The Justinianic plague revisited, by Dionysios Stathakopoulos*) ### Analysis of the World of Virgil: Eclogues, Georgics, and the Aeneid URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/analysis-of-the-world-of-virgil-roman-poet-eclogues-georgics-and-the-aeneid/ Last updated: 2025-11-04T08:54:17.000Z No poet captured the Roman soul more completely than Publius Vergilius Maro. Born in 70 BCE near Mantua, Virgil rose from provincial obscurity to become the voice of an empire and the conscience of its new age. Through the Eclogues, Georgics, and above all the Aeneid, he transformed Rome’s myths into a vision of destiny — a world where poetry, politics, and prophecy converged. Under [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), his verses became the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/)’s mirror: celebrating peace after civil war, sanctifying power through divine lineage, and giving [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) a story it would tell for a thousand years. Long after his death, the poet himself passed into legend — revered as a prophet of [Christian](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/) truth, a sage who spoke in riddles of salvation, and a guide through the underworld of imagination. From the fields of Mantua to the hearts of medieval scholars, Virgil remained what he had always been: the poet who taught [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) to dream of eternity. ![Portrait of Publius Vergilius Maro, gravure by René Boyvin](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Portrait-of-Publius-Vergilius-Maro--gravure-by-Ren---Boyvin.jpg) Portrait of Publius Vergilius Maro, gravure by René Boyvin. Public domain ### Virgil’s Poetic Universe: The Soul of Rome in Verse and Vision Virgil stands at the hinge of Roman memory and imperial purpose, shaping a [poetry](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/) where private sorrow meets public destiny. Across the [*Eclogues*](https://amzn.to/4ohdmqB?ref=romanempiretimes.com), [*Georgics*](https://amzn.to/4ohdmqB?ref=romanempiretimes.com), and [*Aeneid*](https://amzn.to/43aQbG3?ref=romanempiretimes.com), his voice moves from fragile pastoral hope to national vocation, binding aesthetic craft to the ethics of rule. The *Aeneid* opens under the sign of burden— > “Tantae molis erat Romanam condere gentem” (“So vast was the task of founding the Roman race,” ) and never lets the reader forget the price of greatness. Hardship is transfigured by remembrance— > “Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit” (“Perhaps one day it will be a joy to recall even these hardships,” ) yet compassion remains the poem’s pulse: > “Sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt” (“There are tears for things, and mortal sorrows touch the heart,” ). The poem turns on duty (*pietas*) and fate, not as abstractions but as choices made in extremis. In Book 7, history pivots— > “tanto cardine rerum” (“at such a hinge of the world,”) from wandering to war, as Italy becomes both promised land and proving ground. Scenes of pity interrupt vengeance: in the fall of Lausus, filial courage arrests the victor’s rage— > “terra sublevat ipsum” (“the earth itself lifts him up,”) a moment where humanity briefly outshines triumph. Yet the epic refuses consolation: it ends with Aeneas’ killing of Turnus, duty hardening into necessity, and mercy failing at the sight of the spoils. Earlier works foreshadow this ethic. The *Eclogues* stage loss and longing in a fractured countryside, pastoral song haunted by dispossession. The *Georgics* turns toil into wisdom, teaching that order is wrested from resistance—farming as a school of endurance, ritual, and restraint. Taken together, the three works sketch a Roman pedagogy: cultivate the land, govern desire, remember the dead, and bear the yoke of fate without surrendering pity. Virgil’s achievement is not propaganda but tragedy tempered by hope. Destiny advances, yet the poet lets suffering speak. Rome’s founding is necessary; it is also grievous. Between fate’s summons and a heart that “weeps for things,” Virgil composes an [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/)’s conscience—measured, grave, and unforgettable. (*The Poetic Achievement of Virgil, by Viktor Pöschl*) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Virgil-mosaic-in-the-Bardo-National-Museum.jpg) Virgil mosaic in the Bardo National Museum. Credits: Giorces, CC BY 2.5, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### The Book of Virgil: A Circle Without End Virgil’s three major works—the *Eclogues*, the *Georgics*, and the *Aeneid*—have often been read as the steps of a poet’s ascent: from the quiet of the countryside to the labor of the fields, and finally to the epic destiny of [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/empire-size-comparison-how-did-the-roman-empire-compare-to-alexanders-or-the-mongols/). Yet within these poems lies another design: a continuous circle of reflection and return, in which beginnings and endings echo one another, and the poet’s voice never truly departs from its first note. This circular structure is signaled by repetition and shadow. The first words of the *Eclogues*— > *“Tityre, tu patulae recubans sub tegmine fagi”* (“Tityrus, you who lie beneath the spreading beech”), open a world of pastoral stillness—a world of rest and exile, of voices seeking shelter beneath the trees. The last line of the *Aeneid*— > “vitaque cum gemitu fugit indignata sub umbras” (“and with a groan, the life fled indignant to the shades,”) closes that same world in darkness. Between those two moments, Virgil’s poetry travels from light to shadow, from song to silence, yet the cycle of utterance remains unbroken. The poet’s career can thus be seen not as a straight path toward closure but as a self-contained book—the “Book of Virgil”—in which each work reflects and transforms the others. The *Georgics* looks back to the *Eclogues*, turning pastoral into instruction, while the *Aeneid* draws upon both, absorbing their imagery of land, labor, and loss. What appears as progression is in fact a spiral of recollection, a poetic cosmos turning upon itself. Everywhere Virgil stages the tension between completion and continuation. His *Eclogues* end not with resolution but with song fading into distance. The *Georgics* concludes in turmoil, its meditation on order dissolving into images of civil war and broken peace. The *Aeneid*, for all its grandeur, refuses the consolations of a final harmony. Its last word, *umbra*, recalls the shades that haunt every Virgilian landscape—the memory of those displaced, forgotten, or silenced in the making of order. Through such echoes, Virgil transforms literary closure into reflection. Each poem gestures backward as much as forward, binding Rome’s story to the sorrow of its creation. The recurring word *cano*—“I sing”—marks this unity of voice. Whether the poet sings of shepherds, farmers, or heroes, the act of song itself becomes the thread that holds his world together. In this way, Virgil’s poetry forms a single, self-aware whole—a circle without end. Its unity lies not in triumph but in remembrance: a vision of human endeavor shadowed by mortality, where every ending leads back to the beginning. Beneath the calm of the beech tree and the darkness of the battlefield alike, the same voice endures—singing of life’s fragility and the eternal labor of making meaning from loss. (*Closure and the Book of Virgil, by Theodorakopoulos, Elena*) ![Wide-rimmed bowl depicting figures from Virgil's Aeneid](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Wide-rimmed-bowl-depicting-figures-from-Virgil-s-Aeneid.jpg) Wide-rimmed bowl depicting figures from Virgil's Aeneid. Public domain ### The Poet and His Shadow The figure of Virgil that survives in history is both a poet and a myth. Few writers have seen their identity so thoroughly absorbed by their own creation. The story of Virgil’s life, told and retold since antiquity, became inseparable from his poetry—an extension of the same imaginative world that produced his best works. In the centuries following his death, readers continued to shape and reshape his image, interpreting every biographical fragment through the lens of his verses. The boundary between the man and the myth blurred, until the poet himself seemed to exist as one of his own characters—an enduring voice speaking through the centuries. The early biographies portrayed him as modest, contemplative, and deeply private. Later traditions turned that restraint into legend: a poet who disliked public fame, who left his epic unfinished, and who, at the end of his life, asked for it to be burned. That image of renunciation became one of the central myths surrounding him—a poet so devoted to perfection that he preferred silence to imperfection. The story, whether true or not, spoke to a deeper truth about the nature of poetic creation in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/): that art, once born, no longer belonged to its maker. The supposed destruction of the *Aeneid* thus became a parable of artistic immortality. Even if the poet had wished to consign it to flames, the poem had already outlived him, carried by others who refused to let it die. The tale revealed how the author’s control over his work dissolved at the moment of death, leaving the poem to enter a new life of interpretation and appropriation. In this sense, Virgil’s legend anticipated his own theme: the transformation of mortality into memory, the survival of voice beyond the speaker. From early commentaries to late antique anecdotes, the poet’s life was read as allegory. The *Eclogues* were said to reflect his youth, the *Georgics* his maturity, the *Aeneid* his wisdom and decline—an image he himself foreshadowed in the line: > “cecini pascua rura duces,” (“I sang of pastures, fields, and leaders.”) This triad of song became the poet’s epitaph, a summary of both his career and his transformation into a symbolic figure: shepherd, farmer, and prophet of [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/). In the centuries that followed, the line acquired mystical significance. Readers saw in it a prophecy of the world’s spiritual evolution—from the innocence of nature, through the toil of cultivation, to the governance of reason and order. Each stage mirrored both the progress of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) and the growth of the human soul. The poet’s own life, real or imagined, became the measure of that ascent, his voice the bridge between pastoral calm and imperial destiny. Yet the image of Virgil remained haunted. Ancient imagination did not let him rest. Stories spread that he continued to speak after death—that his spirit could be summoned for counsel, and that his tomb in Naples possessed oracular power. The poet who once guided Aeneas into the underworld became, in turn, the shade whom others sought to question. This transformation of the author into his own ghost fulfilled the prophecy implicit in his work: that song, once uttered, endures beyond its mortal frame. ![Apollo crowns Publius Virgil Maro, a gravure by Claude Mellan, after drawing by Nicolas Poussin](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Apollo-crowns-Publius-Virgil-Maro--a-gravure-by-Claude-Mellan--after-drawing-by-Nicolas-Poussin.jpg) Apollo crowns Publius Virgil Maro, a gravure by Claude Mellan, after drawing by Nicolas Poussin. Public domain ### The Poet Inside the Poem Virgil did not simply compose poetry; he inhabited it. Ancient readers perceived within his works a distinct, almost living presence—a consciousness that observed, suffered, and remembered. In his lines, the poet seemed to stand alongside his characters, guiding them and, at times, lamenting their fate. Unlike Homer’s distant omniscience, Virgil’s voice entered his creation with unmistakable intimacy. His poetry is not the record of events but the echo of an inner experience. This self-presence was subtle but constant. In the *Eclogues*, it takes the form of a hidden poet who listens more than he speaks, allowing shepherds to voice his own longing for peace and exile. The pastoral world he describes: > *“Tityre, tu patulae recubans sub tegmine fagi”* (“Tityrus, you who lie beneath the spreading beech”) is both landscape and refuge, a space where poetry and memory intertwine. The apparent simplicity of these scenes conceals a tension between serenity and loss, between the safety of song and the reality of displacement. The *Georgics* brings that inner voice into sharper focus. Beneath the didactic surface lies the figure of the poet-laborer, the one who works the soil of language as the farmer works the field. His instruction on crops, bees, and weather is also a meditation on endurance: > “labor omnia vicit improbus”—“relentless toil conquers all.” Yet this statement, often read as a moral maxim, carries an undertone of resignation. The poem’s closing lament for Orpheus and Eurydice transforms agricultural labor into artistic struggle; the tiller of the earth becomes the poet who plows through loss. In the *Aeneid*, that presence deepens into tragic awareness. Here the poet is both narrator and witness to the cost of empire. His voice moves between triumph and pity, urging reverence for fate yet mourning the human price of destiny. Through Aeneas’ journey, Virgil contemplates the burden of founding a new order. The poet who once sang of shepherds and farmers now speaks for nations, but his compassion remains the same. When he writes, > “sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt”—“there are tears for things, and mortal matters touch the mind” he reveals not only Aeneas’s grief but his own. This blending of author and art was recognized early. Ancient critics and commentators treated Virgil’s characters as mirrors of his moral and emotional state. The *Eclogues*’ melancholy was linked to his withdrawal from civil conflict; the *Georgics*’ balance of work and faith reflected his philosophical discipline; the *Aeneid*’s pathos was read as his moral conscience confronting Rome’s destiny. The poet became both creator and creation, his life absorbed into his verse until biography itself became a literary genre. Thus emerged the tradition of the “Virgilian self”: a poetic persona whose authority derived from introspection and compassion. He was not the impersonal bard of heroic ages but a participant in the suffering he described—a voice that endured within the very world it mourned. Through this transformation, poetry became a moral act: to sing was to bear witness. ![The Fight between Aeneas and King Turnus, from Virgil’s Aeneid by Giacomo del Po, from Los Angeles County Musuem of Art](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/The-Fight-between-Aeneas-and-King-Turnus--from-Virgil---s-Aeneid-by-Giacomo-del-Po--from-Los-Angeles-County-Musuem-of-Art.jpg) The Fight between Aeneas and King Turnus, from Virgil’s Aeneid by Giacomo del Po, from Los Angeles County Musuem of Art. Public domain ### The Poet Beyond Time Death did not silence Virgil; it only changed his audience. In the centuries that followed, his image took on the quality of prophecy. The poet who had guided Aeneas through the underworld now became a guide himself—summoned by readers, scholars, and dreamers who sought wisdom from his shade. His tomb in Naples was said to possess mystical power; visitors left offerings as though to a divine oracle. The poet who had written of descent and return was imagined as dwelling eternally between the worlds of the living and the dead. Ancient commentators treated his works as sacred texts. The lines of the *Aeneid* were opened for divination—*Sortes Vergilianae*—as though each verse contained a hidden command from fate. To consult the poet was to ask the gods. His words, already invested with destiny, now functioned as prophecy: the Aeneid became not only Rome’s epic but its scripture. Even his supposed desire to destroy his poem took on a symbolic meaning. The story that he wished the *Aeneid* burned before his death was retold as a parable of creative surrender: art transcending the will of its maker. Once released into the world, the poem ceased to belong to the poet. The flames he invoked became metaphors for purification—the necessary destruction through which poetry attains immortality. The legend of the speaking tomb deepened through the Middle Ages. Scholars wrote of the poet’s spirit appearing to the learned, reciting verses, or giving counsel. Some claimed that he had mastered forbidden knowledge, transforming from poet into magician. Others, more devout, imagined him as a pagan saint, the prophet who unknowingly announced the coming of a new age. A line from the *Eclogue*, > “iam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna”—“the Virgin returns, the reign of Saturn returns” was read as a prophecy of Christian salvation. Through such reinterpretations, Virgil crossed the threshold from antiquity into eternity. The poet’s own works had already foretold this paradox of survival. In the *Aeneid*, Anchises shows Aeneas the souls of future Romans waiting to be reborn. Among them is the poet himself, though unspoken—a silent witness to his own destiny. The world he imagined became the one he inhabited after death: a landscape of memory, order, and longing where his words continued to move like living souls. In this continuity between life and legacy, Virgil achieved what his heroes could not: peace through endurance. His poetry became Rome’s conscience, its lament, and its dream of permanence. To read him was to enter a dialogue not only with empire and history, but with the enduring voice of art itself. He was the poet who sang of shepherds, fields, and leaders—*cecini pascua rura duces*—but also the poet who made song a bridge between mortality and meaning. His shade, in the end, remained among his readers—speaking still, guiding still, the eternal companion of every soul seeking passage through the underworld of words. (*Virgil: Reception and the Myth of Biography, by Andrew Laird*) ![William-Adolphe Bouguereau's painting, Dante And Virgil In Hell, a scene from Dante's Inferno](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/William-Adolphe-Bouguereau-s-painting--Dante-And-Virgil-In-Hell--a-scene-from-Dante-s-Inferno.jpg) William-Adolphe Bouguereau's painting, Dante And Virgil In Hell, a scene from Dante's Inferno. Public domain ### The Making of the Virgilian Myth When Virgil died in 19 BCE, he left behind more than a body of poetry—he left a life ready to be reimagined. Within a generation, the Romans began shaping the poet’s image through a series of *Vitae*, or “Lives,” which blurred the lines between history and interpretation. These ancient biographies, drawing from the traditions of [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) and Donatus, were not neutral records of fact but mirrors reflecting how later readers wished to see him: a man whose character and destiny were inseparable from his verse. For the ancients, biography was never a matter of detached storytelling. To write a poet’s life was to interpret his work. The *Vitae* turned Virgil’s poems into evidence of his personality and moral character. Details of his supposed modesty, melancholy, or prophetic vision were drawn directly from the tone of his works. Even the most intimate episodes—the retreat to Naples, his desire to burn the *Aeneid*, his reverence for [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/)—became part of a symbolic narrative, illustrating not the man as he was, but the poet [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/) needed him to be. In this retelling, Virgil became a figure of almost sacred dignity. His life was read as a moral parable, his poetry as revelation. The *Eclogues* showed the purity of rural contemplation; the *Georgics*, the virtue of labor and order; the *Aeneid*, the fulfillment of divine mission. Ancient readers saw in this progression the unfolding of a soul aligned with Rome’s destiny. His birth near Mantua, his education at Cremona and Naples, and his eventual presence at Augustus’ court were arranged into a pattern of providence, each step preparing him for the composition of the empire’s sacred epic. The biographers’ art was to make poetry into proof. The story of Virgil’s frail health, his shyness, and his reluctance to appear in public echoed the humility and introspection of his lines. The accounts of his journey to [Greece](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-romans-conquer-greece/) and his wish to destroy the unfinished *Aeneid* were transformed into symbols of artistic conscience and divine restraint—the poet who reached too close to perfection, aware that his work touched the limits of the mortal and the eternal. Over time, this interplay between text and life gave rise to a new kind of myth. The poet himself became part of the cultural memory of Rome: half man, half allegory, embodying wisdom, purity, and prophetic insight. His tomb at Naples, whether real or imagined, was treated as a shrine. Pilgrims came not to honor a writer but to commune with the spirit of empire’s conscience. The *Vitae* thus created more than a biography—they forged a national ancestor. In their hands, Virgil became the measure of poetic and moral authority, the “Roman Homer” whose voice outlived his mortal frame. Through the careful fusion of fact and interpretation, they ensured that every line he wrote was read as self-revelation, every silence as a mystery, and every act as the working of fate. This is how the Romans themselves canonized their poet. Not by divine decree, but by commentary disguised as life—by transforming Virgil from author to archetype, from man of Mantua to eternal witness of Rome’s destiny. ![Camillia at War from Virgil's Aeneid by Giacomo del Po, from Los Angeles County Museum of Art](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Camillia-at-War-from-Virgil-s-Aeneid-by-Giacomo-del-Po--from-Los-Angeles-County-Museum-of-Art.jpg) Camillia at War from Virgil's Aeneid by Giacomo del Po, from Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Public domain ### The Poet Reimagined: How Rome Turned Virgil’s Life into Legacy Ancient “Lives” of Virgil were never neutral backgrounds to the poems—they functioned as interpretations in narrative form. By selecting, arranging, and sometimes inventing episodes, the biographical tradition taught readers how to read his epics. Life stories became glosses: the shy, austere persona validated the poems’ moral gravity; the retreat to Naples authorized the image of a contemplative poet; the tale of the journey to Greece and the wish to burn the unfinished epic framed the Aeneid as a work that tests the limits of human craft and divine purpose. These biographies follow recognizable scripts. Education at Cremona and Naples signals philosophical formation; proximity to Maecenas and Augustus marks poetic vocation within the new political order; fragile health and public reserve confirm an ideal of dignified restraint. Each motif is a hermeneutic cue. Rustic origins justify the pastoral voice of the *Eclogues*; the discipline and technical exactness ascribed to the poet underwrite the agricultural ethic of the *Georgics*; the narrative of imperial patronage and pious obedience aligns the *Aeneid* with Rome’s providential history. The *Vitae* also read the poems back into the life. Scenes and lines become evidence: laments and elegiac tones support a portrait of melancholy; prayers and prodigies substantiate a reputation for quasi-prophetic insight. The poet’s supposed reluctance to publish, or desire to destroy the epic, is turned into a moral exemplum of artistic conscience—suggesting that the poem’s authority does not rest on flattery but on severity of judgment. In this way, biography polices interpretation, steering readers away from seeing the *Aeneid* as mere encomium and toward a vision of epic as ethical trial. ![Writing Tablet with Scenes from the Lives of Virgil and Aristotle, from The Walters Art Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Writing-Tablet-with-Scenes-from-the-Lives-of-Virgil-and-Aristotle--from-The-Walters-Art-Museum.jpg) Writing Tablet with Scenes from the Lives of Virgil and Aristotle, from The Walters Art Museum. Public domain Over time, the tradition hardens into a canon of anecdotes that do double duty as reading instructions. The “Mantuan” identity locates the poet at a Roman periphery that can speak for the whole; the Naples circle joins him to Greek learning and philosophical calm; the final days at Brundisium and the charge to leave the epic unfinished encourage reverence for textual difficulty—an invitation to treat broken edges and interpretive knots as purposeful. Even the tomb becomes commentary: a shrine that endorses pilgrimage-style reading, where the life is approached through the poem and the poem through the life. What emerges is a feedback loop: poem → life → poem. Biography confers ethical authority on the text; the text, in turn, ratifies the life-story. This is how the poet becomes an institution. The result is not a dossier of facts but a framework for reception—a way of ensuring that each generation encounters the Aeneid as both national scripture and human meditation on loss, duty, and the costs of empire. In the ancient classroom, to learn the “life” was to learn how to listen: to hear pastoral modesty without sentimentality, agricultural labor without idyll, and epic grandeur shadowed by pity. Read this way, the *Vitae* are less about who the poet “really was” than about what the poems must mean. They fix the poet as exemplar—measured, scrupulous, almost priestly—so that the verses can be read as Rome’s conscience. The aftereffect is powerful: even now, readers approach the Aeneid predisposed to treat uncertainty, silences, and grief as deliberate signs. Ancient biography made that habit possible. It turned a man from Mantua into a lens through which Rome read itself. (*“The Ancient Lives of Virgil. Literary and historical studies" edited by Anton Powell and Philip Hardie; Introduction by Philip Hardie and “Biography as Commentary.” by Irene Peirano Garrison*) Virgil’s legacy endures because he never confined greatness to conquest. His Rome is not merely triumphant but mindful—an empire that pauses to grieve. In his lines, the cost of destiny and the compassion of humanity are forever intertwined. From Mantua’s quiet fields to Augustus’s radiant capital, he gave voice to the paradox of Roman power: that civilization’s glory depends on remembrance of its sorrow. Across two millennia, readers have returned to him for the same reason Aeneas sought the Sibyl’s path—to find **meaning amid loss**, and **order amid the ruins of history**. ### The Religion of Ancient Rome: How Romans Worshipped Their Gods URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-religion-of-ancient-rome-how-roman-worshipped-their-gods/ Last updated: 2025-11-01T23:03:26.000Z Religion in ancient Rome was not a matter of faith alone—it was a system of order, obligation, and fear. The Romans lived under the gaze of [countless gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/), each demanding attention through ritual and sacrifice. Every temple, vow, and procession served to maintain harmony between heaven and earth. To honor the gods was to protect the state; to neglect them was to invite disaster. In this world of divine exchange, worship was less about devotion than duty—a careful negotiation between mortal and immortal powers that defined Roman life. ### Hidden Gods: The Allure of Mystery Cults in Rome Roman religion, at its core, was collective, public, and procedural. Its strength lay in tradition and repetition—rites performed for the welfare of the community, not the salvation of the individual. Yet, as [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) expanded and absorbed new peoples and beliefs, a quiet transformation began to take place. Beneath the public rituals of Jupiter and Mars, another kind of worship flourished—one that offered personal meaning, emotional depth, and the promise of renewal beyond death. These were the mystery cults: sacred communities whose rites were reserved for the initiated and whose doctrines were spoken only in whispers. The Romans did not invent mystery religion. They inherited it, first through contact with Greece and later from the lands of the East. The Eleusinian Mysteries of Demeter and Persephone in Greece, long celebrated as the archetype of initiation, profoundly influenced Roman attitudes toward divine secrecy. In [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/), similar ideas took root in the cults of Isis, Mithras, Cybele, Dionysus, and others. These faiths did not reject Roman religion; rather, they complemented it by satisfying a spiritual need that public worship left unanswered—the longing for personal connection with the divine and assurance in the face of mortality. ![Terracotta votive plaque dedicated by Niinion to the two great goddesses of Eleusis, as indicated by the inscription on the lower part and the representations](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Terracotta-votive-plaque-dedicated-by-Niinion-to-the-two-great-goddesses-of-Eleusis--as-indicated-by-the-inscription-on-the-lower-part-and-the-representations.jpg) Terracotta votive plaque dedicated by Niinion to the two great goddesses of Eleusis, as indicated by the inscription on the lower part and the representations. Credits: George E. Koronaios, CC BY-SA 4.0 Participation in the mysteries was voluntary and inclusive. Initiates came from all ranks—men and women, slaves and free citizens. Each cult offered a structured process of initiation, purification, and revelation. Candidates often underwent fasting, ritual bathing, or symbolic trials representing the passage from ignorance to enlightenment. The ceremonies took place in private sanctuaries, often underground or enclosed, symbolizing a descent into the divine realm. There, under the dim light of torches, initiates witnessed reenactments of sacred myths: the death and rebirth of gods, the victory of light over darkness, or the restoration of cosmic harmony. In the cult of Isis, brought from Egypt but reshaped in Roman form, the goddess was venerated as a universal mother and protector. Her worship centered on purification, renewal, and the triumph of life over death. Initiates experienced her mysteries as a passage from suffering to salvation, guided by her compassion and power to heal. The rituals, described in later sources, emphasized secrecy and moral transformation—the initiate emerged renewed, bound to Isis by loyalty and gratitude. The cult of Mithras, favored among [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/), offered a different experience. Its temples, the *mithraea*, were built like caves and adorned with images of Mithras slaying the cosmic bull—an act believed to sustain the universe. The symbolism of the tauroctony was complex: sacrifice, creation, and the victory of order over chaos. The initiates, organized into grades of rank, underwent successive stages of instruction and testing. Their initiation was both communal and individual, marking entry into a brotherhood that promised strength, solidarity, and immortality of the soul. ![Mithras slaying the Bull](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Mithras-slaying-the-Bull.jpg) Mithras slaying the Bull. Public domain Other mystery religions—those of Cybele and Attis, Dionysus and Sabazius—combined ecstatic celebration with ritual discipline. Their ceremonies blended foreign and local traditions, absorbing elements of Phrygian, [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/), and Roman worship. They shared a common language of transformation: through ritual suffering and symbolic death, initiates were promised participation in divine renewal. Music, dance, and sacred drama transported the worshipper beyond the boundaries of ordinary piety, offering a glimpse of the eternal order behind visible life. Despite their secrecy, these cults were not considered subversive as long as they coexisted peacefully with the state religion. The Roman government viewed them pragmatically. [The Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) might restrict rites that provoked disorder or violated decorum—as in the suppression of the [Bacchanalia](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/) in 186 BCE—but over time most mystery religions were accepted, even patronized by the [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). Their expansion mirrored the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/)’s own [diversity](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/), blending traditions into a shared spiritual vocabulary. By the imperial age, [temples](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/) to Isis stood beside those of Jupiter, and mithraea spread from [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-leave-britain/) to Syria, from the Rhine frontier to North Africa. The appeal of mystery religion lay in its emotional immediacy. Public worship sought harmony between gods and state; the mysteries promised harmony between gods and soul. They taught not doctrine but experience—the sense of being chosen, purified, and reborn. Their ceremonies assured participants that divine power was not remote but present, accessible through ritual knowledge and personal devotion. For many Romans, this intimacy with the sacred offered comfort in an age of uncertainty, when the old gods seemed too distant to answer private fears. In time, these currents of spiritual individualism would reshape Roman thought. The language of salvation, purification, and rebirth introduced by the mysteries prepared the ground for later religious transformations. What began as foreign cults became part of Rome’s spiritual fabric, offering new ways to understand fate, morality, and immortality. Beneath the surface of official religion, the mysteries gave voice to the private faith of the empire—a faith that sought not merely the favor of the gods, but communion with them. (*Mysteries and Fears in Ancient Rome, by Claudio Romano*) ![A collection of Frescoes from the Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/A-collection-of-Frescoes-from-the-Villa-of-the-Mysteries-in-Pompeii.jpg) A collection of Frescoes from the Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii. Credits: shakko, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### Rivalries, Not Missions: The Religious Landscape of the Early Empire As faiths intertwined and competed, religion itself became a language of identity — a force shaping both private lives and imperial policy. In the cities of the early [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/empire-size-comparison-how-did-the-roman-empire-compare-to-alexanders-or-the-mongols/), faith was not confined to temples or synagogues—it was part of daily life, woven into the language of loyalty, trade, and community. The rise of [Christianity](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/), often portrayed as the inevitable victory of a new faith over an exhausted pagan world, was in fact a far more complex process. For centuries, the empire’s religious life was defined not by conversion but by coexistence. In the crowded marketplaces of belief, Christians, Jews, and followers of countless local cults competed for space, recognition, and survival. The assumption that early Christianity spread through an organized “mission” belongs to a much later age. The first generations of believers did not move through the empire as formal evangelists but as travelers, merchants, and migrants whose faith took root through contact and circumstance. Their expansion was gradual and often invisible, leaving little trace in material evidence before the late second century. Christianity’s earliest centers were not in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) itself but in the eastern provinces—Asia Minor and Syria—where ancient traditions of philosophy, prophecy, and communal worship had already created fertile ground for new religious movements. In these regions, Jewish communities of the diaspora had long provided a framework for collective worship and moral life, and their synagogues offered a model of association that early Christian groups naturally inherited. Yet the claim that Christianity simply continued a Jewish mission to the Gentiles is misleading. ![Early Christian Fresco of The Good Shepherd, Priscilla Catacomb, in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Early-Christian-Fresco-of-The-Good-Shepherd--Priscilla-Catacomb--in-Rome.jpg) Early Christian Fresco of The Good Shepherd, Priscilla Catacomb, in Rome. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times Judaism’s outreach was largely passive; it welcomed converts but did not seek them. The Christian idea of spreading the faith to all nations emerged only gradually and lacked the institutional form that later centuries would associate with “missionary work.” Religion in the Roman world was not about belief alone but about participation. People joined associations and cults because they offered honor, healing, protection, or belonging. To be part of a group was to share in its rituals, banquets, and acts of mutual support. Paganism, Judaism, and Christianity all thrived within this same social fabric. Their rivalries were not wars of ideology but contests of credibility and endurance—each offering its own path to security in a world where divine favor was never certain. The pattern of early Christian growth therefore reflects not organized conquest but cultural negotiation. Its communities took shape alongside others, sometimes borrowing from them, sometimes opposing them, but always sharing the same urban environment. Apologies and polemics—so abundant in later writings—served more to define identity within than to win converts from without. What drew adherents was not systematic evangelism but the appeal of belonging to a disciplined, charitable, and hopeful brotherhood amid the instability of empire. In this sense, the success of Christianity mirrored the success of any social group that met the needs of its members. It offered salvation and community, but also a new kind of solidarity that transcended city and class. Its endurance cannot be traced to one cause or doctrine, but to its ability to compete—quietly yet persistently—in the crowded religious marketplace of the Roman world. (*Ancient Religious Rivalries and the Struggle for Success. Christians, Jews, and Others in the Early Roman Empire, by Leif E. Vaage, in* [*Religious Rivalries in the Early Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity*](https://amzn.to/47ldq2H?ref=romanempiretimes.com)) ![Eucharistic bread and fish, Early Christian Fresco in Catacomb of Callistus, in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Eucharistic-bread-and-fish--Early-Christian-Fresco-in-Catacomb-of-Callistus--in-Rome.jpg) Eucharistic bread and fish, Early Christian Fresco in Catacomb of Callistus, in Rome. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### Faith, Identity, and Power: Understanding Religion in the Roman Empire Religion, culture, and power have always been intertwined. In every society, faith shapes identity and social order, defining who belongs and who stands apart. Modern parallels make this clear: in Britain, for instance, Christianity remains a cultural marker even as active belief declines, while Islam—despite millions of British adherents—is often seen as foreign. Religious affiliation still frames both personal self-understanding and how others perceive an individual. Power, too, flows from these associations; the Church of England’s continued status as the established church ensures its presence in the nation’s governing fabric, even as its influence wanes. Such connections reveal how religion functions as both symbol and structure. It provides meaning, articulates moral order, and establishes social boundaries. As Clifford Geertz (*a famous American anthropologist strongly supporting symbolic anthropology*) observed, it is: > “a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations.” Through this lens, religion cannot be separated from culture: it reflects the values by which people live and defines the frameworks of belonging within diverse societies. In a multicultural environment, where belief is one choice among many, religion becomes a key marker of identity, distinguishing individuals and communities alike. Its power originates in the claim to mediate with the divine; whoever controls access to that sphere commands authority in the human one. In the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/), these dynamics took a markedly different form. There was no single, unified faith binding the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/) together. Every people, tribe, and even [city](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) maintained its own traditions, producing a patchwork of practices rather than an orthodoxy. The empire’s “normative” religion existed mainly as a shared language of ritual and symbolism forged by cultural exchange and the practical need for coexistence. More fundamentally, the very concept of “religion” as a distinct sphere of life did not exist. Divine interaction was expressed through ritual, myth, art, and philosophy—threads interwoven with politics, [poetry](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/), and civic duty. Public worship was an act of governance as much as piety; sacrifices, festivals, and temple dedications belonged to the same world as taxation and law. The Romans made no clear division between sacred and secular, faith and function. What modern thought isolates as “religion” was, for them, a seamless aspect of public and private life. Understanding worship in the Roman world therefore requires setting aside modern assumptions about belief, doctrine, and personal faith. It means seeing how ritual affirmed civic identity, how reverence for the gods reinforced imperial order, and how power, culture, and piety operated as one. ![Henryk Siemiradzki's painting, Martyrdom of early Christians](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Henryk-Siemiradzki-s-painting--Martyrdom-of-early-Christians.jpg) Henryk Siemiradzki's painting, Martyrdom of early Christians. Public domain ### The Ritual Heart of Roman Religion Roman religion revolved around action rather than belief. Unlike the faiths that would later dominate the Mediterranean world—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—it was not founded upon sacred revelation or divine commandments but upon a set of traditional practices. These customs, passed down through generations, were designed to maintain harmony between mortals and the gods by securing divine favour through ritual precision. The essence of piety was not orthodoxy but performance: prayer, sacrifice, and offering formed the language of devotion. Prayer was understood as negotiation rather than confession. A typical invocation began by naming the god, continued by recalling past devotion or gifts, and concluded with the request itself. Praise without petition took the form of hymns, which evolved into both liturgical and literary art. Offerings complemented these prayers—small cakes, flowers, or [incense](https://romanempiretimes.com/incense-in-ancient-rome-smoke-ritual-and-power/) for everyday rituals, or grander sacrifices of animals in moments of public or personal need. Vows (*vota*) were central to this exchange: the promise of a gift to the gods upon fulfillment of a request. At the summit of ritual stood the blood sacrifice. Whether it involved a bird or a bull, each act followed an intricate choreography—libations, chants, and gestures that had to be executed flawlessly. Yet such rites were not reserved for a priestly elite. Any Roman citizen could offer sacrifice, reflecting a religion open to participation rather than monopolized by clerical authority. Priests were civic administrators as much as custodians of the sacred, their prestige deriving from public duty rather than divine privilege. Underlying these rituals was a pragmatic understanding of the divine order. The gods were many, their powers vast yet responsive. They could bless or harm, but their goodwill could be earned through proper respect and offerings. Theology remained implicit—Romans acted because their ancestors had done so and because the rituals worked. Religion was, above all, a lived tradition: orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. Greek influence enriched this framework without altering its foundations. Through myth and philosophy, Romans found new ways to imagine the gods. Poets such as Virgil and [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/) infused epic narrative with divine drama, while thinkers like [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) debated the nature of the divine, weighing [Stoic](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/) providence against Epicurean detachment and Academic doubt. Yet these speculations never replaced ritual; they existed alongside it, part of what scholars have called the “brain-balkanization” of Roman thought—the capacity to hold multiple, even conflicting, understandings without feeling contradiction. A man could doubt the gods in theory and still serve them in office, as Cicero himself did. Morality, too, remained largely separate from worship. The Romans did not seek divine favour through charity or virtue but through honour and gift-giving. Justice pleased the gods, but it was not a condition of salvation; religion lacked commandments and sacred texts prescribing moral law. There was no Sermon on the Mount, no promise of eternal reward or punishment to enforce ethical living. Instead, the relationship between humans and gods was reciprocal: honour was given, favour expected. In this world, ritual—not faith, doctrine, or moral perfection—was the true measure of devotion. ([*Religion in the Roman world*](https://amzn.to/4hJQzBs?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by James Rives*) ![Roman wall painting depicting a scene of sacrifice in honor of the goddess Diana, she is accompanied by a deer](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Roman-wall-painting-depicting-a-scene-of-sacrifice-in-honor-of-the-goddess-Diana--she-is-accompanied-by-a-deer.jpg) Roman wall painting depicting a scene of sacrifice in honor of the goddess Diana, she is accompanied by a deer. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### The Divine Order of State and Soul At the heart of Roman religion stood the belief that divine favour sustained the state itself. The gods were guardians of civic harmony, and Jupiter—Optimus Maximus, the Sky-Father—reigned as the embodiment of that sacred balance. His temple on the Capitoline Hill was not merely a sanctuary but the symbolic centre of Rome’s political and moral order. Religion, for the Romans, was therefore not confined to private conscience; it was a public contract between gods and people, enacted through the precise choreography of ritual. Each prayer, vow, and sacrifice affirmed the pact that bound Rome’s fortune to the divine. The performance of these rites, rather than the personal belief of their participants, was what mattered most. In the eyes of Jupiter and his fellow deities, correctness of action outweighed inner conviction. As the empire expanded, this partnership between power and piety reached new forms of expression. [Emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) were honoured as living intermediaries between gods and mortals, their genius and spirit enshrined in temples across the provinces. The imperial cult did not demand worship of the ruler as a god in the modern sense; rather, it affirmed loyalty to the Roman order itself, sanctifying political obedience through divine symbolism. Statues, altars, and festivals celebrated the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/)’s presence as a cosmic principle of unity, echoing Jupiter’s role as protector of the world. ![A gravure of the Iovis Capitolini, the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in the Capitoline Hill in Rome, by Giacomo Lauro and Giacomo Mascardi](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/A-gravure-of-the-Iovis-Capitolini--the-Temple-of-Jupiter-Optimus-Maximus-in-the-Capitoline-Hill-in-Rome--by-Giacomo-Lauro-and-Giacomo-Mascardi.jpg) A gravure of the Iovis Capitolini, the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in the Capitoline Hill in Rome, by Giacomo Lauro and Giacomo Mascardi. Public domain Yet beneath these grand displays of state religion, ordinary Romans maintained their own bonds with the divine. Household shrines to the Lares and Penates received daily offerings; travelers carried amulets; soldiers invoked Mars or Mithras for strength. Personal devotion flourished within the larger system of civic worship, demonstrating that Roman piety was both collective and intimate—a tapestry woven from the shared rituals of empire and the private gestures of the faithful. In this world, religion was not a doctrine to be professed but a duty to be performed. From the grandeur of Jupiter’s temple to the quiet prayers whispered before a family altar, Roman worship defined the rhythm of both state and soul. ([*The religions of the Roman Empire*](https://amzn.to/47lenIj?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by John Ferguson*) --- In the end, Roman religion was less a creed than a mirror of the empire itself—vast, diverse, and bound by duty. It united the living and the divine through ceremony, not confession; through shared action, not shared belief. Whether in the shadow of Jupiter’s temple, within the secret chambers of Isis, or before the household altar, every offering affirmed a single truth: that **harmony between gods and mortals** was both the foundation and the fate of Rome. ### Humble Costume or Smart Branding? Zuckerberg’s Halloween Roman Look Explained URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/humble-costume-or-smart-branding-zuckerberg-halloween-roman-look-explained/ Last updated: 2025-11-01T01:42:09.000Z In the new photo Mark Zuckerberg [shared on Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/pfbid08SbpB2S3Vs5KeGe2o17naaDSSVepW3HN8JB1X29NkDbc27wctz7KoXxA2PhbJJehl?%5F%5Fcft%5F%5F[0]=AZXbSk9KMqKkSOmvrcq%5Fe65heVvE84z3qy1KV95LfnD-mGTzeCxDFoMv6obMbRDCuImt8yy3pBNQM-EHUJRbVz2%5F-ASAvrps4AuUZ3gRLRQD5xbQT61TRwfMR6whHfhrkmnb-Z6-WrFcapTWtybgx3Qt7j4%5FtTLlSefj-sxNXOL8htw3iIo1q9Xv9SNp2A%5F4hfg&%5F%5Ftn%5F%5F=%2CO%2CP-R), a family poses in Roman-themed costumes: a plastic helmet and cape for the adult in the center, toy bow and fawn for another, children with play swords and wings; garden backdrop, hay bales, fake webs, skull props—the whole suburban [Halloween](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-lemuria-to-halloween-romes-ancient-festival-of-spirits/) set. It’s cheerful and intentionally low-effort: slides on the feet, off-the-shelf tunic trim, nothing couture. The image landed because it continues a running thread in his public persona—Roman callbacks—and because it invites two opposite readings at once:**humble family fun** versus **well-timed image craft**. ![Mark Zuckerberg and his Family's Halloween 2025 Roman Costumes](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/11/Mark-Zuckerberg-and-his-Family-s-Halloween-2025-Roman-Customes-s.jpg) Mark Zuckerberg and his Family's Halloween 2025 Roman Costumes ## What the picture is doing At face value, it’s a dad joke in costume form: Roman soldier, huntress, winged kids—classical clichés straight from a party aisle. The “ordinary” choices are the point. Public figures know that heavily styled Halloween shoots can backfire; this one is easy to like because it looks unproduced. The backdrop is the only theatrical element; the clothing is intentionally basic. If you’ve followed his Roman nods—[T-shirts with classical Easter eggs](https://romanempiretimes.com/mark-zuckerberg-secret-hidden-roman-message-t-shirt-tee-ai-llama-announcement-reel-instagram/), the [sculpture gift to his wife](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-meaning-behind-zuckerbergs-sculpture-for-his-wife-priscilla/), the [cheeky Octavian references](https://romanempiretimes.com/another-day-another-zuckerberg-announcement-riddled-with-roman-empire-messages/)—the Halloween version feels like the family-friendly sequel. There’s also a platform logic: simple photos travel better. You don’t need context to get the joke, and the image is shareable even by people who disagree about him. In a week where his company’s stock has whipsawed and his personal ranking on the rich lists keeps making headlines, a light, wholesome post meets the moment: it drains heat, not adds to it. ## Humble signal or polished strategy? 1. **The “humble” read.** The outfits are obviously inexpensive—party-store helmets, toy swords, fabric tunics, rubber slides. That lands as **relatability**: a household doing what millions do, not a designer photo-op. It also reinforces a long-standing uniform—plain tees, jeans—that says “builder,” not celebrity. In an attention economy, choosing low-cost costumes is a signal that the family is normal, grounded, and comfortable looking a bit goofy online. 2. **The “strategy” read.** Public images don’t float free of context. The same year he leaned into ultra-high-end watches—Greubel Forsey pieces near **$900,000** and other luxury models widely reported—he also posts a no-frills Halloween tableau. The contrast itself is useful: the **accessible** photo meets the largest audience; the **luxury** items surface in niche channels and style media. Two lanes, two publics. In other words: a cheap toga can be good communications. **What about “Temu/Amazon Roman costumes”?** Some commenters tag mass-market marketplaces whenever they see budget outfits. There’s no evidence the family sourced these from any one retailer, and nothing in the post promotes a brand. The broader point stands: **budget-looking** was likely the brief. Whether it was Temu, Amazon, Party City, or a mix, the optics are the same—“regular family, regular Halloween.” [Is Zuckerberg a Roman Empire Nerd, or Augustus’ Descendant?Mark Zuckerberg’s fascination with the Roman Empire, from wearing Latin slogans like “Aut Zuck Aut Nihil” to references to Augustus, is more than just symbolic. Could his obsession hint at a deeper connection to the ancient ruler himself?![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/icon/Screenshot-2023-10-05-at-22.54.45-1-48.png)Roman Empire TimesGeorge Liapis![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/thumbnail/Mark-Zuckerberg-as-emperor-Augustus-Octavian-01.jpg)](https://romanempiretimes.com/is-mark-zuckerberg-just-a-roman-empire-nerd-or-augustus-octavian-descendant-ancestor/) ## Rome did this too: elite modesty to win trust If the photo reads as modesty with a purpose, that’s very Roman. Elites in Rome often **performed simplicity** to align with popular ideals: - [**Augustus**](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) cultivated **frugalitas** and **civilitas** in public. Biographers note his preference for modest houses on the Palatine (by imperial standards) and for garments woven by family. The message was not poverty; it was **restraint**—ruler as first citizen, not king. - [**Cato the Elder**](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/) made a career out of rustic austerity: plain dress, hard work, suspicion of luxury. It was a political brand aimed at voters who valued the old virtues. - [**Cato the Younger**](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-younger-the-last-roman-of-the-republic/) likewise favored a coarse cloak and unadorned life to project independence and moral toughness. - [**Trajan**](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/)’s **civilitas**—walking among citizens, eating simply with officers—became a template for later emperors trying to look approachable. None of these men were “[plebeians](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/).” They were wealthy and powerful. But **acting within plebeian norms** in dress, food, and public gesture was a known route to credibility. Romans understood the theater of modesty; so do modern audiences. A plastic centurion helmet is today’s way to say, “I’m not above your holiday.” ## Why it lands now Markets and media set the frame. Meta’s latest results were strong on revenue but jittery on costs and capital spending, and the stock fell; headlines about the **Bloomberg Billionaires Index** tracked a large one-day drop in his paper wealth and a shift in rank. Against that noise, a calm family post is useful—no statements, just play. The image also taps a broader cultural moment. The **Roman Empire meme** has lingered, and his past Roman hints mean the reference feels on-brand. It’s theatrically **unserious**—a safe way to keep the Roman thread alive without seeming imperial about it. And by choosing visibly inexpensive costumes, he cedes the spotlight to the **family**. That’s smart: it draws engagement from supporters and critics alike while sidestepping policy fights, antitrust, or AI spending debates. There’s a second reason the picture works: it reconciles two stories that often clash. One is the **everyman engineer**: hoodies, tees, builder ethos. The other is the **luxury collector**: seven-figure watches and private-market rarities. Both are true and both are modern. The Roman answer would have been familiar—**moderatio** in public, **magnificentia** where it served the state. Today the split is simpler: **low-fi for mass reach**, **high-end for niche clout**. --- ### Bottom line The photo is Halloween fun. It’s also a small lesson in image craft. By going intentionally simple—family scene, bargain costumes, a joke everyone gets—he reinforces an approachable through-line that has served him for years, even as other signals (from watches to labs) declare how large the project has become. **Rome would have understood the move**. ### From Lemuria to Halloween: Rome’s Ancient Festival of Spirits URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/from-lemuria-to-halloween-romes-ancient-festival-of-spirits/ Last updated: 2025-10-31T23:41:09.000Z Long before jack-o’-lanterns flickered in the dark, Romans spent May nights casting beans to banish ghosts. The Lemuria was their most haunted festival—a ritual born of fear and reverence, when the living sought to pacify the restless dead. Each household turned into a small sanctuary of protection as heads of families rose at midnight, barefoot and silent, to offer black beans to wandering spirits. Through these gestures, the Romans kept their uneasy peace with the invisible world—an ancient ancestor of what we now call Halloween. ### The Month of Shadows: May and the Lemuria In [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)’s sacred year, May carried a reputation of unease. Its very name, *Maius*, was uncertain in origin — some said it came from the goddess *Maia*, others from the word *maior*, meaning “greater” or “growing.” The ambiguity reflected the month’s dual nature: a time of renewal, but also of purification and taboo. It was a period when marriages were avoided, when the air itself was thought to thicken with unseen forces, and when the living took precautions against the dead. The rituals of May reveal a city walking carefully between fertility and fear. The calendar began with the Kalends of May, sacred to Maia and the *Bona Dea*, the “Good Goddess,” whose mysterious cult was confined to [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/). Her Aventine [temple](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/) barred men from entry and even banned words such as *vinum* ([wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/)) within its walls — the drink could only be referred to euphemistically as “milk.” Myrtle was also forbidden, and the rites, conducted by priestesses, blended fertility, healing, and secrecy. In ancient explanations, the goddess was said to embody the Earth itself, addressed under many names — *Fauna, Ops*, and *Terra* among them. Her temple stored herbs with curative powers, and snakes, symbols of both renewal and medicine, coiled freely within its precincts. A *porca* (sow) was her customary sacrifice, linking her to other earth deities such as *Ceres* and *Juno Lucina*. The Bona Dea was not a household goddess but a vestige of Italy’s rural past — a maternal spirit whose fertility and protection extended to all living things, yet whose cult remained veiled in ritual silence. The early half of May was punctuated by other rites of cleansing and transition. The *Argei*, performed around the Ides, involved the ritual drowning of straw effigies in the [Tiber](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/) — an expulsion of impurity on a civic scale. Toward month’s end, the *lustratio* of the crops purified the fields before harvest, while the [Vestal Virgins](https://romanempiretimes.com/vestal-virgins-keepers-of-romes-eternal-flame-and-protectors-of-the-state/) labored from the 7th to the 14th to prepare the *mola salsa*, the sacred salted meal used in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s sacrifices. Each act reaffirmed purity and fertility at a time of anxiety about growth and decay. But it was the Lemuria, held on the 9th, 11th, and 13th of May, that most fully revealed the month’s dark heart. ![Marble statue of Demeter-Ceres or Bona Dea (The Good Goddess), from the Nîmes Archaeology Museum, France](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Marble-statue-of-Demeter-Ceres-or-Bona-Dea--The-Good-Goddess---from-the-N--mes-Archaeology-Museum--France-1.jpg) Marble statue of Demeter-Ceres or Bona Dea (The Good Goddess), from the Nîmes Archaeology Museum, France. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 ### The Lemuria: Rome’s Night of the Restless Dead The Lemuria was one of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s strangest observances — neither wholly public nor private, ancient even in [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/)’s time. It was devoted to appeasing the *lemures*, wandering and hostile spirits distinct from the honored manes, the peaceful ancestral dead. While the Feralia in February honored family ancestors within the civic order, the Lemuria dealt with what lay outside it: the unburied, the forgotten, the violently dead. These spirits were not welcomed but banished, lest they bring sickness or misfortune to the household. Ovid in his [*Fasti*](https://amzn.to/3WAUExZ?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (Book 5, 419–492) is the only ancient witness to describe the rite in detail, and even he writes with fascination and unease. The number nine, sacred and ominous, was common in rites of expiation; its repetition reinforced the act’s solemnity and completeness. The black beans, meanwhile, carried a mystery as old as Italy itself. Both fertility symbol and funerary offering, they served as ransom — gifts to feed or distract the dead, allowing them to pass without harm. Ancient writers disagreed on their meaning: some believed the beans absorbed souls; others thought the spirits consumed them to gain a temporary renewal of life. Whatever their origin, the Romans treated beans with ambivalence: the high priest of [Jupiter](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) was forbidden even to touch them, a vestige of the same fear that filled the Lemuria nights. These ceremonies, though performed at home, were marked in the public *fasti* — the official calendars — with large letters, suggesting that Lemuria had once been a state festival. In its earliest form, the Lemuria may have been part of a broader civic rite to purge the community of harmful spirits. Over time, as [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s religious life became more structured and urban, that collective exorcism retreated into the private sphere. What had once been performed for the safety of the city was now enacted by each household for its own protection. The paterfamilias, guardian of the domestic order, reenacted on a smaller scale the purification once carried out for all of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/)—his home a miniature city, guarded by its Lares and shielded from the restless shades that lingered beyond its threshold. ![Black beans, uncooked](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Black-beans--uncooked-1.jpg) Black beans, uncooked. Public domain ### The Nature of the Lemures The Romans distinguished sharply between classes of the dead. The *manes* were the benevolent ancestors, integrated into family and state cult; *the lemures* and *larvae,* by contrast, were feared as restless, vengeful, or unburied. Later authors blurred these categories, but in the Roman imagination they represented different moral and emotional relationships with the departed. The lemures lingered uneasily between worlds — not honored enough to be worshipped, yet not powerless enough to ignore. Their festival, therefore, was marked as *nefastus*, a day unsuitable for public business, contrasting with the feriae of the Feralia, which celebrated ancestral continuity rather than appeasing spiritual danger. Ovid himself traced the festival’s origin to [Remus](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-and-remus-the-legendary-founders-of-rome/), whose violent death and unburied body, he claimed, were first appeased through these rites. From his name, he said, came Remuria, later Lemuria. Whether true or not, the story captured the Roman belief that unquiet spirits arose from unburied wrongs — and that ritual, properly performed, could heal even that breach between the living and the dead. ![Statuette of a Lar from the first half of the 2nd century AD](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Statuette-of-a-Lar-from-the-first-half-of-the-2nd-century-AD-1.jpg) Statuette of a Lar from the first half of the 2nd century AD. Credits: Dorieo, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### Echoes of a Forgotten World The Lemuria was not a night of [mourning](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) but of ritual control. Romans did not weep for the [ghosts](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-supernatural-magic-omens-haunted-houses-ghosts-and-rituals/); they commanded them. The rites reveal a people for whom religion was an instrument of order — a negotiation not only with gods but with the darker forces beneath them. Through beans, bronze, and formula, they reenacted the eternal task of Roman piety: restoring balance between the visible and invisible worlds. By the time of Ovid, the festival’s public meaning had faded, but its gestures endured in households across the empire. Each May, Roman families repeated words older than their language, walking through their homes as the patriarchs of old had walked through the early city—silencing the dead, protecting the living, and reaffirming that even the restless shades of the past could be pacified by ritual. In this sense, Lemuria was Rome’s own night of spirits, the ancestor of later customs that turned fear into ceremony — a reminder that every civilization, in its own way, must learn to live with its ghosts. ([*The Roman festivals of the period of the Republic*](https://amzn.to/3X2Dl9c?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by W. Warde Fowler*) By the turn of the first century CE, the Lemuria lived on not in public squares but in poetry. Ovid, ever the antiquarian storyteller, immortalized it in his calendar poem, the Fasti. ![Memento Mori Ancient Roman Mosaic](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Memento-Mori-Ancient-Roman-Mosaic.jpg) Memento Mori Ancient Roman Mosaic. Public domain ### Ovid and the Night of the Restless Dead Ovid’s [*Fasti*](https://amzn.to/3WAUExZ?ref=romanempiretimes.com) preserves the only detailed account of how Romans once honored the spirits during Lemuria. In his telling, the ancient domestic rite becomes both ritual and poetry—a moment where household piety and ghostly fear intertwine. The poet describes the ceremony unfolding in the stillness of night: > “When midnight comes, and silent sleep holds every creature, the head of the household rises and, barefoot, makes the sign to ward off ghosts.” Purified by water, the paterfamilias walks through his home, carrying the weight of tradition in each gesture. He takes black beans into his mouth and spits them behind him one by one, reciting the formula: > “With these I redeem me and mine.” He repeats the words nine times without looking back, while unseen spirits gather the beans as tokens of appeasement. Once the offering is complete, the ritual turns to expulsion. The man washes again, strikes bronze to break the silence, and cries out nine times: > “Depart, ancestral shades!” With the echoes fading, the living reclaim their space. The house is cleansed, the barrier between worlds restored. What began as superstition ends as order—a miniature drama of Rome itself, where fear of the unseen yields to the discipline of ritual. In Ovid’s vision, this private ceremony mirrors the public rhythm of Roman religion: an act of duty performed not out of devotion but necessity. He roots the rite in myth, tracing it back to Remus—murdered by his brother and returning as a restless shade to demand remembrance: > “The shade of Remus came, asking that honor be given to the dead. Hence the month’s rites to the spirits—the Lemuria.” Thus, May—the month once marked by rites for the dead—remained forever shadowed in memory. As Ovid notes, > “The month of May was once ill-famed for weddings—its days were shadowed by the rites of the restless dead.” Through Ovid’s art, the Lemuria becomes more than folklore. It stands as a meditation on loss, remembrance, and the fragile peace between living and dead. Each whispered invocation and each bean cast into the darkness carries the weight of Rome’s oldest fear—the fear that the dead, if forgotten, might return. (*Ovid among the Family Dead: the Roman Founder Legend and Augustan Iconography in Ovid's' 'Feralia' and 'Lemuria', by R. J. Littlewood*) ![Ovid's Fasti from a Tuscan version of 1410, in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana manuscripts](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Ovid-s-Fasti-from-a-Tuscan-version-of-1410--in-the-Biblioteca-Medicea-Laurenziana-manuscripts-1.jpg) Ovid's Fasti from a Tuscan version of 1410, in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana manuscripts. Credits: Sailko, CC BY 3.0 DEED Long after Ovid’s verses faded from living memory, the shadows of Lemuria lingered in Roman imagination. The festival’s spirit—its midnight silence, its fear of the unappeased dead, its careful rituals of purification—carried forward the Roman conviction that the boundary between worlds could never be fully closed. The beans, the bronze, the whispered invocations of “*manes exite paterni*” were not remnants of primitive superstition but expressions of a civilization profoundly aware of continuity between past and present, the living and the lost. In time, as Christianity reshaped Rome’s spiritual landscape, the ghosts of Lemuria found new guises. The Church redefined the days of the dead into commemorations of saints and souls, yet beneath these transformations the old pattern remained: remembrance, cleansing, protection. Festivals such as All Saints’ and All Souls’ absorbed the older rhythm of appeasement and renewal once embodied by Lemuria. Even modern Halloween, stripped of its theology and reborn as folklore, echoes that same Roman inheritance—the night when the living acknowledge the unseen, when fear becomes ritual and memory becomes devotion. Through centuries of change, the essence of Lemuria endures: a quiet rite of reconciliation between order and chaos, light and shadow, life and the ghostly persistence of those who came before. ### Caesar’s Comet: How a Seven-Day Star Helped Found an Empire URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/caesar-comet-how-a-seven-day-star-helped-found-an-empire/ Last updated: 2025-10-31T00:06:25.000Z In July 44 BCE, during the funeral games held in [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/)’s honor, Romans looked up and saw a brilliant visitor. A star with a tail—“*sidus crinitum*,” a hair-star—rose each evening and burned for several nights. [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) later recorded that it shone for seven days, rising “*at about the eleventh hour*,” and that people took it as a sign that [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/) had become a god. [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) noted how quickly the city fastened on the connection. [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/)—poet, not astronomer—translated that popular reading into myth in his [*Metamorphoses*](https://amzn.to/4okt5oW?ref=romanempiretimes.com), describing [Venus](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) lifting Caesar’s soul to the sky and kindling it as a star. From these lines and others, a story took hold: the Julian Star (*sidus Iulium*) had crowned Caesar and cleared a spiritual path for [the young Octavian, soon to be Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/). The comet did not found an empire; people did. But a week of brightness over Rome proved unusually useful. It condensed grief, hope, and politics into a single point of light, and the image of that light—sometimes a tailed comet, often a simple star—moved onto coins, monuments, and poems. The “Julian Star” became legible at a glance, a shorthand for divinity and for a relationship between the new ruler and the dead dictator that was at once familial and cosmic. ![A comet depiction of the Roman Emperor, a mortal among the Gods](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/A-comet-depiction-of-the-Roman-Emperor--a-mortal-among-the-Gods.jpg) A comet depiction of the Roman Emperor, a mortal among the Gods. Credits: GALATRY, CC BY-SA 4.0 ## A star at the games Ancient accounts agree on the setting: the Ludi Victoriae Caesaris, games vowed by [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/) and staged by Octavian in July 44 BCE, a few months after [the assassination](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-are-the-ides-of-march-why-are-they-important/). In the evenings, a bright object appeared for several nights in succession. Pliny’s compressed notice preserves two details that mattered to Romans: duration (“for seven days”) and timing (rising late, towards sunset). [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/), writing later, likewise connects the apparition to the games and to the crowd’s response. Suetonius emphasizes the speed with which the sign was folded into public cult and honorific imagery for Caesar. Ovid’s literary transfiguration—in which Venus bears the soul upward and “a trail of fire” marks the new star—is a poet’s retrofit, but it reflects what many Romans already believed: that the heavens had signaled Caesar’s [apotheosis](https://romanempiretimes.com/ascending-to-the-divine-the-practice-and-meaning-of-apotheosis-in-ancient-rome/). > Rome is the only place in the whole world where there is a temple dedicated to a comet; it was thought by the late Emperor Augustus to be auspicious to him, from its appearing during the games which he was celebrating in honour of Venus Genetrix, not long after the death of his father Caesar, in the College which was founded by him. > > He expressed his joy in these terms: "During the very time of these games of mine, a hairy star was seen during seven days, in the part of the heavens which is under the Great Bear. > > It rose about the eleventh hour of the day, was very bright, and was conspicuous in all parts of the earth. > > The common people supposed the star to indicate, that the soul of Caesar was admitted among the immortal Gods; under which designation it was that the star was placed on the bust which was lately consecrated in the forum." > > This is what he proclaimed in public, but, in secret, he rejoiced at this auspicious omen, interpreting it as produced for himself; and, to confess the truth, it really proved a salutary omen for the world at large. Pliny the Elder, [*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/4nHdleE?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Book 2, Chapter 23 ![Marble statue of Aphrodite, the so-called Venus Genetrix, in the MET Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Marble-statue-of-Aphrodite--the-so-called-Venus-Genetrix--in-the-MET-Museum.jpg) Marble statue of Aphrodite, the so-called Venus Genetrix, in the MET Museum. Public domain What exactly did Rome see? The ancient vocabulary (*sidus crinitum*, *cometes*) allows either a tailed comet or a pointlike “guest star” to fit the description, but the later tradition prefers a comet and sometimes remembers its nightly rising during the games. As with any sky report made without instruments, we cannot reconstruct the object’s orbit from literary fragments. We can, however, watch the meaning form in real time: an evening sky, a public festival, a shock of brightness, a city deciding together what it meant. > When, however, a certain star during all those days appeared in the north toward evening, which some called a comet, claiming that it foretold the usual occurrences, while the majority, instead of believing this, ascribed it to Caesar, interpreting it to mean that he had become immortal and had been received into the number of the stars, Octavius then took courage and set up in the temple of Venus a bronze statue of him with a star above his head. > > And when this act also was allowed, no one trying to prevent it through fear of the populace, then at last some of the other decrees already passed in honour of Caesar were put into effect. > > Thus they called one of the months July after him, and in the course of certain festivals of thanksgiving for victory they sacrificed during one special day in memory of his name. > > For these reasons the soldiers also, particularly since some of them received largesses of money, readily took the side of Caesar. Cassius Dio, [*Roman History*](https://amzn.to/3Lh0Ad0?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 45.7 ![Temple of Venus Genetrix, in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Temple-of-Venus-Genetrix--in-Rome.jpg) Temple of Venus Genetrix, in Rome. Public domain ## What Romans thought comets meant Comets were not blank signs. To many Romans, they augured trouble. The elegist Tibullus could call a comet a “*sign of war*”. Within epic, Virgil’s comet imagery terrifies and inspires by turns. Ovid gives a confident, polished version of a belief that had already spread in the streets: “*the star*” proved that Caesar’s soul had been taken up. But the consensus we retroject onto July 44 BCE is a later construction. In the first years after the ludi, the “Julian Star” was a contested image—available for use by rivals, pliable enough to bear opposing claims, and powerful precisely because it was familiar and simple. Stars already had long associations with gods and [Hellenistic](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) kings; the star-form was legible to viewers who would never see a rare comet. This is why the same sky-event could be labeled a gift, a warning, or a [propaganda tool](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/), depending on who spoke. Octavian did not need to “invent” the star; he needed only to inherit and redirect it. As poets replayed the [omen](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-supernatural-magic-omens-haunted-houses-ghosts-and-rituals/), they also debated what it proved—about power, about the dead becoming divine, about the young heir’s right to rule. That conversation did not stop when the comet faded. In verse and on metal, the sign survived because it solved a political problem: it let Rome visualize deification and succession without a constitution that said how to do either. ![Roman Denarius Silver Coin, depicting Comet Caesar, the brightest comet in the Roman Empire, visible in broad daylight](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Roman-Denarius-Silver-Coin--depicting-Comet-Caesar--the-brightest-comet-in-the-Roman-Empire--visible-in-broad-daylight.jpg) Roman Denarius Silver Coin, depicting Comet Caesar, the brightest comet in the Roman Empire, visible in broad daylight. Credits: James St. John, CC BY 2.0 ## Was there really a comet? The historical–astronomical question The ancient Roman testimony is compact and consistent: a notable evening object during the July games, seen on multiple nights. Later historians tested those notices against [East Asian](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/) records, which preserve many observations of “guest stars” and comets in official histories and supplementary compilations. The cross-cultural method is sound—Chinese and Korean sky notes have confirmed several classical phenomena—but it comes with cautions. East Asian entries catalogue objects by months and reign years, sometimes without precise coordinates; later anthologies are partial; and gaps, losses, and copyist errors are well documented in the transmission of astronomical chapters. What matters for the Roman case is not a perfect line from a Chinese ledger to Rome’s July evenings, but the plausibility that a short-lived, conspicuous object was visible that summer at Mediterranean latitudes. East Asian materials show how often comets and “guest stars” were recorded, how they were described (duration, color, tail), and how entries could be earlier or later than the actual first appearance because they were logged upon report. They also show how interpretation rode alongside observation: like Romans, Chinese court scholars read unusual stars as signs with political weight. In practical terms, we remain where the Romans were: the best account of what was seen in Rome is Roman. It is specific enough to be meaningful (seven nights, evening risings; a public moment) and vague enough to frustrate any orbital reconstruction. That does not weaken the history; it anchors it to what mattered in the city at the time—the public recognition of a sign. ![Oracle bone from the Couling-Chalfant collection, very useful for the study of the ancient Chinese calendar and astronomy as it carries a record of a lunar eclipse that can be precisely dated to the night of the 27 December 1192 BC](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Oracle-bone-from-the-Couling-Chalfant-collection--very-useful-for-the-study-of-the-ancient-Chinese-calendar-and-astronomy-as-it-carries-a-record-of-a-lunar-eclipse-that-can-be-precisely-dated-to-the-night-of-the-27-December-1192-BC.jpg) Oracle bone from the Couling-Chalfant collection, very useful for the study of the ancient Chinese calendar and astronomy as it carries a record of a lunar eclipse that can be precisely dated to the night of the 27 December 1192 BC. Public domain ## From sign to symbol: stars, comets, and coins On metal, the image outran the event. Long before the funeral games, stars already walked freely across [Roman coin faces](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/). They appeared with Castor and Pollux; later with Roma, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Victory, Apollo. [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/) himself had placed a star in the hair of Venus on a Spanish denarius of 45 BCE, tying his family story to a divine patron and the evening star’s guidance to Italy. In 44 BCE, a moneyer, P. Sepullius Macer, put a star behind Caesar’s head on the obverse of a denarius; this did not depict the ludi’s comet specifically so much as it amplified honors and hinted at divine claims. The conflation of a comet that once appeared with the star that could be stamped came later—and it came by stages. In the 30s, Octavian’s coinage experiments linked the star more tightly to DIVI F(ilius), the “*son of the deified one*.” In the late 20s and teens, some issues rendered the sign more like the comet of the games; by ca. 19–18 BCE and again around 17 BCE, the sidus Iulium appears in ways that recall a tailed star over Caesar’s honors. The message shifted as Octavian’s position strengthened. Early rivals also used star-iconography to claim Caesar’s auspices; later coins could suggest something stronger: that Augustus himself crowned Caesar with the star—an image that reverses the flow of honor and makes the living ruler the agent of the dead god’s glory. Coins taught viewers what to see. A simple star was easier to cut than a comet, easier to read at a glance, and it matched a wide, older habit of imagining divine presence as starlight. That is why, in later memory, the shape often won out over the tail; “the comet” became “the star” that anyone could recognize on a tiny silver disc. ![Rare denarius of Octavian & the youthful, laureate head of deified Julius Caesar right; above, a comet with four rays and a tail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Rare-denarius-of-Octavian---the-youthful--laureate-head-of-deified-Julius-Caesar-right--above--a-comet-with-four-rays-and-a-tail.jpg) Rare denarius of Octavian & the youthful, laureate head of deified Julius Caesar right; above, a comet with four rays and a tail. Credits: Classical Numismatic Group, Inc, CC BY-SA 2.5, Illustration by Roman Empire Times ## Poetry’s work: from omen to story Latin poetry did not merely repeat the sign; it reframed it. Virgil’s comet imagery inside the [*Aeneid*](https://amzn.to/4qzZskZ?ref=romanempiretimes.com) is unsettled by design: a flame on young Iulus’ head alarms some and consoles others; a falling star can terrify the city and motivate a family to flee. That tension matches the first Roman reactions to the 44 BCE sky—*what does it mean, and for whom?*—and it resists any single, immediate alignment with the politics of a later princeps. Horace, Propertius, and others circle the image with their own balances of caution and praise. Ovid, writing later, made the cleanest literary version: Venus carries Caesar upward; the star appears; the image is inseparable from the deification. The neat fit is the point. By the time Ovid wrote *Metamorphoses*, the symbol’s edges had hardened in public culture; he could write as if the meaning had always been clear. Yet his smooth scene cannot erase the decades when readers and viewers were still deciding how to read the star and what it allowed them to say about living power. Poetry both recorded and steered that process for the urban audience that read coins, looked at monuments, and listened to recitations. ![The Ides of March painting, by Edward John Poynter, where Caesar's wife Calpurnia sees a comet](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/The-Ides-of-March-painting--by-Edward-John-Poynter--where-Caesar-s-wife-Calpurnia-sees-a-comet.jpg) The Ides of March painting, by Edward John Poynter, where Caesar's wife Calpurnia sees a comet. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ## Cult and memory: from street belief to state language Pliny’s tight paragraph folds in a political consequence: after the comet, a star was added to Caesar’s image, and a temple was dedicated on the Forum. Suetonius’ notice of popular belief and official acts matches how Roman public cult typically formed—bottom-up recognition met by top-down enclosure in altars, priesthoods, and festival days. The star did not make Caesar a god; it made recognizing him as divine thinkable and showable. Rome did not have a script for deifying a murdered dictator; the Julian Star offered a script the city could watch and rehearse in coins, reliefs, and public ceremonies. As time passed, later readers—Servius is a sharp example—flattened the story, compressing it into a version where **Augustus persuaded the people that the star belonged to Caesar**. That line is valuable not because it is accurate (it is not), but because it shows how thoroughly, by the fourth century, the credit for the image’s meaning was assigned to the princeps. In the first years, the star’s ownership was public and plural; only retrospect made it look like a single hand had authored it. The irony is that the image’s usefulness outlived the facts. People needed a way to see apotheosis; the star delivered one. People needed to see a line from Caesar to the new leader; the star delivered that, too. Once fixed in cult and stone, the symbol asked fewer questions than it answered. ![The Murder of Julius Caesar, from Ovid's The Metamorphoses, in the MET MuseumThe Murder of Julius Caesar, from Ovid's The Metamorphoses, in the MET Museum (a star, or a comet can be seen leaving his body)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/The-Murder-of-Julius-Caesar--from-Ovid-s-The-Metamorphoses--in-the-MET-Museum.jpg) The Murder of Julius Caesar, from Ovid's The Metamorphoses, in the MET Museum (a star, or a comet can be seen leaving his body). Public domain ## What the comet became In later literature and public language, “Caesar’s comet” often resolves into “the Julian star.” **That translation matters**. The star-form tapped a deep store of meanings in Roman and Hellenistic habit: the dead among the stars, the bright markers of divine presence, the navigation points of empire. It was easier to standardize on mints and monuments, easier to read in a crowded forum, and easier to reuse—for Tiberius, for later emperors, for anyone who wished to imply favor, descent, or divine sanction without describing a precise astronomical event. This is why the Sidus Iulium enjoys a double life. As a historical report, the 44 BCE object does not lend itself to telescope-era precision. As a cultural object, it is among the most legible images Rome ever minted. It solved a problem that would recur: how to show that a mortal had become *divus*, and how to attach the glow of that status to the living ruler who followed. > He died in the fifty-sixth year of his age, and was ranked amongst the Gods, not only by a formal decree, but in the belief of the vulgar. > > For during the first games which Augustus, his heir, consecrated to his memory, a comet blazed for seven days together, rising always about eleven o'clock; and it was supposed to be the soul of Caesar, now received into heaven: for which reason, likewise, he is represented on his statue with a star on his brow. > > The senate-house in which he was slain, was ordered to be shut up, and a decree made that the ides of March should be called parricidal, and the senate should never more assemble on that day. Suetonius, [*Divus Iulius*](https://amzn.to/3L8QqeF?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 88 ![An ancient Roman coin with the DIVVS - IVLIVS inscription and the eight-stream Comet Caesar with upward tail (sidus Iulium](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/An-ancient-Roman-coin-with-the-DIVVS---IVLIVS-inscription-and-the-eight-stream-Comet-Caesar-with-upward-tail--sidus-Iulium-.jpg) An ancient Roman coin with the DIVVS - IVLIVS inscription and the eight-stream Comet Caesar with upward tail (sidus Iulium). Illustration by Roman Empire Times ## A note on evidence and limits No single source tells this whole story. [Pliny](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-the-author-of-the-worlds-first-encyclopaedia-was-roman/) preserves the seven days and the late rising; Suetonius captures popular belief and public honors; Ovid gives the mythic scene that later memory prefers; Dio ties the apparition closely to the games and the city’s response. East Asian records teach caution: they show how much can be known about sky visitors—and how often summaries, omissions, or delayed entries can blur the timing. Coin series let us watch the sign morph as politics matured. Poems register and shape public interpretation. Each genre contributes something different, and the strength of the case lies in the convergence rather than in a technical reconstruction that the sources cannot support. On the central point, the dossier is unusually clear: a conspicuous object was seen over Rome during Caesar’s funeral games; many Romans read it as a sign of divinity; the image of that sign, first as a star, then sometimes as a comet, became one of the principal languages through which the city imagined imperial apotheosis and succession. The brilliance lasted a week; **the image lasted centuries**. ([*The Poetics of Power in Augustan Rome*](https://amzn.to/3WzgCkX?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by N. B. Pandey; Chinese Astronomical Records on Comets and 'Guest Stars' in the Official Histories of Ming and Ch'ing and other Supplementary Sources, by Ho Peng Yoke & Ang Tian-Se*) ### The Roman Supernatural: Magic, Omens, Haunted Houses, Ghosts and Rituals URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-supernatural-magic-omens-haunted-houses-ghosts-and-rituals/ Last updated: 2025-10-29T22:56:42.000Z In the world of ancient Rome, fear was not an absence of courage but a form of understanding. Every shadow carried a warning, every rustle of wind a divine whisper. The Romans lived among invisible forces—gods, ghosts, curses, and omens—that blurred the boundary between the natural and the supernatural. To them, unseen powers shaped the course of empires as much as they governed the fate of a single household. Their world was not defined by disbelief, but by the uneasy conviction that nothing happened without cause, and every sign—whether flight of birds or flicker of flame—demanded to be read. The Romans lived in a world where the divine and the earthly constantly touched. They feared [eclipses](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-beliefs-and-practices-surrounding-solar-eclipses/), trusted auguries, and sought meaning in every living and lifeless thing—the eyes of animals, the course of birds, the crackle of a flame. When a statue seemed to sweat, when blood appeared at a doorway, when [lightning struck a temple,](https://romanempiretimes.com/constantine-arch-damaged-by-lightning-are-historical-monuments-ready-for-climate-change-disasters/) the whole state shuddered and turned to the [*Sibylline Books*](https://amzn.to/4nvPz4W?ref=romanempiretimes.com) for counsel. No omen escaped attention, no prodigy passed without interpretation, no misfortune went unexplained by divine will. Priests stood as translators of the mysterious; magistrates guarded the balance between heaven and earth; and citizens themselves became players on a sacred stage, where dreams, visions, monsters, and signs each had their appointed part. The seer bent over the entrails of sacrifice, the augur traced his staff across the sky, and the [censor](https://romanempiretimes.com/guarding-the-word-speech-censorship-and-power-in-ancient-rome/) recorded every prodigy as if cataloguing the misdeeds of the gods themselves. ![White-robed priests of Isis perform a water ritual as chanting devotees line the steps of the goddess's temple in this wall painting from Herculaneum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/White-robed-priests-of-Isis-perform-a-water-ritual-as-chanting-devotees-line-the-steps-of-the-goddess-s-temple-in-this-wall-painting-from-Herculaneum.jpg) White-robed priests of Isis perform a water ritual as chanting devotees line the steps of the goddess's temple in this wall painting from Herculaneum. Public domain ### Messages from the Heavens: How Romans Interpreted the Unseen To the Romans, [the gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) spoke through signs. These divine messages—*prodigia* and *omina*—formed a sacred vocabulary through which heaven revealed its pleasure or anger. A prodigium was not merely a marvel, but a rupture in the natural order, an event so strange it demanded interpretation: a cow giving birth to a lamb, a rain of stones, a temple struck by lightning. An omen, by contrast, could be drawn from a word, a gesture, a chance encounter. The universe, to Roman eyes, was never silent. It whispered through accidents and coincidences, each carrying a hidden intent. Every unusual occurrence carried weight, for it was believed that the gods constantly negotiated with humankind through signs. The task of interpreting these divine communications fell to priests, augurs, and magistrates, who maintained the fragile balance between men and gods. They did not see their role as mystical but as civic duty: to decode the will of the divine and restore harmony when it was disturbed. When the extraordinary broke into the ordinary—when rivers flowed backward or statues bled—the city itself became the theater of divine communication. Each anomaly demanded response: rituals of purification, sacrifices, and expiations. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s safety depended on recognizing and answering the voice of the gods. The prodigium was not only a warning but an invitation—a summons to act, to realign the moral and cosmic order. Such signs were never taken lightly. To ignore a prodigium was to risk catastrophe; to misinterpret an omen was to offend the gods. The Roman world rested on the conviction that every event, no matter how small, participated in a greater pattern of meaning. In this sacred dialogue, the gods spoke through storms and silences alike—and Rome, through her priests and augurs, learned to listen. ![Romulus and Remus are looking for an omen in a flight of birds, the number of birds determines which of the twins has the right to establish a city and give it its name](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Romulus-and-Remus-are-looking-for-an-omen-in-a-flight-of-birds--the-number-of-birds-determines-which-of-the-twins-has-the-right-to-establish-a-city-and-give-it-its-name.jpg) Romulus and Remus are looking for an omen in a flight of birds, the number of birds determines which of the twins has the right to establish a city and give it its name. Public domain ### When the Earth Trembled and the Sky Burned: Rome’s Search for Meaning in Disaster To Romans, natural catastrophes were never blind accidents. Every trembling of the earth, every eclipse that darkened the sun, every streak of fire across the [night sky](https://romanempiretimes.com/aurora-borealis-roman-culture-beliefs-northern-lights/) carried a message from the gods. The world above and the world below were bound in dialogue, and [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)’s duty was to listen. When the ground shook, it was not geology but theology that demanded attention. [Temples](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/) opened their doors unbidden; mountains split; the [Tiber](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/) reversed its flow—each phenomenon was a line in the divine script that magistrates and priests worked to decipher. Earthquakes terrified the ancients because they seemed to shatter the boundary between realms. As the earth convulsed, it was believed that the underworld rose to speak. The [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) would decree expiations, sacrifices were offered, and temples purified to restore cosmic order. A quake near the Capitoline was not just a tremor beneath the city; it was the gods themselves stamping their displeasure on [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s heart. Eclipses struck even deeper fear. As the [moon](https://romanempiretimes.com/august-super-moon-is-coming-how-did-romans-see-the-moon/) turned red or the sun vanished at midday, Romans saw not the play of celestial bodies but a withdrawal of divine light. They read in those shadows warnings of political upheaval or [the death of rulers](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/). ![Karl Brullov's painting, The Last Day of Pompeii](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Karl-Brullov-s-painting---The-Last-Day-of-Pompeii.jpg) Karl Brullov's painting, The Last Day of Pompeii. Public domain The populace would fill the streets, clanging bronze vessels and shouting prayers to coax back the sun. In these moments, the entire city became an altar of supplication, reaffirming its dependence on divine favor. Meteors, comets, and unexplained fires in the heavens inspired awe and anxiety alike. A single streak of light could portend the fall of a dynasty. When fiery spears or phantom armies were reported in the skies, the state turned to the Sibylline Books and the college of priests for guidance. Every celestial disturbance, however small, was absorbed into the political life of the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/). The heavens and the Republic reflected one another—what trembled above echoed below. In this cosmology, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/incense-in-ancient-rome-smoke-ritual-and-power/) stood at the center of an unstable universe, where the gods spoke through storm and flame. Understanding these messages was both a science and a sacred duty. For the Romans, ignorance was peril: to misread a sign was to invite disaster; to interpret it correctly was to keep chaos at bay. ![This is the reverse side of a ~2040 year old, one denarius silver Roman coin depicting the Comet Caesar, the most famous and daytime-visible comet in history, which appeared in the summer of 44 BC](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/This-is-the-reverse-side-of-a--2040-year-old--one-denarius-silver-Roman-coin-depicting-the-Comet-Caesar--the-most-famous-and-daytime-visible-comet-in-history--which-appeared-in-the-summer-of-44-BC.jpg) This is the reverse side of a \~2040 year old, one denarius silver Roman coin depicting the Comet Caesar, the most famous and daytime-visible comet in history, which appeared in the summer of 44 BC. Credits: James St. John, CC BY 2.0 ### The Art of Knowing the Unknowable: Dreams, Oracles, and Prophecy in Roman Life Divination lay at the core of Roman religion. It was not superstition, but a system through which the divine will was sought, questioned, and, when possible, understood. The Romans believed that the gods constantly communicated with humankind—through voices, dreams, movements of birds, the behavior of animals, or the subtle patterns of the stars. To ignore such communication was to break the pact that bound the city to its deities. The art of divination was divided into observation and inspiration. Some interpreters read the physical world—augurs (*Roman priests who interpreted omens to understand the will of the gods*) studied the flight of birds and the direction of lightning, while haruspices (*a haruspex\[a\] was a person trained to practise a form of divination called haruspicy in the religion of ancient Rome, the inspection of the entrails\[c\] of sacrificed animals, especially the livers of sacrificed sheep and poultry*) examined the entrails of sacrificial victims for signs of divine pleasure or wrath. Others received knowledge directly through visions and trances: prophets, dreamers, and oracles, who acted as vessels through which the gods spoke. Both forms were regarded as essential, for they revealed two dimensions of divine truth—the signs given by nature and the messages sent through spirit. ![A Roman haruspex in action](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/A-Roman-haruspex-in-action.jpg) A Roman haruspex in action. Public domain Dreams occupied a special place in this dialogue. The sleeping mind, free from the distractions of the waking world, was thought to be open to the gods. Dreams could warn, guide, or foretell events, and they were often verified through rituals at temples or shrines. The dream of a general before battle, or of a senator before a vote, could alter the course of Roman policy. Some dreams were so vivid they were recorded as public prodigies, preserved alongside omens and portents as matters of state. Oracles, meanwhile, offered a structured approach to divine consultation. Whether through the Sibylline Books, the Delphic priestesses, or local shrines across Italy, the gods were believed to speak through chosen intermediaries. Their words, often cryptic, were interpreted by priests and magistrates who translated divine riddles into political action. A single phrase could determine war or peace, expansion or retreat, depending on how it was read. Prophecy completed this triad. The prophetic voice could come from inspired individuals who claimed divine possession, or from poets whose verses seemed to channel fate. Prophecy was both feared and revered, for it blurred the boundary between mortal and divine will. Some rulers sought to suppress it, others to control it—but none could escape its power. Through dreams, omens, and inspired speech, the Romans believed they could glimpse the pattern of destiny itself. Divination, in all its forms, was not an escape from reason but a complement to it: a disciplined attempt to make sense of the unseen. It was the art of interpreting silence—the way by which Rome sought to read the mind of the gods. ![A Fresco from the Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/A-Fresco-from-the-Villa-of-the-Mysteries-in-Pompeii.jpg) A Fresco from the Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii. Credits: shakko, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### Whispers of Power: Magic, Curses, and Forbidden Rituals in Ancient Rome Beneath the ordered surface of Roman religion ran a current of fear and fascination for the unseen forces that governed fate. The Romans distinguished carefully between lawful rites sanctioned by the state and the shadowed practices that lay beyond it. Magic, though often condemned, was inseparable from [Roman life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/)—feared, forbidden, and yet constantly sought. It was the secret art of bending divine will to human desire. Where official religion appealed to the gods for protection, magic sought to compel them. The magician and the priest might use the same words, the same gestures, even the same offerings, but their intent diverged sharply. The priest worked in harmony with divine order; the magician trespassed upon it. This transgression made magic both dangerous and powerful—an act of rebellion against the celestial hierarchy that structured Rome’s world. Curses were among the most common expressions of this forbidden craft. Inscribed on lead tablets and buried in [graves](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/), wells, or [arenas](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/), they called upon infernal powers to torment enemies. The language was formulaic yet personal, a blend of legal precision and supernatural menace. Names were etched with care, sometimes with hair or nail clippings to bind the spell to its victim. The gods invoked were not Jupiter or Mars but darker beings—spirits of the dead, avengers who dwelt below. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Roman-curse-tablet--with-the-curses-scratched-on-lead.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Tablet--Lamella--Cursing-Slaves--from-Getty-Museum.jpg) Roman curse tablets, with the curses scratched on lead. Credits: Rijksmuseum, CC BY-3.0 NL, Getty Museum Such acts reflected a world in which divine justice was uneven and human passions demanded their own redress. When law failed or fate seemed unjust, the curse became a weapon of last resort. Even the educated, who mocked superstition, might secretly turn to it in desperation. Archaeology has uncovered hundreds of these tablets across the empire, testimony to a society where fear and faith intertwined. Dark rituals also flourished on the margins of legitimacy—rites of love and compulsion, of healing and harm. Magical papyri, later preserved in Egypt, reveal mixtures of [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/), Egyptian, and Roman traditions: invocations, incantations, and diagrams meant to summon spirits or influence the living. Some magicians claimed divine lineage; others masqueraded as priests. Their rituals were nocturnal, their tools drawn from the natural and the grotesque—blood, wax, ashes, and herbs gathered under specific constellations. The state treated such practices with suspicion, not only for their impiety but for their political danger. Magic blurred the line between personal will and divine command; to control fate was to challenge the emperor himself, who alone claimed divine favor. Laws against *maleficium*—evil magic—were harsh, and trials for sorcery often concealed charges of treason. Under [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) and later [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), astrologers, necromancers, and magicians were expelled or executed, yet their art endured, carried in whispers and hidden charms. For the Romans, magic embodied both terror and temptation. It promised control in a world ruled by capricious gods, offering power to the powerless and vengeance to the wronged. But every spell carried a shadow, every invocation a risk. To speak the language of the gods without permission was to invite their wrath—and yet, countless Romans could not resist the call. ![Fresco of young assistant to the sacred ritual bearing a jug in his hands from Herculaneum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Fresco-of-young-assistant-to-the-sacred-ritual-bearing-a-jug-in-his-hands-from-Herculaneum.jpg) Fresco of young assistant to the sacred ritual bearing a jug in his hands from Herculaneum. Credits: Yair-haklai, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### Restless Shadows: Ghosts, Cursed Houses, and the Haunted Corners of Rome The Romans lived among their dead. Tombs lined the roads that led into every [city](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), and the memory of ancestors filled both household shrines and the imagination of the living. Yet beyond this accepted communion between the worlds of the living and the departed lay a darker realm—the realm of spirits who refused to rest. These were the *lemures* and *larvae*, wandering shades born of violent deaths, improper burials, or unavenged crimes. Their presence chilled both private homes and public streets, reminders that the boundaries between life and death were thin and easily disturbed. Ghosts appeared not only as phantoms of terror but as moral messengers. Their return was rarely meaningless. A murdered man’s spirit might haunt his killer until justice was done; a restless shade might demand the proper rites to ensure peace. The *Lemuria*, an annual festival held in May, was devoted to appeasing such beings. At midnight, householders rose barefoot, tossing black beans behind them as offerings to the dead, reciting incantations to banish the lurking shadows. Ritual words, spoken nine times, were thought to silence the invisible guests. In this quiet exchange, the living acknowledged their fragile truce with the dead. But some places, the Romans believed, were beyond purification. Certain houses bore reputations so ominous that they could not be sold except to the desperate. Ancient writers tell of doors that creaked without wind, chains clattering in empty rooms, and pale figures that beckoned silently in the night. ![Fresco depicting two lares pouring wine from a drinking horn (rhyton) into a bucket (situla), they stand on either side of a scene of sacrifice](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Fresco-depicting-two-lares-pouring-wine-from-a-drinking-horn--rhyton--into-a-bucket--situla---they-stand-on-either-side-of-a-scene-of-sacrifice.jpg) Fresco depicting two lares pouring wine from a drinking horn (rhyton) into a bucket (situla), they stand on either side of a scene of sacrifice. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 Even great men—philosophers and senators—recorded such stories. [Pliny the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/) recounts the tale of an Athenian house where an old man, shackled and gaunt, appeared to every tenant until the remains of a bound corpse were found and properly buried. Such accounts, preserved by rational minds, reveal not gullibility but a cultural truth: even in an age of logic, fear of the unseen endured. > There was at Athens a large and roomy house which had a bad name, so that no one could live there. > > In the dead of night a noise like the clashing of iron was frequently heard, and if you listened more attentively, a sound of chains; at first, it seemed at a distance, but soon it approached nearer and nearer. > > Immediately after, there appeared a spectre, an old man, emaciated and squalid, with a long beard and dishevelled hair, rattling the chains on his feet and hands. > > The inhabitants consequently passed sleepless nights under the most dreadful terrors imaginable; this want of rest produced disease, and their growing fears ended in death. > > Even in the daytime (when the spectre did not appear) the impression remained so strong upon their imaginations that they fancied they still heard the clanking of chains, and consequently their terror continued. > > The house was at last deserted and left entirely to the ghost, thus it was advertised as being forsale or to let, in case anyone was so bold as to venture into it. > > Athenodorus, the philosopher, came to Athens, read the bill, and, upon hearing the price was low, suspected some extraordinary reason for it, and was told the whole story. > > Nevertheless, he rented the house and took up his lodging there. > > In the evening he ordered his couch to be placed in the forepart of the house, and, having a light and his writing materials, he directed all his attention upon his studies to prevent his mind from being imposed upon by vain terrors. > > The first part of the night passed in silence; at length the clanking of iron and the rattling of chains was heard. > > He neither lifted up his eyes nor laid down his pen, but fortified his mind and continued to write. > > The noise increased and advanced nearer, till it seemed at the door, and at last within the room itself. > > He looked round and saw the apparition exactly as it had been described to him. > > The ghost stood still and beckoned with its finger, as if inviting him to follow; upon which Athenodorus made a sign with his hand that it should wait a little, and again bent his head over his papers and his pen. > > When he had finished his writing, he took up a light and followed it. > > The spectre walked slowly, as if encumbered with its chains, and turning into the courtyard of the house, suddenly vanished. > > Athenodorus, being thus left alone, marked the spot with some grass and leaves, and the next day he gave information to the magistrates, who ordered it to be dug up. > > There they found the bones of a man bound with chains. > > These were collected and buried at the public expense, and after the rites of burial, the ghost appeared no more. > > The house was haunted no longer. Pliny the Younger, in [*Letter 7.27*](https://amzn.to/3L6IGtB?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (to Licinius Sura) Haunted spaces were not confined to houses. Entire districts, battlefields, and stretches of countryside were said to echo with voices of the unquiet dead. The Romans feared crossroads, tombs without names, and places struck by lightning—all thought to open pathways between worlds. In these liminal spaces, the veil between the living and the dead thinned, and unseen presences were free to wander. Travelers avoided them at night; farmers left offerings to avert misfortune. To the Romans, haunting was not merely superstition—it was a form of disorder. A ghost signaled unfinished business between mortals and the divine. Every haunting was, in essence, a prodigy demanding expiation. The response was ritual: purification with fire, libations of milk and [honey](https://romanempiretimes.com/mad-honey-warfare-how-king-mithridates-poisoned-pompeys-legions/), or the consecration of the ground. Even [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/niche-perfumes-in-ancient-rome-how-did-emperors-smell-like/) took such matters seriously, ordering temples built where lightning had struck or where the dead had stirred too close to the living. The fear of haunted places expressed a deeper anxiety about the fragility of order itself. Rome’s greatness rested on the belief that the world was governed by law—human and divine. Ghosts defied both. They were the residue of injustice and neglect, the voices of those Rome had failed to appease. To walk in a haunted house, to hear a chain in the night, was to be reminded that peace, whether civic or cosmic, required constant vigilance. (*Mysteries and Fears in Ancient Rome, by Claudio Romano*) ![The Greek Stoic Philosopher Athenodorus Rents a Haunted House](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/The-Greek-Stoic-Philosopher-Athenodorus-Rents-a-Haunted-House.jpg) The Greek Stoic Philosopher Athenodorus Rents a Haunted House. Public domain ### Magic: The Shadow Religion of Rome Beneath the Roman world’s ordered rites, there pulsed a quieter faith—one that spoke the same sacred language yet turned it inward. The line between religion and magic was perilously thin: both sought communion with the divine, but religion offered reverence, while magic dared to command. To the state, the difference was one of loyalty. Religion was collective—it bound the community together under the watch of [Jupiter](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) and the emperor. Magic was private and subversive, practiced in secret and for personal gain. The magician was therefore a dangerous figure: a solitary rival to the priest, an outsider who claimed power without authority. The same ritual gestures—a prayer, a libation, a sacrifice—could shift from holy to forbidden depending on the intent. What priests did openly, magicians did in shadows, and so both were feared and sought after in equal measure. The [law](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) cast its judgment in harsh terms. Decrees such as the *Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficiis* treated magicians as poisoners, for their craft was believed to kill without blade or flame. They could ruin crops, curse enemies, or twist the minds of the innocent. 🏛️ The Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis, or Cornelian Law on Murderers and Poisoners, was enacted in 81 BCE by Lucius Cornelius Sulla during his dictatorship, as part of his wider reforms to restore order and rewrite the laws of the Republic. It was designed to punish a broad range of acts considered threats to life or moral order—murder, poisoning, abortion, human sacrifice, and harmful magic—and remained in force for centuries, still cited in the age of Emperor Justinian in the sixth century CE. According to later juristic commentaries, particularly those attributed to Paul, the statute set precise penalties according to both crime and social rank. Those who prepared or sold love potions or abortive drugs faced relegation to the mines if of low status (humiliores), exile to an island if of higher rank (honestiores), and death if the substance caused fatality. Those performing curses, binding spells, or acts of sorcery could be crucified or thrown to wild beasts, while those engaged in human sacrifice or blood offerings suffered the same fates—execution for the upper classes, death by beasts for the lower. A professional magician or magus could be burned alive. Possession of magical books brought confiscation of property and the public destruction of the texts; the well-born were exiled, the poor executed. Even healers whose remedies caused death faced death or banishment, depending on class. The law replaced older and more archaic penalties such as the poena cullei—the gruesome punishment of being sewn into a sack and thrown into a river—with more standardized methods of execution and exile. Initially, banishment and confiscation of property were the chief sentences, but by the later empire capital punishment became common, with penalties differing between the social orders. The law’s reach extended not only to those who poisoned or enchanted, but also to suppliers and manufacturers of lethal or harmful substances, holding them equally responsible. Its treatment of abortifacients aimed chiefly at protecting the mother’s life rather than the unborn child. Over time, the law expanded its scope. Emperor Hadrian applied its penalties to those who performed castration, an act already restricted under Domitian, and Antoninus Pius extended it further to include the circumcision of males—with the sole exemption granted to the Jewish community. ![Votive Relief of Haruspex Caius Fulvius Salvis](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Votive-Relief-of-Haruspex-Caius-Fulvius-Salvis.jpg) Votive Relief of Haruspex Caius Fulvius Salvis. Credits: Jamie Heath, CC BY-SA 2.0 Yet this fear also concealed fascination. The very senators who condemned sorcery sent for astrologers in private; generals carried charms into battle; emperors expelled magicians from Rome only to summon them again in secret. The language of magic—spells, omens, and signs—was too deeply woven into Roman thought to be silenced. 💡 ****Rome’s Hypocrisy on Magic** While laws condemned magic as subversion, the powerful rarely resisted its allure. ****Tiberius** executed astrologers yet practiced their art himself (Suetonius, [**Tiberius*](https://amzn.to/43KNvPs?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 69). ****Nero**, who expelled them from Rome, relied on his own court astrologer, Balbillus (Tacitus, [**Annals*](https://amzn.to/4nuw9h2?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 14.9). ****Pliny the Elder** admitted that “no one is free from its fascination” ([**Natural History*](https://amzn.to/4nq8pKL?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 30.3). ****Generals** like Marius and Sulla consulted prophets and carried amulets into battle (Plutarch, [**Lives*](https://amzn.to/434nWc0?ref=romanempiretimes.com)) Even as emperors issued decrees banishing magicians, the same figures reappeared in their courts (Cassius Dio, [**Roman History*](https://amzn.to/3LAT1xO?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 49.43). The empire denounced sorcery in public—but in private, its rulers and elites listened closely to the whispers of the occult. Evidence of these private fears and hopes survives in the form of lead curse tablets, scratched with cramped letters and buried in wells, tombs, and sanctuaries. Their words are crude, emotional, and utterly human. A lover begs for affection to be returned, a merchant curses a rival’s tongue, a slave implores the spirits of the dead to avenge a cruel master. These were acts of desperation more than malice. For those without power, the underworld offered justice when no court would listen. In this way, magic became the hidden law of the powerless—a way to speak when speech was forbidden. ![Roman magical nails 'fixed' permanently with the power of magic, some were used in shrines, others were probably driven into doors of houses to protect the household, the largest nail here has an incantation to the goddess Aremis](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Roman-magical-nails--fixed--permanently-with-the-power-of-magic--some-were-used-in-shrines--others-were-probably-driven-into-doors-of-houses-to-protect-the-household--the-largest-nail-here-has-an-incantation-to-the-goddess-Aremis.jpg) Roman magical nails 'fixed' permanently with the power of magic, some were used in shrines, others were probably driven into doors of houses to protect the household, the largest nail here has an incantation to the goddess Aremis. Credits: Insertcleverphrasehere, CC BY-SA 4.0 But the world of magic was not entirely dark. Its rites also protected, cured, and blessed. [Mothers](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) tied charms around the necks of infants to ward off fever. Soldiers buried amulets near battlefields. Farmers whispered prayers over seeds and [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/). Travelers carried inscribed gemstones to guard against storms and shipwrecks. Magic filled the space where faith met fear—an intimate dialogue with the unknown. Rome’s suspicion of these practices was rooted as much in politics as in piety. Power over the invisible was power over destiny, and destiny was the emperor’s domain. A man who could summon spirits, read omens, or interpret the stars claimed a kind of authority the state could not easily control. The empire’s repeated expulsions of astrologers and necromancers reflected not disbelief, but fear of their influence. The cosmos, after all, was thought to mirror the city. To disturb one was to endanger the other. Yet magic persisted through adaptation. When new religions arose, the old incantations and protections simply changed form. Prayers replaced spells, relics took the place of amulets, and blessings became the lawful echo of enchantments once whispered in secret. The gestures remained, their meanings recast under gentler names. Rome never fully escaped its enchantment with the hidden. What had once been forbidden found sanctuary in the rituals of faith that followed. In the end, magic was not the enemy of Roman religion—it was its reflection. It spoke to the same fears and longings that filled the temples but offered a different kind of hope: the belief that a single voice, uttered in darkness, might alter the design of fate. Beneath the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/)’s order and reason lay a trembling acknowledgment of the unpredictable—a sense that the world was alive, watchful, and filled with signs waiting to be read. In that fragile balance between awe and anxiety, between law and mystery, the Romans built not one religion, but two: one for the gods of the state, and one for the restless spirits of the human heart. ([*Magic in the ancient world*](https://amzn.to/48THXWs?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Fritz Graf*) --- From the trembling of temples to the whisper of charms, fear shaped the Roman soul as surely as faith did. The empire’s strength lay not only in legions and law but in its restless vigilance before the unseen—a civilization that never ceased to look for signs, **even in silence**. ### Mare Clausum: How Romans Managed Extreme Storms, Floods, and Monsoons URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/mare-clausum-how-romans-managed-extreme-storms-floods-and-monsoons/ Last updated: 2025-10-28T23:01:40.000Z Although Ancient Rome was never witness to the deadly Atlantic hurricanes or Pacific typhoons, like the recent [hurricane Melissa in Jamaica](https://news.sky.com/story/hurricane-melissa-live-catastrophic-category-5-storm-barrels-towards-jamaica-cuba-and-bahamas-13458703?ref=romanempiretimes.com), Roman sailors and city builders lived with weather as a daily constraint. From November gales that closed sea lanes to spring floods that filled the [Tiber](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/)’s embankments, the empire learned to schedule, engineer, and legislate around the [Mediterranean](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-mines-as-environmental-catastrophes-how-the-empire-polluted-the-mediterranean-with-lead/)’s moods. Ancient writers speak of tempests and cloudbursts; archaeologists find breakwaters poured underwater; trade manuals time voyages to the pulse of the monsoon. Read together, these traces show a pragmatic system: reduce exposure, harden the edges, and move only when wind and water allow. ![Night Storm at Cefalù (Sicily), a painting by Louis Ducros](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Night-Storm-at-Cefal----Sicily---a-painting-by-Louis-Ducros.jpg) Night Storm at Cefalù (Sicily), a painting by Louis Ducros. Public domain ## The “Closed Sea”: Calendars Against Risk Roman navigation did not run on a modern timetable but on a weather one. Between late autumn and early spring, the long swell, shifting winds, and short daylight of the Mediterranean made blue-water crossings unreliable. By late antiquity, Latin writers speak of a mare clausum, a season when open-sea sailing largely paused. That pause was not a blanket ban: cabotage could continue along coasts, and emergencies broke rules, but the default was caution. The logic was simple—most cargoes were not urgent enough to gamble the ship, crew, and annona. Practical seamanship underpinned the calendar. Coastal pilots read wind roses and landmarks; grain convoys hugged lee shores; masters preferred dawn departures to judge sea state and light. The “season” opened in late spring, widened through summer, and narrowed again by mid-autumn, with local winds and routes shaping the precise windows. The very idea of a “closed sea” was a risk budget: a shared understanding among shippers and officials that winter seas multiplied hazards, costs, and losses, so routine long passages should wait for fairer months. ![The Triumph of Neptune and Amphitrite, by Frans Francken, Neptune—the Roman god of water—and his wife, Amphitrite, ride a chariot pulled by sea horses, his trident representing his power over water and storms](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/The-Triumph-of-Neptune-and-Amphitrite--by-Frans-Francken--Neptune---the-Roman-god-of-water---and-his-wife--Amphitrite--ride-a-chariot-pulled-by-sea-horses--his-trident-representing-his-power-over-water-and-storms.jpg) The Triumph of Neptune and Amphitrite, by Frans Francken, Neptune—the Roman god of water—and his wife, Amphitrite, ride a chariot pulled by sea horses, his trident representing his power over water and storms. Public domain ## Hardening the shore: concrete, moles, and storm basins If winter seas were a reason to stay in port, ports had to survive winter. Roman harbour builders answered with moles, breakwaters, and basins designed to blunt wave energy. The decisive tool was hydraulic concrete—lime mixed with volcanic ash ([pozzolana](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/pozzolana/)) that set in seawater. Ancient technical writing describes how to cast such works: either by placing concrete within a flooded containment or by using cofferdams to pour foundations below the waterline. Archaeology tracks that recipe around the sea. Analyses from provincial sites show pozzolanic mortars—sometimes with ash shipped far from Italy—binding rubble into storm-resistant masses. The method changed what could be built. Where pre-Roman engineers stacked large ashlar or rubble, [Roman crews](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-engineering-the-backbone-of-an-empire/) could pour monolithic bodies whose faces took the first blows of winter storm trains. At a minor harbour on Crete, surviving moles—now partly beneath a modern marina—retain pozzolanic mortars whose chemical signatures match Italian sources rather than local volcanic sands. Coring at major hubs such as the Claudian and Trajanic basins at Portus, and at Anzio and Cosa, has extracted continuous sections of these masses, confirming standardized mixes and staged pours. The result was not just shelter for anchorages but a tougher, engineered coastline able to ride out seasonal extremes. ![Saint Paul's shipwreck in Malta, depicted by Isaak Fisches](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Saint-Paul-s-shipwreck-in-Malta--depicted-by-Isaak-Fisches.jpg) Saint Paul's shipwreck in Malta, depicted by Isaak Fisches. Public domain ## Riding it out: ships, tactics, and decisions at sea Storm management at sea was a chain of decisions. Merchant hulls were broad-beamed for cargo capacity and built stoutly for hard service. Crews carried spare rigging, sea anchors, and long cables. In rising winds, masters shortened sail, streamed drag to keep bows to the waves, or ran for known havens. Ancient narratives preserve the vocabulary of bad weather—sudden squalls, confused seas, dangerous rebounds from cliffed coasts—and the countermeasures: strike the main, lash the yards, heave to, lighten the ship by cutting loose deck cargo. Even with skill, winter crossings multiplied hazards: gusts that outpaced square sails, sleet that iced lines, nights too long for safe coastal reckoning. That is why the sailing calendar mattered; when weather windows narrowed, prudent captains shifted from ambition to survival. Writers investigating the causes of winds and storms add another layer: the Mediterranean’s winter pattern of mobile lows and strong gradients was keenly felt, even if ancient terminology was descriptive rather than diagnostic. Observers connected heavy rain with sudden river rises and contrasted the clean fair winds of summer with the squally, variable airs of late autumn. Seamanship worked around those realities. ![Poseidon and Amphitrite, in an Ancient Roman fresco in Pompeii](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Poseidon-and-Amphitrite--in-an-Ancient-Roman-fresco-in-Pompeii-1.jpg) Poseidon and Amphitrite, in an Ancient Roman fresco in Pompeii. Credits: Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli ## When rivers rose: floods, embankments, and the Tiber’s management Sea storms were only half the story. The other half lay inland—cloudbursts in the Apennines pushing the Tiber into Rome. The city lived with cyclical inundations that swamped low quarters, contaminated wells, and disrupted markets. Roman responses combined hydraulics and bureaucracy. Magistrates and, later, imperial officials—the *curatores alvei Tiberis*—maintained channels, cleared obstructions, and managed embankments. Over time, quays and walls rose; islands and meanders were constrained; bridges with triangular cutwaters broke current. Writers record damaging floods as political events, but archaeology and topography show a longer arc of adjustment: quarries supplying revetment stone, drainage works tied into the [Cloaca Maxima](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/cloaca-maxima/), and periodic re-profiling after destructive years. Flood control never eliminated risk. Instead, it shortened recovery. Markets reopened sooner when quays were faced and raised; debris moved more quickly when channels were maintained; bridge piers stood longer when hydrodynamics were taken seriously in their design. In a city built around a working river, this was the only sensible goal—keep the city working through its cycles and be ready to rebuild the moment water fell. ![Andreas Achenbach's painting of a Sunset after a Storm on the Coast of Sicily](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Andreas-Achenbach-s-painting-of-a-Sunset-after-a-Storm-on-the-Coast-of-Sicily.jpg) Andreas Achenbach's painting of a Sunset after a Storm on the Coast of Sicily. Public domain ## Working with the monsoon: Red Sea ports and the Indian Ocean Far from the winter gales of the Tyrrhenian, [Roman merchants](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/) on the Red Sea timed voyages to the heartbeat of the Indian Ocean monsoon. Sailing manuals and itineraries describe a summer departure with the fair southwest wind and a winter return on the northeast. That rhythm compressed risk. A well-timed run from Egyptian ports to western India could be direct and fast; missing the window meant waiting months or fighting contrary winds along a hazardous coastal shuffle. The text known as the [*Periplus of the Erythraean Sea*](https://amzn.to/433fZDR?ref=romanempiretimes.com) outlines ports, seasons, and cargoes in a way that only makes sense if skippers were exploiting repeatable seasonal winds across open water. Archaeology at Berenike and Myos Hormos aligns with that schedule. Warehouses and berthing basins facing Egypt’s Red Sea fringe make sense as waypoints for fleets that moved in pulses, not trickles: load in Egypt, jump with the season across the open, and ride back when the winds turned. The system delivered pepper, gemstones, and textiles with fewer weather surprises than a mid-winter slog across the Aegean. It was the same logic as the Mediterranean sailing calendar, applied to a different ocean with a larger, steadier heartbeat. ![An engraving by Schelte Adamsz Bolswert, after Peter Paul Rubens, depicting The Shipwreck of Saint Paul at Malta, showing a dramatic coastal landscape with a fiery beacon atop rocky cliffs, in the foreground, survivors struggle amid wreckage](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/An-engraving-by-Schelte-Adamsz-Bolswert--after-Peter-Paul-Rubens--depicting-The-Shipwreck-of-Saint-Paul-at-Malta--showing-a-dramatic-coastal-landscape-with-a-fiery-beacon-atop-rocky-cliffs--in-the-foreground--survivors-struggle-amid-wreckage.jpg) An engraving by Schelte Adamsz Bolswert, after Peter Paul Rubens, depicting The Shipwreck of Saint Paul at Malta, showing a dramatic coastal landscape with a fiery beacon atop rocky cliffs, in the foreground, survivors struggle amid wreckage. Credits: British Museum, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 ## Policy, ports, and the cost of delay Because weather could immobilize ships for months, the Roman state buffered volatility with ports and policy. Portus, the great artificial harbour north of the Tiber mouth, operated as a storm-season reservoir: long moles blunted wave energy; a hexagonal basin calmed water; canals linked sea and river so fleets could sit out bad months under supervision and then surge grain inland the moment seas eased. The administrative side matched the concrete. Shippers tied to the grain supply enjoyed privileges and obligations; rules and contracts recognized winter closure implicitly by structuring duties, storage, and liability around the sailing season. The annona’s success depended on this choreography—ports as buffers, policy as ballast. Evidence from harbour coring projects shows standardization across major hubs: staged pours, repeatable mixes, and engineered faces that survived heavy seas year after year. That investment in durable basins turned “waiting out the weather” from an economic disaster into a routine cost of doing business. When the season reopened, the system restarted at speed. ([*The Ancient Sailing Season*](https://amzn.to/3LwQEMw?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by James Beresford;* [*Floods of the Tiber in Ancient Rome*](https://amzn.to/4qyxWEu?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Gregory S. Aldrete; The Roman Maritime Concrete Study (ROMACONS): the harbour of Chersonisos in Crete and its Italian connection, by Christopher Brandon, Robert L. Hohlfelder, John Peter Oleson and Charles Stern;* [*Rome, Portus and the Mediterranean*](https://amzn.to/49rXFYV?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Simon Keay; Sailing the Indian Ocean in Ancient Times, by Jean-Marie Kowalski;* [*Natural Questions*](https://amzn.to/3Wp8Da7?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Seneca*) ![Medicane Ianos below Italy, approaching Greece at peak intensity on 17 September 2020, a photo by NASA's ESODIS Worldview](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Medicane-Ianos-approaching-Greece-at-peak-intensity-on-17-September-2020--a-photo-by-NASA-s-ESODIS-Worldview.jpg) Medicane Ianos below Italy, approaching Greece at peak intensity on 17 September 2020, a photo by NASA's ESODIS Worldview ## Medicanes: tropical-like storms in a Roman sea Modern meteorology identifies rare “Mediterranean hurricanes”—medicanes—as compact, warm-core cyclones that sometimes develop over the sea in autumn and winter. They are infrequent but intense, bringing gale winds and heavy rain, especially when interacting with mountain ranges and cold air intrusions. Ancient authors do not diagnose such systems explicitly, but the ingredients that form them existed then as now. In practical terms, a late-season storm with a tight wind field and torrential rain would have been treated like any other severe low: harbours closed, ships sought lee, and coastal traffic paused. The rarity of medicanes aligns with the ancient habit of seasonal avoidance—another reason the winter sea was counted as largely “closed.” (*Mediterranean Tropical-Like Cyclones (Medicanes), by Dr. Mario Marcello Miglietta*) --- Roman weather management was not mastery but choreography. Calendars rationed exposure; concrete and cutwaters reshaped edges; officials cleared channels; pilots watched the sky and the swell; merchants rode a planetary wind in and out of the Indian Ocean on schedule. In all of it, the principle held: **accept what the weather offers**, and build for what it takes away. ### A Well Full of War: Skeletons in Croatia May Be Victims of Rome’s Forgotten Battle URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/a-well-full-of-war-skeletons-in-croatia-may-be-victims-of-romes-forgotten-battle/ Last updated: 2025-10-26T15:23:55.000Z A peer-reviewed study [published very recently](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0333440&ref=romanempiretimes.com) (October 15, 2025) takes a fresh look at a stark discovery in Osijek, Croatia—the Roman city of Mursa. In 2011, excavators cleared an old water well and found seven complete human skeletons at the bottom. The new paper pulls together dating, diet clues, and genetic data and reaches a careful conclusion: these men were almost certainly [Roman soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/) who died during the Crisis of the Third Century, most likely in the battle of Mursa (260 CE). The well, once used for drinking water, became a one-time grave on a very bad day for the city. ![The well's skeletons during the excavation phase](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/The-well-s-skeletons-during-the-excavation-phase.jpg) The well's skeletons during the excavation phase. Credits: Mario Novak, Orhan Efe Yavuz, Mario Carić, Slavica Filipović, Cosimo Posth ### The find: a well that turned into a grave The bones lay fully articulated, with arms and legs still in place. **That detail matters.** When a body is moved long after death, joints loosen and parts separate. Here, the positions show the men were thrown in soon after they died, in a single operation. There were no coffins and no grave goods—not even the usual tokens that appear in formal burials. The well shaft itself sat inside the ancient city plan, close enough to everyday life that leaving bodies in it would have been both a health risk and a reminder of violence. Sealing it quickly would have restored a measure of normality and kept the city moving. The scene fits emergencies recorded elsewhere in the Roman world. When disease, siege, or fighting hit a town, people sometimes used deep, ready-made holes—cisterns and wells—to get bodies out of sight and out of the way. In Osijek, the well fill reads as a single event, not a place used again and again. That suggests a cleanup after fighting, not a long crisis with repeated deposits. It is the sort of hurried solution you would expect in a city that needed to be safe by morning. ![Map showing the geographic location of Osijek and the exact location of the well (in the red circle)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Map-showing-the-geographic-location-of-Osijek-and-the-exact-location-of-the-well--in-the-red-circle-.jpg) Map showing the geographic location of Osijek and the exact location of the well (in the red circle). Credits: Mario Novak, Orhan Efe Yavuz, Mario Carić, Slavica Filipović, Cosimo Posth ### Pinning down the date: a coin and a clock inside the bones 💡 Living things contain a tiny amount of radioactive carbon; after death, it begins to fade at a steady rate. By measuring how much is left in bone collagen, scientists can estimate when the person died. The study’s timeline rests on two simple ideas: 1. First, the team dated four of the skeletons by radiocarbon, which is a natural clock inside organic material. All four measurements point to the second half of the third century CE, clustering tightly in the decades when the empire’s Danube frontier shook. 2. Second, the excavators found a [Roman coin](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) in the same well fill. It is a sestertius minted in 251 CE. A single coin never dates a burial on its own—coins travel, and people save them—but when you place it beside the radiocarbon window and the one-event backfill, it becomes a strong anchor. Together, they say: these men died after 251 CE, and likely not long after, because the well was sealed in one go. For a city like Mursa, which sat on a key river route and army road, that points straight at the year when a usurper named Ingenuus challenged [Emperor Gallienus](https://romanempiretimes.com/gallienus-the-emperor-who-reformed-rome-amid-ruin/) near the city—260 CE. ![Roman sestertius coin minted in 251 CE in Viminacium during the reign of emperor Hostilian](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Roman-sestertius-coin-minted-in-251-CE-in-Viminacium-during-the-reign-of-emperor-Hostilian.jpg) Roman sestertius coin minted in 251 CE in Viminacium during the reign of emperor Hostilian. Credits: Mario Novak, Orhan Efe Yavuz, Mario Carić, Slavica Filipović, Cosimo Posth; Illustration by Roman Empire Times ### Why Mursa? The injuries and the setting tell the same story All seven individuals were adult males—the age range you would expect for [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/). Several show healed injuries from earlier blows, the long-term wear of hard service in their joints and spines, and dental and bone changes that track with repeated physical strain. More importantly, two carry sharp-force cuts and puncture wounds with no healing, the sort of damage that happens in close-quarters fighting and leads to immediate death. Others show blunt-force trauma to the skull, consistent with face-to-face hits in a melee. Clues from food and background line up. Chemical “signatures” in the bones—stable isotopes—reflect what people ate. Here they point to a grain-heavy diet with only modest animal protein and almost no seafood, a pattern that makes sense for men rotating through inland garrisons. The DNA is a final nudge. These seven do not form a local family group; instead, they show a mix of backgrounds you would expect in a Roman unit that drew recruits from different regions of the empire. Add those lines together—adult males, battle-type injuries, grain diets, mixed origins—and the profile looks military. The place matters as much as the bodies. Mursa was a crossroads city on river and road, strengthened in the second and early third centuries and badly exposed when the empire fractured. In 260 CE, as sources record, Gallienus faced Ingenuus near Mursa. The aftermath described in the new study—one rapid deposit, equipment presumably removed, water supply restored—fits what a city would do after fighting at the gate. The research stop short of absolute proof, but its language—“*most probably the battle of Mursa from 260 CE*”—reflects how many clues point the same way. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Roman-skeleton-bone-fragment--antemortem-unhealed-fracture-of-the-6th-left-rib.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Roman-skeleton-bone-fragments--puncture-wound-on-the-anterior-side-of-the-manubrium--puncture-wound-on-the-posterior-side-of-the-right-ilium.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Roman-skeleton-bone-fragments--broken-maxillary-central-right-incisor--cut-to-the-diaphysis-of-the-left-humerus.jpg) Roman skeleton bone fragments. Credits: Mario Novak, Orhan Efe Yavuz, Mario Carić, Slavica Filipović, Cosimo Posth 🏛️ **Image #1*: Antemortem unhealed fracture of the 6th left rib **Image #2*: Puncture wound on the anterior side of the manubrium, puncture wound on the posterior side of the right ilium **Image #3*: Broken maxillary central right incisor, cut to the diaphysis of the left humerus ### What the well tells us now The Crisis of the Third Century can feel abstract: a list of emperors and usurpers sliding past one another in hurried succession. Finds like this one give that crisis a street address. They show how a city coped when chaos arrived: a fast cleanup, a sealed well, and a return to order as soon as possible. They also remind us that Rome’s armies were built from many places. The seven men in Osijek were not local cousins; they were strangers brought together by service, carrying old scars into a final fight. The study is also a case in how science can tighten a story without claiming more than the evidence allows. Radiocarbon explains the “when” in simple numbers. Isotopes give a rough “what they ate,” which helps place them. DNA answers “who they were like,” at least in broad strokes. None of those tools gives a name. Together, they point to the most likely scene: soldiers killed in or right after the battle of Mursa (260 CE), cleared quickly and lowered into a well so the living could drink, repair, and move on. That restraint—arguing “likely” rather than shouting “certain”—is part of what makes the paper convincing. ### Empire Size Comparison: How did the Roman Empire Compare to Alexander’s or the Mongols? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/empire-size-comparison-how-did-the-roman-empire-compare-to-alexanders-or-the-mongols/ Last updated: 2025-10-25T23:48:11.000Z Ask three atlases for the world’s largest empire and you may see the same name but different totals. That is because historians do not count claims, spheres of influence, or seas; they count dry land effectively controlled at a definable peak. ### What “size” actually means—and why method matters That apples-to-apples metric helps us compare a maritime empire with a steppe super-state, but it also demands humility. Ancient frontiers are often reconstructed from itineraries, clusters of milestones, papyri, forts, and coin finds—not neat satellite lines. In deserts, forests, and steppe zones, authority could fade by season or distance. “Largest” is therefore a measured word, not a boast. A practical way to keep comparisons honest is to pair a single maximum area with two cautions. 1. First, a range is normal where evidence is thin; if a single number circulates without a band, treat it as a rounded shorthand. 2. Second, kinds of presence differ. A vast overland empire rich in grassland may contain fewer cities and fewer high-yield tax districts than a smaller maritime state stitched together by sea lanes. Raw area does not score the power of harbors, shipping routes, and coastal markets; nor does it capture how a contiguous belt of land lowers communication and transport costs. Numbers are essential—but they are only one layer of the story. 3. Finally, method means being explicit about which peaks we compare. For Rome, the conventional high-water mark is AD 117 under [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/). For [Alexander](https://romanempiretimes.com/alexander-the-great-in-roman-thought-hero-rival-and-legend/), it is the 323 BCE maximum. For the Mongols, the high plateau lies in the late thirteenth century, when a continuous belt linked the Pacific, the Danube, and the Persian Gulf. These are not arbitrary choices; they are moments where controlled land reached a recognizable ceiling across the best-edited datasets and reference works. ![Graph showcasing the largest Empires by size comparison, by Taagepera, Rein](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Graph-showcasing-the-largest-Empires-by-size-comparison--by-Taagepera--Rein-1.jpg) Graph showcasing the largest Empires by size comparison, by Taagepera, Rein ### Rome at full stretch (AD 117) When [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/) died in AD 117, Rome stood at its conventional maximum: from Britain and the Atlantic to the Euphrates, with the Rhine–Danube arc as interior frontier and a continuous African littoral from Mauretania to Egypt. On the standard yardstick, that peak is about **5 million km²** (≈1.9 million sq mi) of land. The figure hides Rome’s real advantage: a mesh of sea lanes, roads, way-stations, and administrative nodes that let the empire move messages, money, and men at speeds an inland state could not match. Sea power did not add to the land total, but it converted scattered shores into operational neighbors. The shape of Rome’s peak also matters. Most of that territory was gathered gradually in the late Republic and early Principate, then held on a long plateau. Trajan’s conquests (notably Dacia and a brief thrust into Mesopotamia) widened the frame; [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrians-wall-the-roman-empires-enigmatic-frontier/) then trimmed the line to a more defensible rim. The core endured. That longevity—rather than the raw area—explains why Rome looms large even next to empires with bigger footprints on paper. The empire sat on a dense grid of cities and provincial centers, with censuses, land registers, and fiscal districts that turned land into revenue, grain, and manpower over centuries. Read that way, Rome’s five million square kilometers (≈1.9 million square miles) are smaller than the Mongol high, but the plateau they ride on is exceptionally long. ![Roman Empire AD 125 map, illustrating roads with red](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Roman-Empire-AD-125--map--illustrating-roads-with-red.jpg) Roman Empire AD 125 map, illustrating roads with red. Credits: DS28, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### Alexander’s compressed colossus (332–323 BCE) Between 332 and 323 BCE, Alexander folded the Achaemenid road system, ports, and satrapies into a string of rapid, decisive campaigns and briefly held a transcontinental realm from the Aegean to the Indus. Reconstructions place that maximum **a little above 5 million km²** (≈1.9+ million sq mi), roughly on a level with Rome’s later peak. The difference is time-on-plateau. Alexander’s maximum is measured in months, not decades. Much of the administrative furniture was taken over intact from Persian practice or improvised on the march; cohesion depended on the king’s person and the army’s momentum. That brevity does not erase the scale. It does change how to read the number. A quick spike is misleading if we treat it as stable capacity. One remedy is to report both the maximum and a stable maximum (what could be held for more than an instant). Another is to look at size-over-time—how much land was controlled and for how long—which sets a short, high peak beside a somewhat smaller but longer plateau elsewhere. By those lenses, Alexander’s realm remains immense yet ephemeral: a shock-wave that re-routed trade, planted cities, and spread Greek as a language of administration and learning, but did not harden into a durable single administration at its widest extent. ![The Empire and Expedition of Alexander the Great. A map showing all the regions which Alexander traversed on his way to wage war against Darius and the kings of the Indians, with their present-day names](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/The-Empire-and-Expedition-of-Alexander-the-Great.-A-map-showing-all-the-regions-which-Alexander-traversed-on-his-way-to-wage-war-against-Darius-and-the-kings-of-the-Indians--with-their-present-day-names-1.jpg) The Empire and Expedition of Alexander the Great. A map showing all the regions which Alexander traversed on his way to wage war against Darius and the kings of the Indians, with their present-day names. Public domain ### The Mongol high plateau (late 13th century) By the late 1200s, the Mongol Empire stretched from the Pacific to the Danube and the Persian Gulf, a continuous belt of **about 23 million km²** (≈8.9 million sq mi)—the largest contiguous land empire in recorded history. The qualifier matters. Overland contiguity lowers transmission costs: post-stations, remounts, and relay guards turn distances into predictable stages; armies move without waiting on fleets or fair winds; merchants and envoys can cross thousands of miles without crossing an imperial border. Contiguity also builds an internal zone where rules, couriers, and protections travel more freely than they do between maritime basins. Unlike Alexander’s compressed spike, the Mongol footprint sat on a broad plateau. Even as the empire divided into khanates, the aggregate geography remained immense for decades, linking East Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Eastern Europe in a [traffic of goods](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/), techniques, and people at scales not seen before. On sheer land area, the Mongol high is roughly four to five times Rome’s peak and more than twice Alexander’s. But the structure behind that number differs from Rome’s coastal-city lattice. Mongol governance leveraged mobility, delegated power to Chinggisid houses, and drew revenue from trade corridors and subject agrarian zones rather than from a dense network of Mediterranean ports. In other words, the same number can point to a different kind of reach: continental corridors rather than coastal nodes. ![From the conquests of the kingdom of Kharizme by Genghiz-khan, up to & not included the establishment of several new states in the kingdoms of Iran & Zagathay, by Michel Picaud de Nantes](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/From-the-conquests-of-the-kingdom-of-Kharizme-by-Genghiz-khan--up-to---not-included-the-establishment-of-several-new-states-in-the-kingdoms-of-Iran---Zagathay--by-Michel-Picaud-de-Nantes.jpg) From the conquests of the kingdom of Kharizme by Genghiz-khan, up to & not included the establishment of several new states in the kingdoms of Iran & Zagathay, by Michel Picaud de Nantes. Public domain ### Ratios, ranges, and what big maps hide Set the three peaks on one line and a tidy comparison emerges: 🗺️ ****Mongol** (\~23 million km² (≈8.9 million sq mi)) ****»** ****Rome** (\~5 million km² (≈1.9 million sq mi)) ****≈** ****Alexander** (\~5+ million km² (≈2.0+ million sq mi)) The ratios are stark: the Mongol maximum is roughly 4–5× Rome; Rome and Alexander are broadly comparable in raw land area. Yet a single number can mislead if we forget what it omits. Rome’s sea power stitched noncontiguous shores into one operating space; land-area tables do not score that. Alexander’s total compresses a conquest whose administrative hardening was still in progress; stabilizing that much land would have taken a generation. The Mongol figure includes vast low-density grasslands and deserts whose tax yield and urbanization could not match Italy or coastal Syria; their value lay in movement, not municipal density. Ranges are the other reason for caution. In deserts, oases, and seasonal pastures, “control” can shrink or expand with rains, harvests, and leadership. Responsible datasets mark uncertainty rather than pretend to single-point precision: dry land only; effective, not merely claimed authority; and a definable peak year or short span. Where evidence thins, the number becomes a band. For readers, the test is transparency: can we see how the figure was constructed, which maps and texts underwrote it, and how disagreements were handled? When those rules are clear, the ratios above remain robust—without pretending that ancient borders ever behaved like neat survey lines. ![Historical map of ancient Rome, with its population peaking at around 1 million inhabitants, published in Italy in 1570](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Historical-map-of-ancient-Rome--with-its-population-peaking-at-around-1-million-inhabitants--published-in-Italy-in-1570.jpg) Historical map of ancient Rome, with its population peaking at around 1 million inhabitants, published in Italy in 1570\. Public domain ### More of the ancient peaks: Persia, Byzantium, the Ottomans, and China At its widest reach in the early fifth century BCE, the Achaemenid Persian Empire stretched from the Balkans and Egypt to the Indus. Most comparative datasets place this maximum **near \~5.5 million km²** (\~2.1 million sq mi), which makes Persia broadly comparable in raw land to Rome’s later high water mark, though configured along continental corridors rather than a maritime rim. The Byzantine Empire presents a different profile. Under Justinian in the mid-sixth century, the eastern Roman state briefly reunited large tracts of the Mediterranean littoral; the usual estimate for that moment is **\~3.4 million km²** (\~1.3 million sq mi). Its territorial story is cyclical—recovery, contraction, and recovery again—which is why a single number should be read as a snapshot rather than a sustained plateau. The Ottomans, emerging from Anatolia into the Balkans and the Arab world, reached a maximum commonly given as **\~5.2 million km²** (\~2.0 million sq mi) between the late sixteenth and late seventeenth centuries. In raw land this places them near Alexander’s and Rome’s totals, though the balance between Mediterranean coasts and inland provinces differs markedly across the three. Several pre-modern Chinese dynasties also attained world-class scales. The Han realm is typically placed **around \~6.0–6.5 million km²** (\~2.3–2.5 million sq mi), while Tang reconstructions often center near \~5.4 million km² (\~2.1 million sq mi). As with all ancient figures, these are rounded bands derived from atlas-based assessments of controlled land at a definable peak; frontier zones that shifted with ecology and local allegiance account for the range. Read against the Roman, Alexander, and Mongol peaks, the pattern is consistent: Rome’s raw area sits below the very largest ancient totals, yet its longevity, density of cities, and sea control put it on a long, steady platform that land-area tables do not register on their own. ![The Middle East sheet of the 1803 Cedid Atlas (one of 24 sheets in total). It is the first published atlas in the Muslim world (Ottoman Empire), and only 50 copies were printed at the press](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/The-Middle-East-sheet-of-the-1803-Cedid-Atlas--one-of-24-sheets-in-total-.-It-is-the-first-published-atlas-in-the-Muslim-world--Ottoman-Empire---and-only-50-copies-were-printed-at-the-press.jpg) The Middle East sheet of the 1803 Cedid Atlas (one of 24 sheets in total). It is the first published atlas in the Muslim world (Ottoman Empire), and only 50 copies were printed at the press. Public domain ### The modern era: Spain, Portugal, Russia, Britain By the late eighteenth century the Spanish Empire spanned the Atlantic world with possessions in the Americas, Europe, Africa, and Asia. The accepted figure—**\~13.7 million km²** (\~5.3 million sq mi)—aggregates dispersed territories linked by oceanic shipping, metropolitan finance, and administrative law rather than by a contiguous land belt. The Portuguese case highlights a frequent problem in the lists. If one focuses on the later “Second Empire” in Africa and Asia, estimates cluster **near \~5.5 million km²** (\~2.1 million sq mi); if one folds in Brazil prior to 1822, totals jump significantly. The gap reminds us that “claimed” and “effectively controlled” are not synonyms, and that a date stamp is essential to any comparison. On the Eurasian landmass, the Russian Empire reached approximately **\~23 million km²** (\~8.9 million sq mi) in the late nineteenth century, rivaling the Mongol total in scale, though operating with very different institutions, demography, and logistics. The British Empire, measured in the early twentieth century, remains the largest aggregate by land area in the standard compilations at **\~35.5 million km²** (\~13.7 million sq mi)—often summarized as “nearly a quarter of the Earth’s land.” These modern totals mark a shift in what “size” means: maritime empires stitched far-flung regions by sea power and communications, while continental empires expanded rail, road, and administrative grids across interior spaces. The numbers sit on different kinds of geography, and the kind matters. (*Size and Duration of Empires: Systematics of size, by Taagepera, Rein; Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 3000 to 600 B.C., by Taagepera, Rein*) ![British Empire throughout the world exhibited in one view](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/British-Empire-throughout-the-world-exhibited-in-one-view.jpg) British Empire throughout the world exhibited in one view. Public domain --- Judged strictly by controlled dry land at a clearly defined peak, the Mongol Empire remains the outlier, far above Rome and Alexander and above most other ancient polities as well. Yet the headline figure never exhausts the story. Rome’s smaller number rides a much longer plateau sustained by urban density, fiscal districts, and maritime logistics; Alexander’s footprint is immense but brief, a crest that needed time to harden; the other ancient cases occupy their own niches along the same axes of area, duration, and administrative depth. 🗺️ ****Empires Size Comparison Chart** ****British** (\~35.5 million km² (≈13.7 million sq mi)) **»** ****Russian** (\~23 million km² (≈8.9 million sq mi)) ****≈** ****Mongol** (\~23 million km² (≈8.9 million sq mi)) ****»** ****Spanish** (\~13.7 million km² (≈5.3 million sq mi)) ****»** ****Han** (\~6.0–6.5 million km² (≈2.3–2.5 million sq mi)) ****»** ****Achaemenid Persia** (\~5.5 million km² (≈2.1 million sq mi)) ****≈** ****Portuguese** (\~5.5 million km² (≈2.1 million sq mi)) ****»** ****Tang** (\~5.4 million km² (≈2.1 million sq mi)) **»** ****Alexander** (\~5+ million km² (≈2.0+ million sq mi)) ****≈** ****Ottoman** (\~5.2 million km² (≈2.0 million sq mi)) ****»** ****Rome** (\~5.0 million km² (≈1.9 million sq mi)) ****»** ****Byzantine** (\~3.4 million km² (≈1.3 million sq mi)) Modern empires add a further shift in scale and mechanism: Spain and Portugal as ocean-bound networks, Russia as a continental expanse, Britain as the largest maritime aggregate in the record. A careful comparison therefore pairs the maximum with its lifespan and the means that held it together—whether ports and convoys, posts and remounts, or roads and census districts. The map supplies the number; the history underneath supplies its meaning. ### Not Evil by Default: How Romans (and Stoics) Judged Suicide URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/not-evil-by-default-how-romans-and-stoics-judged-suicide/ Last updated: 2025-10-24T23:00:07.000Z Romans did not coin a compact word that matches today’s “suicide,” even if past scholars generally connected the word *suicida* with Ancient Rome. They had practices, scripts, and judgments—a grammar of endings that could be condemned as cowardly in one setting and praised as exemplary in another. ### Words Before the Word: Etymology of the Word Suicide and Greek Parallels “Suicide” is not a classical Latin noun. Roman authors describe the act through phrases: *voluntaria mors* (“voluntary death”), *sibi mortem consciscere* (“to decide upon one’s own death”), *se ipsum interficere* (“to kill oneself”), *ex vita excedere* (“to depart from life”), or even the institutional *mori licet* (“it is permitted to die”). None of these constructs a single category like the modern term. A neatly formed *suicidium* belongs to early-modern Latin and passes into French and English in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; the act is ancient, the category word is modern. The compact neo-Latin *suicidium* (act) and *suicida* (agent) surface much later than the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/): one early-modern locus is Juan Caramuel’s [*Theologia moralis fundamentalis*](https://amzn.to/48LoeIn?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (Rome, 1656), where he glosses *suicida* “the one who kills himself.” At the same time, researcher Anton van Hooff showed that the agent noun *suicida* actually appears centuries earlier in Walter (Gauthier) of Saint-Victor (*Contra Quatuor Labyrinthos Franciae*, 1177/78), who mocks Seneca as “*peior suicida*”—evidence that the coinage had a medieval life before its early-modern revival. Such forms felt un-Ciceronian: Latin doesn’t naturally build compounds with the pronominal *sui* the way Greek builds with auto-; to an ancient ear *suicidium* would have sounded like “swine-slaying” (from *sus*), hence the preference for circumlocutions. For context, the English noun “suicide” is attested by 1643 (Sir Thomas Browne’s [*Religio Medici*](https://amzn.to/47awwIA?ref=romanempiretimes.com)), predating Caramuel’s printed usage. Greek prose likewise prefers description to taxonomy. Writers simply say *ἑαυτὸν ἀποκτείνειν* (“to kill oneself”), or mark agency with adjectives such as *αὐτόχειρ* and *ἰδιόχειρ*—forms that appear in plural and oblique cases (αὐτοχειρας/ἰδιοχειρας) in later glosses. The posture is semantic: antiquity names the doing and then judges it by context rather than filing it under a fixed label. For readers today, that means tracking the vocabulary that clusters around the act—*honestas*, *virtus*, *dedecus*, *libertas*, *pudor*—instead of expecting a single noun to settle the meaning. The language stays elastic on purpose. What mattered was whether the death fit the surrounding facts: who chose it, under what pressure, to what end for household and city. (*A Longer Life For 'Suicide': When was the Latin word for self-murderer invented?, by Anton J.L. van Hooff*) ![Jacques-Louis David's famous Greek-based painting, The Death of Socrates](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Jacques-Louis-David-s-famous-Greek-based-painting--The-Death-of-Socrates.jpg) Jacques-Louis David's famous Greek-based painting, The Death of Socrates. Public domain ### A Roman Moral Spectrum: Was Suicide Evil, Permissible, Admirable? Roman religion and law did not impose a blanket ban. Early ritual scruples about death and burial existed, but by the late Republic and early Empire a voluntary death could be tolerated or even praised, depending on motive and civic effect. Administration sometimes accommodated the choice. A death before condemnation might avert the disgrace of a verdict and protect heirs; a quiet exit could forestall unrest in a city already on edge. Estates, reputations, and the management of public order shaped how officials steered such cases. The state’s concern was to avoid spectacle, preserve stability, and keep the machinery of law from becoming a rallying point. Ethical argument rested on a [Stoic framework](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/) familiar to the elite. A life is good not because it continues but because it can be lived according to nature—rationally and virtuously. When that becomes impossible—through incurable disease that destroys agency, absolute servitude, or unyielding tyranny—the door is open. The same matrix condemned bad exits: flights that abandoned duty, collapses into fear, or gestures that damaged the commonwealth. [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/10-things-you-did-not-know-about-marcus-aurelius/) retains the option without celebration; the admonition is to remain until one can no longer preserve the inner citadel. [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/) makes the option explicit: a person remains free so long as the exit remains available—used rarely, but kept in view as the last defense of dignity. Public discourse, meanwhile, set judgment on a screen of honor (*dignitas*), shame (*pudor*), freedom (*libertas*), and utility to the state (*utilitas rei publicae*). Within that frame, a chosen death could be counted noble, tolerated, or despised. (*Philosophy, Cato, and Roman Suicide: I & II, by Miriam Griffin; The Philosopher Seneca on Suicide, by Willy Evenepoel*) ![Giovanni Peruzzini's painting, Suicide of Cato](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Giovanni-Peruzzini-s-painting--Suicide-of-Cato.jpg) Giovanni Peruzzini's painting, Suicide of Cato. Public domain ### Standards and Steel: Self-Killing in the Army [Legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-mystery-of-the-lost-roman-legion-the-ninths-final-march/) drilled *virtus* (courage) and *disciplina* (order) into bodies as habit. That ethic produced a battlefield culture in which, in certain settings, self-killing could be read as honorable. The Republican *devotio*—a commander consecrating himself to death for victory—already imagines a life given for the many. Under the Empire, officers and rankers more commonly chose death to avoid capture, enslavement, or the shame of public display after defeat. The repertoire included falling on the sword, starving in custody, refusing rescue after wounds, or dying by one’s own hand to prevent interrogation and parade. [The Year of the Four Emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/69-ce-the-year-of-the-four-emperors/) supplied a canonical page in this script. Otho (A.D. 69) chose death after defeat to prevent renewed civil war. Ancient narratives judged the decision civic-minded because it averted further slaughter and spared Rome another day of marching legions. Elsewhere, centurions and provincial commanders judged it better to die than be shown in chains; some besieged units preferred death to [public humiliation](https://romanempiretimes.com/gemonian-stairs-rome-spot-mourning-execution-scalae-gemoniae/). None of this made suicide a duty; it made it a recognized exit within an honor economy that graded intention and effect. Deeds that preserved the community could be praised; gestures that merely dodged accountability could be scorned. The army’s culture, with its stress on facing fortune without disgrace, furnished the stage on which those judgments were made and retold. (*Courage and Cowardice in the Roman Imperial Army, by Jon Coulston*) ![Matthias Stom's painting, The death of Brutus by suicide (falling on his sword after the lost battle of Philippi)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Matthias-Stom-s-painting--The-death-of-Brutus-by-suicide--falling-on-his-sword-after-the-lost-battle-of-Philippi-.jpg) Matthias Stom's painting, The death of Brutus by suicide (falling on his sword after the lost battle of Philippi). Public domain ### Exempla: Cato at Utica and Seneca’s Suicides and Final Scenes Two exits became touchstones for civic and philosophical education. 1. [Cato the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-younger-the-last-roman-of-the-republic/) (46 B.C.) chose death at Utica rather than accept a settlement he judged tyrannical. Narrative lingers over the staging: a last night with Plato, the sword thrust, attendants’ frantic bandaging, and the renewed act once the room cleared. The lesson pressed into Roman memory is that conscience could outrank survival and that a citizen might refuse to live under an order he found unfree. Later readers used the case to test themselves: is this integrity that disdains a master, or obstinacy that refuses a peace? Rome kept the story close because it sharpened judgment about law, loyalty, and the meaning of pardon. 2. Seneca (A.D. 65), ordered to die, arranged a composed exit. Ancient narrative describes dictation to secretaries, opening of veins, a trial of hemlock when bleeding slowed, and a warm bath to hasten the end, followed by suffocation in steam. The scene is highly public in a Roman way: witnesses, last words, gestures that mark control rather than rage. It is also legal: a command is obeyed without the theater of a public execution. What the scene values is clarity over spectacle; resolve over display. The picture that emerges—one part ritual, one part household management, one part statecraft—illustrates how a death could be made legible to a community watching closely. Between these poles sit other exits Romans retold: Arria stabbing herself (“*Paete, non dolet*”) to teach her husband how to die; Brutus falling on his sword at Philippi; Otho choosing death to prevent a second battle; women who took rope or blade to avoid violation after capture. The common factor is not a single method but a moral script read through lenses of dignity, liberty, loyalty, and spectatorship. In each case, what counted was not only the manner of dying but the meaning others could read from it. ![Cato's suicide by Giambattista Langetti](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Cato-s-suicide-by-Giambattista-Langetti.jpg) Cato's suicide by Giambattista Langetti. Public domain ### Methods and Staging: The “Bath and Veins” Roman Image of a Suicide The bath-and-veins tableau is memorable, but it was never a mandate; no matter how strong the idea of 'Romans dying in a bathtub' is in modern art and cinematography. As aforementioned, Roman texts record multiple methods: opening veins at wrist or ankle (sometimes in a warm bath to speed flow and dull pain),[poisons](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-art-of-poison-in-the-roman-empire/) (the Athenian echo of hemlock), hanging, refusal of food, and falling on the sword. Households often managed the scene: a physician called, the doorway guarded against interruption, the place chosen for clarity and control. For elites, a “good death” emphasized composure and intention as much as mechanism, so that witnesses could understand and later report without confusion. Behind the staging stood law and property. A controlled death before sentence could protect heirs and reputation; a public execution risked loss and disgrace. Administrators sometimes preferred a quiet resolution: it calmed crowds and closed files. The warm bath survives because it visualizes those values—neatness, resolve, ritual—rather than because a single script governed the culture. The image endures because it carries more than technique: it carries an ethic of ending without disorder. When set beside other exits—starvation under guard, a blade in the dark, [poison at table](https://romanempiretimes.com/locusta-of-gaul-the-imperial-poisoner-of-ancient-rome/)—the bath says less about a required method and more about how a household made the end readable to those who had to live with it. (*Philosophy, Cato, and Roman Suicide: I & II, by Miriam Griffin; The Philosopher Seneca on Suicide, by Willy Evenepoel*) ![Seneca committing suicide with his foot in a bath](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Seneca-committing-suicide-with-his-foot-in-a-bath.jpg) Seneca committing suicide with his foot in a bath. Credits: Wellcome Collection, CC BY 4.0 ### Laughter on Stage: Suicide in Roman Comedy Self-killing was also a comic device. In Plautus and Terence, the amator—a lovesick youth—threatens to die if frustrated in love. He never does. The joke turns on genre contrast: audiences trained on tragic and political self-sacrifice watch a private fop borrow grand language for trivial ends. Gender codes sharpen the gag; swaggering men appropriate heroic death-talk and fail to deliver, while others in the cast puncture the pose. The theater makes a dangerous vocabulary safe by staging it as posturing. Comedy also reveals how Romans imagined audiences for dying. In tragedy and history, witnessing a “good death” instructs; in comedy, witnessing an empty threat corrects. Both presume the publicness of dying matters. In a society that valued performance at the brink, the same gestures carried different meanings according to stage, stakes, and reception. The laugh, in other words, belongs to the same culture that could also watch a composed end with reverence. (*Genre, Gender, and Suicide Threats in Roman Comedy, by Dorota Dutsch*) ![Pierre Mignard I's painting, The Suicide of Porcia, who according to legend, swallowed hot coals (scholars believe she died of carbon monoxide poisoning, from the fumes)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Pierre-Mignard-I-s-painting--The-Suicide-of-Porcia--who-according-to-legend--swallowed-hot-coals--scholars-believe-she-died-of-carbon-monoxide-poisoning--from-the-fumes-.jpg) Pierre Mignard I's painting, The Suicide of Porcia, who according to legend, swallowed hot coals (scholars believe she died of carbon monoxide poisoning, from the fumes). Public domain ### Afterlives: From Roman Calibrations to Later Prohibitions By the imperial period, practice and law graded exits by context—approving some, tolerating others, condemning many. Over late antiquity and the medieval centuries, Christian moral theology recast voluntary death as sin, and the modern noun “suicide” entered European languages with those assumptions attached. The vocabulary hardened; the spectrum narrowed. Modern debates continue to cite Roman cases, but they argue on premises—legal, medical, and philosophical—that belong to later centuries, not to Rome’s civic code. What remains distinctive is the plural grammar of judgment. Rome offers no single doctrine, only patterned questions. What does this act do to the household? What does it do to the city? Can life still be lived in accordance with reason? Answers turned less on how one died than on why, when, and with what consequences. That is why both Cato’s blade and the warm bath entered classrooms: one taught about conscience under power; the other about composure under sentence. Each made the end speak beyond itself. (*Autonomy, Rationality and the Wish to Die, by David M. Clarke; On Suicide, by Georgia Noon*) --- 🫱 **If you’re in the US, you can reach the* ***National Suicide Prevention Lifeline** *by calling or texting* ***988** *, chatting via* [**988lifeline.org*](https://988lifeline.org/?ref=romanempiretimes.com)**, or texting* ***HOME** *to* ***741741** *to speak with a crisis counselor. In the* ***UK and Ireland** *, you can contact* ***Samaritans** *at* ***116 123** *(freephone) or email* ***jo@samaritans.org** */* ***jo@samaritans.ie** *. In* ***Australia** *, support is available through* ***Lifeline** *at* ***13 11 14** *. For other countries, visit* [**befrienders.org*](https://befrienders.org/?ref=romanempiretimes.com) *to find international helplines.* ### This Surprising Roman Theme Spawned 300+ Paintings — Here’s Why Artists Couldn’t Quit It URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/this-surprising-theme-spawned-300-paintings-heres-why-artists-couldnt-quit-it-roman-charity-caritas/ Last updated: 2025-10-23T20:28:42.000Z Roman Charity is the name early modern Europe gave to a short Roman tale with a very long afterlife: a daughter secretly breastfeeds a parent condemned to starve in prison. The gesture saves a life and, in the eyes of moralists, redeems a lineage. Painters, sculptors, and printmakers made the scene one of their most repeated problems—not merely because it could be staged with potent light and intertwined bodies, but because it sat at the crossroads of politics, theology, and desire. In the following pages, we trace the story’s origins, its explosive popularity, and the many ways artists pushed the image to do moral, devotional, and even dissident work within early modern Europe. ![A French or Spanish school painting from an unknown artist of the Roman Charity](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/A-French-or-Spanish-school-painting-from-an-unknown-artist-of-the-Roman-Charity.jpg) A French or Spanish school painting from an unknown artist of the Roman Charity ## Origins: From Roman Exemplum to Greek Precursors The best-known source is [Valerius Maximus](https://romanempiretimes.com/valerius-maximus-the-collector-of-roman-virtue-and-vice/)’s [*Memorable Doings and Sayings*](https://amzn.to/4ningqE?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (written under [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/)), which preserves two paired anecdotes of “filial piety.” In one, a woman—later called Pero—nurses her imprisoned father Cimon; in the other, a daughter sustains her mother the same way. Already in antiquity these acts were read as models of *pietas*. Later authors fold them into civic memory: [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-the-author-of-the-worlds-first-encyclopaedia-was-roman/) recalls a column dedicated to the daughter who nursed her mother; the lexicographer Festus explains “piety” with the example of a woman secretly breastfeeding her father, and notes the goddess Pietas herself. Around these moral exempla hovered a wider ancient vocabulary of lactation: nursing [deities](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) and *kourotrophoi* in the [Greek world](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/), for whom the breast signified nurture, elevation, and—often—divine favor. In short, long before the Renaissance, a daughter’s milk could be imagined as the stuff of civic virtue and sacred power. ![A fresco in Pompeii showcasing Cimon and Pero, a depiction of the Roman Charity from Ancient Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/A-fresco-in-Pompeii-showcasing-Cimon-and-Pero--a-depiction-of-the-Roman-Charity-from-Ancient-Rome.jpg) A fresco in Pompeii showcasing Cimon and Pero, a depiction of the Roman Charity from Ancient Rome ## What the Story Meant: Piety, Charity, and the Politics of Kinship When the tale resurfaced in the later Middle Ages and Renaissance, its meanings braided with Christian *caritas*. In theology and civic art alike, charity is both love of God (*amor Dei*) and love of neighbor (*amor proximi*). Venetian patrons, confraternities, and civic authorities made the virtue conspicuous: Charity appears as a maternal feeder of infants, as a giver of bread, and—crucially for our story—as enacted mercy in narrative scenes. Sixteenth-century artists increasingly dramatized the virtue rather than simply personifying it, embedding Charity into Last Suppers and façade programs. That shift matters for Roman Charity: the prison feeding could now register both as a corporal work of mercy (feeding the hungry) and as a meditation on the theological virtue itself—on love circulated among kin and, by extension, among citizens. The Counter-Reformation emphasis on good works sharpened this narrative drive; confraternal patrons wanted images that taught charity by showing it, not merely by symbol. ![Willem Drost's painting of Cimon and Pero, depicting the Roman Charity theme](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Willem-Drost-s-painting-of-Cimon-and-Pero--depicting-the-Roman-Charity-theme.jpg) Willem Drost's painting of Cimon and Pero, depicting the Roman Charity theme ## Why So Many Roman Charity Paintings? The Early Modern Boom From roughly 1550 to 1700 the motif explodes. More than three hundred Roman Charity images survive in collections worldwide—on canvases and panels, in prints and medals, on *maiolica*, even on pharmaceutical jars. The reasons are as practical as they are intellectual: 1. First, the composition is compact, theatrically lit, and studio-friendly. A shackled elder, a barred window, and a daughter’s body angled toward the mouth produce a tableau that obeys Baroque optics: close values, firm chiaroscuro, and the mental “click” of recognition. The subject could be scaled for cabinets or solemnized for chapels; it could sit inside a larger program on the virtues or anchor an altarpiece about mercy. 2. Second, the scene’s semantic flexibility rewarded both painter and patron. Was this a daughter’s heroic *pietas*, an allegory of Charity, a political parable about rehabilitating guilty fathers, or a staged transgression that tested the viewer’s own gaze? Roman Charity could be all of these—sometimes at once. That multivalence was useful in a Europe negotiating confession, social hierarchy, and a newly public culture of relief. 3. Finally, the motif arrived just as the “age of milk” gave the breast unusual discursive weight. Medical and devotional texts praised women’s milk as remedy and grace; mystics imagined nursing from the Virgin; courts argued over wet-nursing and maternal duty. Into that climate, the prison feeding of a parent could read as both orthodox mercy and a queering of kinship. Small wonder viewers could encounter the subject on a drug jar as easily as on a painted panel. ![Roman Charity, a painting by Hendrick ter Brugghen, from the MET Museum, the artwork hints of the danger of the act lurking in the dark above the daughter](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Roman-Charity--a-painting-by-Hendrick-ter-Brugghen--from-the-MET-Museum--the-artwork-hints-of-the-danger-of-the-act-lurking-in-the-dark-above-the-daughter.jpg) Roman Charity, a painting by Hendrick ter Brugghen, from the MET Museum, the artwork hints of the danger of the act lurking in the dark above the daughter ## Between Piety and Desire: How Artists Tuned the Scene Across the corpus, the same ingredients—the barred window, a shackled elder, a young woman turning her body—yield radically different effects. Some images court prayerful awe; others tip toward transgression; many sit on the knife-edge, asking the viewer to decide where mercy ends and desire begins. What follows maps the most persistent strategies painters and printmakers used to “tune” the motif. 1. **The stage: cell interior vs. prison grille.** Two basic theaters dominate. In the **interior** type, we are inside the cell: wall presses against wall; light is raked and local; the bodies fill the frame. Proximity is the point—our eyes, like the daughter’s, close the distance. Northern engravers and cabinet-scale Italian panels favored this intimacy. In the **grille** type, the exchange is staged at a window or doorway; the father’s head juts through bars while the daughter leans from outside. The barrier enforces decorum—contact occurs “properly” across a threshold—and the artist wins a bonus geometry (vertical bars, a horizontal sill) that stiffens the composition. Workshop practice often toggled between these options, selling the same narrative to different patrons: devout confraternities tended to purchase the grille variant; private collectors, the interior. 2. **The moment: before, during, after.** Artists also choose the **instant**. “Before” scenes set the drama in suspended intention: the daughter loosens her bodice, a shawl is gathered, the old man’s hand trembles toward her. The viewer completes the act in imagination. “During” scenes, rarer and riskier, lock our gaze on the latch of lips and nipple; the moral pay-off (feeding the hungry) is literal, but so is the charge of looking. “After” scenes flood relief through gesture—the daughter refastens her gown, the father’s eyes close, a cup or cloth wipes the mouth. Painters sensitive to Counter-Reformation decorum often favored the “before/after” brackets; printmakers, shielded by scale and price point, explored “during.” ![Cimon and Pero, or Roman Charity, by Luca Giordano, depicting a different angle of the lactation theme](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Cimon-and-Pero--or-Roman-Charity--by-Luca-Giordano.jpg) Cimon and Pero, or Roman Charity, by Luca Giordano, depicting a different angle of the lactation theme 1. **The gaze triangle.** Where do eyes land? A pious solution keeps glances **downward**: the father’s eyes are closed or cast to the side; the daughter’s face is turned away, lids lowered in modesty. A more theatrical solution triangulates glances: father—breast—viewer. In some small-master prints, the daughter looks **out** of the picture, catching the viewer mid-look. That stare performs two tasks at once: it shames the voyeur (you are seen) and it solicits complicity (you are trusted to keep the secret). In rubric terms, the painting becomes a moral test—do you avert your eyes, or help her shield the act? 2. **Fear of discovery.** Many variants insert a **third presence** whose body is only partly shown: a guard’s shadow, a key turned at a door, a foot on a stair. The fear is choreographed by props—chains, ring-bolts, iron locks—but above all by lighting. A thin wedge of white across the threshold is enough to tell the story: mercy happens under threat. A hand to the lips (the classic sign of silence) appears in several engravings; shawls hover, neither on nor off, so that modesty is both performed and breached. ![François-Xavier Fabre's version of Cimon and Pero, or the Roman Charity](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Fran--ois-Xavier-Fabre-s-version-of-Cimon-and-Pero--or-the-Roman-Charity.jpg) François-Xavier Fabre's version of Cimon and Pero, or the Roman Charity 1. **The semantics of cloth.** Costume codes message. A **sumptuously dressed** Pero (silk sleeve, jeweled bodice) can signal the family’s standing and the daughter’s agency—she risks assets as well as honor. A **plainly dressed** Pero in workaday linen can purify the act, aligning it with the poor relief that confraternities claimed. Painters play these codes against skin: matte fabrics thrown over porous stone make the exposed breast even **whiter**; velvet or satin cupped at the edge of the areola sharpens the moment of unveiling. A common device is the **half-veil**: the gown is opened just enough to feed and no more, reminding the viewer that what mercy reveals, mercy also hides. 2. **Hands that tell the truth.** Even when faces are idealized, **hands** betray what the scene means. The daughter’s near hand steadies the father’s head, fingers learning a nurse’s craft. The far hand manages the gown; in more eroticized treatments, the thumb knowingly presses the breast from below. The father’s left hand, when not shackled, quivers in gratitude or clutches at the bar; in bolder pictures, it grazes the daughter’s shoulder, collapsing distance further. Carvers of small plaquettes loved this choreography: thumbs, knuckles, the knotted tendons of age, and the tensile calm of youth. ![Lorenzo Pasinelli's Roman Charity](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Lorenzo-Pasinelli-s-Roman-Charity.jpg) Lorenzo Pasinelli's Roman Charity 1. **Props that preach (or tempt).** Artists salt the set with things that tilt the reading. A **rosary** looped at the wrist sanctifies touch; a **ledger** or petition on the sill turns the act into a plea for clemency; a **loaf** or **flagon** in the background folds the scene into the broader “works of mercy” (feeding, giving drink). Conversely, a **mirror** or **jewel** placed too prominently can edge the act toward vanity. Even masonry speaks: a classical pilaster and clean ashlar say “antique exemplum,” while rough, damp walls say “contemporary prison”—a time-fold that keeps the story pointed at the viewer’s present. 2. **Age, likeness, and discomfort.** Painters tweak ages to manage the incestuous charge. Some make the father extremely **old**—a bald, edentulous elder whose child-likeness erases sexual rivalry and turns feeding into pure charity. Others bring him into **late middle age**, with grey at the temples and a still-strong jaw; the closer he comes to erotic viability, the more the composition must work to keep the scene pious (more bars, more cloth, more downward eyes). Family **likeness**—echoed noses, shared cheekbones—can either reassure (this is kin) or intensify the taboo (this is **too** clearly kin). Workshop variants often calibrate these dials for different buyers. ![Roman Charity, a painting by Mellin Louvre](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Roman-Charity--a-painting-by-Mellin-Louvre.jpg) Roman Charity, a painting by Mellin Louvre 1. **Allegory vs. anecdote.** Some patrons asked for **allegory**: the daughter stands as **Caritas** itself; the father as **Humanity** or **Cimon** as every sinner. These pictures use attributes (flame, heart, cornucopia) and putative inscriptions to “translate” the act. Others insist on **anecdote**: no attributes, only the prison and the pair. Between the two lies a vast middle, in which an overtly narrative scene borrows allegorical **gravitas** (architectural classicism, ideal proportions) while keeping the pulse of story. 2. **North and South, line and mass.** Geography matters to **touch**. Northern workshops—print-led and enamored of the small—love the **linear**: hatched shadows, needlelight, and tight contours that clap the bodies together like puzzle-pieces. Italian shops, raised on large altarpieces and drawing schools, prefer **mass**: volumes press and release; space is sculpted by chiaroscuro rather than crosshatch. Both rhetorics can serve piety or prurience; both can stage fear or tenderness. What they share is a faith in **close looking**—the viewer’s learned eye becomes the moralizing engine. ![Cimon and Pero, or commonly known as Roman Charity, a painting by Francesco del Cairo, from the Finnish National Gallery](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Cimon-and-Pero--or-commonly-known-as-Roman-Charity--a-painting-by-Francesco-del-Cairo--from-the-Finnish-National-Gallery.jpg) Cimon and Pero, or commonly known as Roman Charity, a painting by Francesco del Cairo, from the Finnish National Gallery 1. **Market logic: repetition with a difference.** Because the composition is compact and highly legible, it lent itself to **series** and **workshop repeats**. Printmakers broadcast “templates” that painters then enlarged, softened, or rehung in color. A successful sheet could be mined for a decade; collectors learned to enjoy spotting echoes and departures. This economy of repetition explains the “hundreds” without reducing artists to copyists: each tweak—cloth gathered, gaze redirected, bar inserted—retools the ethical weather of the room. 2. **Rubens as a case study in calibration.** Few artists demonstrate the motif’s range better than **Peter Paul Rubens**, who returned to Roman Charity multiple times and whose studio generated variants for different contexts. One celebrated canvas—publicized in postwar London with a detailed accounting of engravings and provenance—presents Cimon under a heavy **green drape** and Pero in **fierce red**, the pair locked in lamplight against a block of masonry. Look at what the painting **chooses**: the “during” moment, but with eyes shaded; a fabric edge that frames but does not display; a third-space of shadow where a guard might be. Even in market notices contemporaries sensed how canonical the subject had become by the 1620s, and how a star workshop could **adjust moral temperature** for altar, palace, or cabinet. ![One of the many paintings of Peter Paul Rubens, depicting Cimon and Pero, the theme of Roman Charity](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/One-of-the-many-paintings-of-Peter-Paul-Rubens--depicting-Cimon-and-Pero--the-theme-of-Roman-Charity.jpg) One of the many paintings of Peter Paul Rubens, depicting Cimon and Pero, the theme of Roman Charity 1. **Pious modesty vs. charged transgression—why both survive.** It would be easy to divide the corpus into “edifying” and “erotic,” but the endurance of the motif lies in works that resist that binary. Painters discovered that **modesty itself** could be thrilling—the held breath before a knock at the door; the mercy that must be hidden to remain pure. Conversely, overtly charged pictures smuggle in mercy by making the old man pitiable enough that the breast seems, paradoxically, less sexual **because** it is so psychologically necessary. That unstable mix proved irresistible to patrons who wanted images that taught **and** tested, moved **and** unsettled. Roman Charity thrived where it refused to settle, and the best artists learned to keep it unsettled on purpose. 2. **What viewers learned to see.** The motif taught an early modern public to read **gesture** and **light** as moral arguments. A turned wrist could redeem a bare breast; a strip of shadow across an eye could convert erotic proximity into fearful obedience; a single bar, drawn a finger’s width closer to the foreground, could convert scandal into sacrament. That literacy—practiced in churches, guildhalls, and corridors—helped European viewers make sense of a culture where images were asked to do a great deal: to instruct, to plead, to comfort, to warn, to entertain, and to sell. In short, “Roman Charity” is not one picture but a **grammar** of pictures—choices about place and moment, gaze and cloth, threat and relief—through which early modern artists turned a brief Roman anecdote into one of Europe’s most elastic moral theaters. ![Another painting of Peter Paul Rubens, depicting Cimon and Pero, the theme of Roman Charity](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Another-painting-of-Peter-Paul-Rubens--depicting-Cimon-and-Pero--the-theme-of-Roman-Charity.jpg) Another painting of Peter Paul Rubens, depicting Cimon and Pero, the theme of Roman Charity ## The *Caravaggesque* Shock — and What Followed The turning point is Caravaggio. In 1606 he threaded Roman Charity through his Neapolitan altarpiece, *The Seven Works of Mercy* (*Sette opere di misericordia*). At a street-corner theater of aid—feeding, clothing, sheltering, burying—the old man’s head juts through prison bars to nurse from a woman who bends toward him. Early descriptions notice the vignette at once. The move mattered: Caravaggio dragged the anecdote out of the “private” cell and into the traffic of urban mercy, collapsing personal sustenance into public charity. His followers responded en masse. Caravaggisti across Italy and the North—Manfredi, Honthorst, van Baburen, Vouet, Lo Spadarino, and others—painted Roman Charity alongside hallmark Petrine subjects; meanwhile Rubens and Guido Reni, who briefly flirted with Caravaggism, produced their own versions starting around 1612\. The chain reaction shows how the motif served as a live wire for experiments in tenebrist light, close-up bodies, and morally fraught staging. Caravaggio’s pairing of the nursing scene with Petrine themes prompted deeper readings. Viewers noticed a family resemblance between the suckling father and Caravaggio’s Saint Peter—a visual echo thick with irony in a post-Tridentine culture wrestling with papal authority, repentance, and grace. Patrons doubled down on the dialogue, commissioning and hanging altarpieces so that Peter’s angel-led liberation faced the nursing of Cimon, as at the Pio Monte where Battistello Caracciolo’s *Liberation of Saint Peter* enters into a programmed conversation with Caravaggio’s altarpiece. The suggestion is sharp: in both canvases, release comes not primarily from contrition but through intervention—angelic in one case, a daughter’s breast in the other. Roman Charity thus worked as a figure of dissent within Counter-Reformation decorum, softening the terms of guilt and rehabilitation by staging salvation as nourishment. ![Caravaggio's painting, The Seven Works of Mercy, containing the Roman Charity scene on the bottom right](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Caravaggio-s-painting--The-Seven-Works-of-Mercy--containing-the-Roman-Charity-scene-on-the-bottom-right.jpg) Caravaggio's painting, The Seven Works of Mercy, containing the Roman Charity scene on the bottom right ## Afterlives and Objections: Medicine, Morals, and the End of Roman Charity Roman Charity’s reach rests on more than painterly fashion. It sits at the hinge of discourses that early modern people cared about: who nourishes whom (kinship and law), how mercy should be staged (devotion and politics), what a breast is “for” (theology and medicine), and where eroticism begins (ethics and censorship). ## That is why the image could travel—without losing its charge—from court and confraternity to private cabinet. The medical backdrop mattered. Ancient authors such as Dioscorides praised human milk for lung disease, ulcers, eye problems, and gout—especially when taken “directly from the breast.” Renaissance writers updated the file. Marsilio Ficino theorized rejuvenation through young women’s blood and milk; physicians like Geronimo Acoromboni prescribed extended milk cures to notable patients (Cardinal Pietro Bembo among them). Reports of adult breast-feeding practices—some devotional, some therapeutic—crawled across letters, sermons, and plays. The most notorious anecdote has Pope Innocent VIII ingesting boys’ blood and then turning to a wet-nurse in his last days; even if retold in hostile tones, the episode shows how intelligible “adult milk” was in elite culture. In that world, the prison feeding of a parent is an extreme of a broader possibility set, not a lone monstrosity. At the same time, the image always provoked unease. Early modern languages preserve a difference between infant “milking” and adult “breasting,” a sign that communities policed meanings at the very word level. Satirists took aim; preachers warned; and artists learned to place modesty props and narrative buffers—bars, shawls, turned heads—to limit voyeurism without erasing contact. And yet the corpus kept growing. The sheer scale—more than three hundred extant examples across media and regions—reminds us that viewers found the picture “good to think with.” ![The Caritas Romana (Roman Charity), as painted by Georg Pencz, with the piercing look of the daughter shedding a different interaction between the painting and the audience](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/The-Caritas-Romana--Roman-Charity---as-painted-by-Georg-Pencz--with-the-piercing-look-of-the-daughter-shedding-a-different-interaction-between-the-painting-and-the-audience.jpg) The Caritas Romana (Roman Charity), as painted by Georg Pencz, with the piercing look of the daughter shedding a different interaction between the painting and the audience They could use it to consider the economy of salvation (Is mercy a gift that rehabilitates the undeserving?), to test political allegory (Is the father a figure of patriarchal power that must be sustained yet reformed?), and to rehearse the theater of compassion. By the later eighteenth century, a new domestic regime and a new medical chemistry altered the image’s reception. As maternal exclusivity hardened—wet-nursing condemned, foundling hospitals contested, formulae and bovine substitutes debated—the idea of milk circulating beyond the mother-infant dyad became suspect. The motif’s intelligibility waned. Rousseau cast exclusive maternal nursing as moral restoration; bourgeois privacy narrowed symbolic bandwidth; Roman Charity retreated to footnotes, storerooms, and specialized taste. ([*Roman Charity: Queer Lactations in Early Modern Visual Culture*](https://amzn.to/4qjE5UN?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Jutta Gisela Sperling*) --- In truth, its afterlife continues in quotations, refusals, and revisions—from anti-Roman Charity cartoons to contemporary queer re-stagings that press on the image’s old fissures. If the tale still startles, it is because its drama is unresolved: a daughter’s body rescues her father’s name; an old order survives by a new gift; **“charity” disturbs the very kinship it claims to restore**. ### Nero Unmasked: The Fire, the Fame, and the Fury of Rome’s Most Infamous Ruler (Part 2) URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-rome-most-infamous-ruler-part-2/ Last updated: 2025-10-22T21:29:03.000Z History remembers Nero as both emperor and spectacle—the ruler who blurred the line between power and performance. His life played out like a tragedy written by his own hand: myth turned into policy, theater into rule. From the burning of Rome to the final hours of his flight, he shaped every scene to control his image, even as that image devoured him. The Second Part of his story follows the emperor’s descent from divine actor to doomed fugitive, tracing the collapse of a dynasty and the rise of a legend that refused to die. [Nero Unmasked: The Fire, the Fame, and the Fury of Rome’s Most Infamous Ruler (Part 1)Nero’s legend was forged as much by writers as by deeds. Between art and atrocity, he cast himself as performer-emperor, rebuilt Rome in spectacle and stone, and left a trail of verses, scandals, and lampoons—until the line between ruler and stage all but vanished.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/icon/Screenshot-2023-10-05-at-22.54.45-1-39.png)Roman Empire TimesChristina Athanasiou![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/thumbnail/Jan-Styka-s-painting-of-Nero-at-Baiae.jpg)](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-romes-most-infamous-ruler-part-1/) ### The Myth and Theatre of Nero Nero’s life has come down to us as a catalogue of excess and atrocity. Emperor of Rome from 54 to 68 CE, he is remembered for murdering his mother, “fiddling while Rome burned,” and for an endless sequence of crimes that blur into myth. He killed or ordered the deaths of most of his family: a mother strangled, a pregnant wife kicked to death, stepsisters executed, a stepbrother murdered. He married two freedmen—one after castrating him—and raped a [Vestal Virgin](https://romanempiretimes.com/vestal-virgins-keepers-of-romes-eternal-flame-and-protectors-of-the-state/). He melted the sacred household gods of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) for profit, and after the [Great Fire](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) of 64 CE, erected his glittering palace, the Domus Aurea, over the ashes of the city. He blamed the fire on Christians, lighting them as human torches in his gardens. He sang, raced, and acted across the empire, winning every contest he entered—even when he fell from his chariot. By thirty, despised by the elite, abandoned by the army, and pursued by rebellion, Nero took his own life, sealing his place among history’s monsters. And yet, even monsters can be beloved. The same emperor who horrified senators and Christians inspired loyalty among the people. Those who controlled the written record—the elite and the early Church—shaped Nero’s reputation. To senators, he became the archetype of tyranny, a warning against the corruption of power; to Christians, he was the Beast of Revelation, the Antichrist himself. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Bust-of-Nero-at-the-Capitoline-Museum--Rome--restored-in-the-17th-century.jpg) ## Yet another, stranger legend spread in the East: that Nero had not died at all, but escaped to await his return. **Bust of Nero at the Capitoline Museum, Rome, restored in the 17th century. Credits: cjh1452000, CC BY-SA 3.0* In these tales, he was not the destroyer of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/), but its redeemer, the hero who would one day reappear to avenge his people. Centuries later, even Augustine remarked on the enduring belief that Nero still lived. In Jewish tradition, some imagined him converting to righteousness, while Christian rumor painted him as one who listened to Christ himself. Three impostors claiming to be Nero would arise in later years, one almost sparking war with Parthia. His death, it seemed, did not kill his myth. As one ancient observer put it, “Everyone wants him to come back.” Outside court circles, Nero was a paradox—reviled by elites, adored by crowds. He was, quite literally, a popular monster. The two crimes that define him—the murder of his mother and the burning of Rome—stand at the center of this mythology. The first is certain; the second, possible. He may well have started the Great Fire. But within the hostility of our surviving sources lies a question: did Nero’s own people see him as monstrous? Or did they applaud what others condemned? His power rested not merely on brutality but on performance—on an understanding of myth and spectacle that transcended politics. ![Henryk Siemiradzki's painting, Nero's torches](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Henryk-Siemiradzki-s-painting--Nero-s-torches.jpg) Henryk Siemiradzki's painting, Nero's torches. Public domain ### The Emperor as Actor and God Two great forces shaped Roman public life and reveal much about Nero’s world: the power of myth and the theatricality of rule. Myths of [gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) and heroes were the shared language of [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), recognizable to all, from [coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) and statues to plays and epic [poetry](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/). Great men cast themselves in the image of legendary figures—[Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/) as Hercules, [Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/) as Dionysus, [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) as Apollo, bringer of peace and the new Golden Age. Politics became theatre; theatre became politics. The masses, anonymous within the circus or amphitheater, learned to read their rulers through these performances. The stage was a mirror of power, and the ruler its central actor. Nero took this fusion further than anyone before him. After the death of his mother in 59 CE, he abandoned imperial dignity and openly embraced the role of performer. As Cassius Dio recounts, Nero appeared: > “in the guise of a runaway slave, a blind man, a madman, even a pregnant woman in labor,” his favorite roles being Oedipus, Thyestes, Heracles, Alcmaeon, and Orestes. The masks he wore were sometimes molded on his own face, sometimes on that of his dead wife, Poppaea Sabina. In blurring art and reality, Nero invited his people to see him both as actor and god. The crowd, Dio notes, “witnessed, endured, and approved,” as did the soldiers. To Roman eyes, steeped in myth and accustomed to symbolism, Nero’s self-identification with tragic heroes could not have been accidental. When he performed as Orestes or Oedipus, he was rewriting his crimes as mythic destiny. ![John William Waterhouse's painting, The Remorse of Nero After the Murder of His Mother](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/John-William-Waterhouse-s-painting--The-Remorse-of-Nero-After-the-Murder-of-His-Mother.jpg) John William Waterhouse's painting, The Remorse of Nero After the Murder of His Mother. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times The murder of Agrippina, his mother, was real enough. Tacitus describes it with cinematic precision: the calm night on the Bay of Naples, the treacherous ship, Agrippina swimming for her life, and finally her killers striking her down at her command—“*Strike my belly.*” Afterward, Nero claimed self-defense, alleging that Agrippina had plotted against him and sought to rule in his stead. He neither denied the crime nor hid it. Instead, he transformed it into theater. By taking the stage as Orestes, the son fated to slay his mother, he cast himself as the hero of justice, not the villain of impiety. Orestes had avenged his father’s death and freed his city from a woman’s tyranny. Nero’s propaganda echoed the same theme: Agrippina had overstepped the bounds of motherhood, sought imperial power, and paid the price. His guilt became divinely ordained necessity. Nero’s self-mythologizing extended beyond Orestes. He also performed as Alcmaeon, another tragic matricide haunted by the Furies, and as Oedipus—the son who unwittingly married his mother. The Romans whispered that Agrippina had offered herself to her son to maintain power, and that he had not resisted. Whether true or not, the rumors fed the symbolism. To “conquer one’s mother,” in ancient dream lore, was to conquer one’s homeland. [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) himself had dreamt of lying with his mother on the eve of crossing the Rubicon. Nero’s stage Oedipus thus became more than incest—it was a metaphor for dominion, for seizing the world-mother, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/incense-in-ancient-rome-smoke-ritual-and-power/), and ruling it absolutely. By invoking both Orestes and Oedipus, Nero merged vengeance, desire, and sovereignty into one mythic identity: the son who must sin to rule. This theatrical rewriting of history also shaped the story of Poppaea Sabina, the wife he was said to have killed in a fit of rage. Tradition holds that he struck her fatally while she was pregnant, then embalmed her body with perfumes, buried her in Augustus’ mausoleum, and declared her a goddess. He later took a boy who resembled her, castrated and married him, calling him Sabina. ![Nero ordering the Murder of his Mother, a painting by Noël Coypel](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Nero-ordering-the-Murder-of-his-Mother--a-painting-by-No--l-Coypel.jpg) Nero ordering the Murder of his Mother, a painting by Noël Coypel. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times When he performed female roles, he wore masks molded on her face. Among these was Canace, the incestuous daughter of Aeolus who kills herself after childbirth. In that role Nero sang of: > “a mother and her baby killed at the same time, and sharing the same grave.” The audience, hearing the lament through a mask of Poppaea, could not miss the resonance. Other roles deepened the myth: Heracles driven mad, slaying his wife and children, then awakening in chains to the horror of his deeds. Nero performed this scene “bound by chains of gold,” turning divine madness into absolution. His cruelty became a kind of tragic necessity, his crimes the burden of a hero tormented by the gods. The echoes ran deeper still. His life imitated Periander of Corinth, the legendary Greek tyrant who had slept with his mother, killed his pregnant wife with a kick, mourned her extravagantly, and sought to cut a canal through the Isthmus—a project Nero himself revived a century later. The pattern was unmistakable: myth became image, and image became history. The man behind the mask may not have lived the tales told of him, but he used them brilliantly to recast his reign. Through the language of theater and myth, Nero transformed scandal into story, crime into symbol, and himself into legend. ![Poppea and Nero Have the Head of Octavia Brought Forward to Them, a painting by Giovanni Muzzioli](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Poppea-and-Nero-Have-the-Head-of-Octavia-Brought-Forward-to-Them--a-painting-by-Giovanni-Muzzioli.jpg) Poppea and Nero Have the Head of Octavia Brought Forward to Them, a painting by Giovanni Muzzioli. Credits: Bardazzi/Museo Civico di Modena, CC BY-SA 3.0 ### Fire, Sun, and the Golden House When the Great Fire erupted on the night of July 18–19, 64 CE, the city burned for nine days, destroying most of its regions. Nero returned from Antium and took command of relief, opening gardens to refugees and initiating reconstruction under a stricter building code. He organized offerings to appease the gods and sought a cause for divine anger. Soon, accusations fell upon a new and suspicious sect—a people “hated for their abominations” who foretold the world’s fiery end. Thus began another chapter in Nero’s legend: the persecution of the [Christians](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/), and the birth of one of history’s darkest myths. Rumor undercut relief. Whispers spread that agents had set the blaze so the city could rise as “Neropolis,” with soldiers preventing bucket lines or even feeding the flames. While families still camped in makeshift shelters, building began on the vast palace at the city’s heart—the Golden House. Another tale insisted that as Rome burned the emperor stepped onto a palace stage—perhaps even the roof for the best view—dressed as a lyre-player, and, enchanted by the spectacle, sang of Troy’s destruction. (The “fiddle” detail belongs to a much later English fancy, and misleads: the crucial motif is Troy. Once again Roman history begins in Greek myth.) ![Henri-Paul Motte's painting of a Roman emperor (Nero) being carried in a palanquin into the prison of an arena and looking at the (possibly Christian) prisoners](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Henri-Paul-Motte-s-painting-of-a-Roman-emperor--Nero--being-carried-in-a-palanquin-into-the-prison-of-an-arena-and-looking-at-the-prisoners.jpg) Henri-Paul Motte's painting of a Roman emperor (Nero) being carried in a palanquin into the prison of an arena and looking at the (possibly Christian) prisoners. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times Whether he ordered the fire remains argued, but he exploited the aftermath. Christians took the blame. In the short term, a forceful action against an unpopular sect likely seemed prudent. One famous non-Christian account lays out who they were—“a most mischievous superstition”—and how punishment fell. > “Mockeries were added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as nightly illumination, when daylight expired. > > Nero had offered his gardens for the spectacle, and he put on a show in the circus \[there\], while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood in a racing chariot.” Public execution at Rome was always theatre, and in this age it became spectacle. Three penalties—beasts, crucifixion, burning—matched charges of arson and impiety; but the “mockeries” show something more: fatal charades, mythic scenes crudely reenacted so that punishment itself became allegory. So women appeared as Dirce, a wicked stepmother torn by a bull; others as the Danaids, brides who slew their husbands. Connoisseurs caught the rebus: Dirce’s bull pointed to the amphitheater of Statilius Taurus; the Danaids evoked Apollo’s portico on the Palatine. Dogs worrying “human beasts” nodded to Diana and the doom of Actaeon; human torches gestured toward the Temple of Luna, “Light of the Night,” its eternal flame now replaced by burning bodies so that the night blazed again. To modern eyes this is grotesque; to Roman audiences, it was a legible code. Myths were messages, staged in blood. Presiding as master of ceremonies, the emperor moved among the crowd on foot or in a [chariot](https://romanempiretimes.com/fury-on-wheels-the-legendary-chariot-races-of-ancient-rome/), dressed like a charioteer. ![Hans Makart's painting, Nero in the Fire of Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Hans-Makart-s-painting--Nero-in-the-Fire-of-Rome.jpg) Hans Makart's painting, Nero in the Fire of Rome. Public domain From 64, a new image rose from the ashes: the Sun King. He became Sol, Helios—radiant, all-seeing, life-giving—and proclaimed a new Golden Age. Coins show the radiate diadem; inscriptions hail “the new Helios, lighting the Greeks”; even images of the Sun grow chubby, suspiciously like the imperial face. The supreme statement was the Colossus before the Golden House, towering 120 feet, the emperor as Sol with a spiked crown, the right hand (so it was said) gripping a whip, the left a globe. The very epithet “colossus” would lend its name to the nearby amphitheater in later days. Sol’s essence is the chariot: the god drives the horses of the sun, and [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/foundations-of-justice-romes-twelve-tables/)’s circuses—cosmos in miniature—were his domains. In 64 the emperor raced publicly for the first time. The solar charioteer stepped into the daylight. The next year “the all-seeing Sun” saved his life: a conspiracy gathered—significantly—at the ancient temple of Sol in the [Circus Maximus](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-circus-maximus-and-why-there-is-nothing-left-of-it/). An awning over the Theater of Pompey in 66 showed him as the charioteer ringed by stars; in 67 he set his Greek victory crowns around the Sun’s obelisk in the[ Circus,](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-circus-maximus-and-why-there-is-nothing-left-of-it/) then raced the course, declaring himself the equal of the god. Why Sol, and why then? Because a new day had dawned. Gold followed fire. A rumor told of Queen Dido’s treasure found in Africa, heaps of unworked gold—the earth itself burgeoning with purity. Panegyrics praised a world that brought forth metal unmixed. In late May 66 came the Golden Day. The emperor crowned Tiridates in a festival so lavish the people themselves named it for the color. The Theater of Pompey glittered: > “the stage of the theater, the walls, everything portable, were all in some way gilded.” An awning shielded the crowd; at its center the emperor drove Sol’s chariot. The New Sun protected onlookers from his own blaze. ![Emperor Nero's portaitt, by Abraham Janssens I](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Emperor-Nero-s-portaitt--by-Abraham-Janssens-I.jpg) Emperor Nero's portaitt, by Abraham Janssens I. Public domain Earlier that morning, at dawn in the Forum, the king bent the knee. White-clad civilians crowded rooftops; soldiers stood in ranks, armor throwing lightning. The ceremony had been postponed once “because of clouds.” The message was precise: the Golden Day would also be the Day of the Sun. The staging would have pleased even the later monarch who shared the title, the Sun King. Architecture made the myth permanent. The Golden House—the Palace of the Sun—rose while the embers still smoldered. Less a house than a country villa planted in the city, it commanded a parkland basin of woods, pastures, fields, beasts, pavilions, and an artificial lake—an entire world in miniature. The palace façade, more than 360 meters long, inlaid with gold and gems, was oriented east-west—the only great public building in Rome aligned so—so that from dawn to dusk the sun washed it in fire. Above its entrance the Colossus stood, Sol-Nero with the world in hand. The intention was overwhelming brightness, a blinding display of cosmic dominion. Criticism came swiftly—cold grandeur amid suffering, prime land swallowed whole—and posterity magnified the scale in retelling. A graffito sneered that one house was taking over the city; later rulers made a point of “giving back” the ground to public use and taught later readers to imagine the palace as a private playground. Yet a contrary view holds that the house and its park were essentially open, a royal landscape shared with the people. The boast that “Rome is one house” had been the emperor’s own—he would treat citizens as intimates, laying on banquets across the city, filling theater, circus, and forum with shows, and welcoming crowds into his home. The Sun was to shine on everyone. ![Banquet in Nero's palace, a scene from Ulpiano Checa y Sanz](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Banquet-in-Nero-s-palace--a-scene-from-Ulpiano-Checa-y-Sanz.jpg) Banquet in Nero's palace, a scene from Ulpiano Checa y Sanz. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times The fascination endures. The monstrous crimes stand, and the condemnations of two millennia remain. But the image that survives is not only the product of enemies; it is the artifact of imperial imagination. What compelled ancient critics was less the deed than the staging—the audacity with which a ruler composed his own myth in the familiar language of gods and heroes. Others before him had practiced this art; many after him—[Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-four-journeys-of-hadrian-the-globetrotter-emperor-of-the-roman-empire/) to [Constantine](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-truly-great-was-emperor-constantine-the-great/)—would do the same with scarcely a murmur. The deeper one reads the Roman code of virtues, archetypes, and allusions, the richer the exchange between ruler and ruled appears. Sources themselves concede the awkward truth: he was popular. One report of his death divides reactions—senators delighted, leading equestrians pleased, “respectable” folk satisfied—but sneers that the plebs, the “scum” of circus and theater, [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) and wastrels, were not. In other words, the vast majority mourned. It was this bond with the multitude—the banquet-goers, the spectators, the ones who read the myths on stage—that grated on aristocratic sensibilities. A modern analogy clarifies the paradox. In folklore, a terror-wielding ruler can remain the “good Tsar,” scourge of traitors, companion of outlaws, mingling incognito with commoners. Impatience, misjudgment, even fatal errors become zeal gone astray; cruelty becomes the strong hand of justice. So too the emperor’s popularity—during life and for centuries after—rested on his manipulation of myth and legend, his talent for turning scandal into symbol and power into performance. One novelist imagined the voice of those who wanted him back. Statues shattered, names erased, heads replaced—yet none of it killed the longing. The rogue senator in that story puts it plainly: the world felt “bare and colorless” when he died; those on the hill “tried to steal our Nero,” but could not. For a few years, they banished imagination; with “our Nero,” color returned—enthusiasm, extravagance, everything that makes life worth living. (*Nero Reconsidered, by Edward Champlin*) --- --- The book “[*The Great Fire of Rome: The Fall of the Emperor Nero and His City*](https://amzn.to/4o3JNJ1?ref=romanempiretimes.com),” written by Stephen Dando-Collins, follows two intertwined blazes: the literal inferno that consumed [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/) in AD 64, and the political conflagration it ignited—one that ultimately toppled the house of Caesar. Drawing closely on a wide range of classical sources, it traces Nero’s trajectory alongside the key players whose fates the fire reshaped. The story opens at the very start of AD 64, on New Year’s Day, and unfolds from there. The “Final Curtain” is the last chapter of his book. This book is nonfiction history that reads like a novel. ![From the Workshop of Giulio Romano, Nero Playing while Rome Burns](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/From-the-Workshop-of-Giulio-Romano--Nero-Playing-while-Rome-Burns.jpg) From the Workshop of Giulio Romano, Nero Playing while Rome Burns. Public domain ### Nero’s Flight, Death, and the Shadow That Wouldn’t Die Near midnight, the emperor jolted awake with a sense of dread. Barefoot and still in his sleeping tunic, he slipped out into the villa at the Servilian Gardens and found the place abandoned by his German bodyguards—they had retreated to their barracks inside the Servian Wall and even killed their prefect. He sent for friends lodged nearby; only a few came. Doors he knocked on remained barred and silent. Returning to his room, he discovered that the caretakers had already pilfered his linens and the golden casket that held [Locusta](https://romanempiretimes.com/locusta-of-gaul-the-imperial-poisoner-of-ancient-rome/)’s [poison](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-art-of-poison-in-the-roman-empire/)—now more precious to him than the box itself. He called for Spiculus the [gladiator](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/) or any executioner to end his life. No one came. Spiculus had been cut down in the Forum by a mob that, since the [Senate ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/)and Guard had declared for Galba, roamed the streets smashing the emperor’s statues and hunting his allies. > “What? Have I neither friends nor enemies left?” he cried, running toward the river before his few companions restrained him. > “All I want is a secluded spot where I can hide and collect myself.” A freedman offered a refuge at his [villa](https://romanempiretimes.com/domus-romana-the-roman-villa-of-rabat-malta/), four miles out along the Nomentan-Salarian wedge. The route meant passing the city and the [Praetorian](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/) barracks, but there was no choice. Five horses were found. He belted on two daggers, drew a faded cloak around him, pulled on a farmer’s hat, and held a handkerchief to his mouth to feign illness. ![Carl Theodor von Piloty's painting, Nero on the ruins of Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Carl-Theodor-von-Piloty-s-painting--Nero-on-the-ruins-of-Rome.jpg) Carl Theodor von Piloty's painting, Nero on the ruins of Rome. Public domain With him rode the freedman host, his petitions secretary, the eunuch Sporus, and a servant. They likely crossed the [Tiber](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/) by the bridge that bore his name and threaded the busy streets of the Campus Martius. The warm night shivered with a mild tremor; lightning stitched the sky. Beyond the Nomentan Gate, voices drifted from the barracks wall—guards speaking of what Galba would do once he had his man. Search parties had already turned over the Golden House and arrived too late at the Servilian Gardens. > “Those people are in pursuit of the emperor,” a farmer muttered as carts creaked toward Rome. > “What news of Nero in town?” called another. They did not answer. A roadside corpse startled his horse; he dropped the handkerchief to steady the reins, and a passing farmer—once a Praetorian—caught sight of the rider. “Hail, Caesar!” the veteran blurted, snapping to attention. The cloth went back up; the little group pressed on. They turned down a back lane to the villa, dismounted, and picked their way through brush and briars along a reedy pond. Still barefoot, he had cloaks laid as stepping stones over the thorns. Told to hide in a gravel pit, he refused: > “No, I refuse to go underground before I die.” While others dug through the rear wall, he scooped a sip from the pond. > “This is Nero’s special brew,” he joked. Inside at last, he sank onto a couch. Coarse bread was offered and declined; a cup of water he took gratefully. > “I was still thirsty.” The host slipped back to the city to learn what he could. Time stalled. At length his companions urged him to avoid the “degrading fate” that awaited. He wept, told them to dig a grave and gather wood for a pyre, then murmured to himself: > “Dead? And so great an artist!” Before dawn a messenger arrived with word: the Senate had declared him *hostis* and ordered he be taken alive for punishment “in ancient style.” Uncertain what that meant, he asked. The answer chilled the room: stripped naked, head thrust into a fork, flogged to death with rods. He tested each dagger point on his finger and dropped them. > “The fatal hour has not yet come.” He begged Sporus to mourn him and pressed the others to set an example by dying first. None would. > “This certainly is no credit to Nero, no credit at all,” he muttered, pacing. “ > Come, pull yourself together!” Hoofbeats rattled the front road—Praetorian cavalry. Whether tipped off by the host, the followed runner, or the veteran’s greeting, they were almost at the door. He seized a dagger. > “Help me, Epaphroditus,” he pleaded. He raised the blade to his throat with both hands; his secretary steadied his grip. > “Don’t let them take my head.” On his signal they drove the steel home. A centurion burst in moments later. Blood poured from the torn throat as the officer knelt and pressed his cloak to the wound. > “Too late!” the dying man gasped, eyes bulging. > “Is this your duty?” Was the duty to save him only to consign him to the fork and rods? He was thirty. A rider sped to the city with the news. Some insisted the truth was never fully known. Others told how a freedman of the new ruler refused to allow the head to be taken for display; he said he had seen the body himself and urged a swift cremation intact. The ashes, borne in white porphyry, were laid in the family tomb on the Pincian by a faithful mistress and the nurses of his childhood. For years, flowers appeared there each spring and summer. Statues surfaced on the Rostra; edicts circulated in his name, as though he still lived. The belief that he would return—*Nero redivivus*—endured into the fifth century: he had not died, or he would rise, gather armies in the East, and come back to avenge himself. > “Even now everyone wishes he were still alive, and the great majority do believe that he still is,” one voice of the time observed. In the decades that followed, pretenders with a lyre and a familiar face appeared three times in the East; one nearly drew Parthia into war before being surrendered, the name itself too intoxicating to resist. ![Burrhus, Nero's Tutor, Prostrating Himself before his Sovereign Lord, from Otto Wallgren](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Burrhus--Nero-s-Tutor--Prostrating-Himself-before-his-Sovereign-Lord--from-Otto-Wallgren.jpg) Burrhus, Nero's Tutor, Prostrating Himself before his Sovereign Lord, from Otto Wallgren. Public domain In the purge that followed, loyal freedmen died; others, paradoxically, were protected or later restored. Some who had stood with him were executed not for crimes but for influence. One petitions secretary survived and served for years, only to be struck down in a later reign. The fascination persisted. Writers compiled the fates of those banished or killed under him, and audiences devoured the volumes. Part of the grip lay in the sense of an ending: with his death, the line of the Caesars was broken. He left no heirs. The name would be used, but the dynasty was gone. In that vacuum, rumor paid, and invention flourished; without descendants to defend him, his story became fair game: - **Monstrous?** The murders of his mother and adoptive brother stain the record; some would argue the mother’s vaulting ambition as mitigation, and others would lay Octavia’s death at a rival’s feet. Executions of conspirators are cruelty to some, law to others—everything about the age was cruel. - **Tyranny?** The picture is not simple: an emperor who forbade death in the arena, tolerated lampoons, endured years of insult from a senator-philosopher, and often kicked decisions back to the House. - **Visionary?** Ambitious engineering, once mocked as fantasy, later completed on the same lines; building codes and incentives that made a safer, more ordered city; prosperity before the fire; tax relief that undercut the charge of reckless spending. The burden of rebuilding and the palace that rose with it strained the provinces and fueled anger in Gaul, while misrule in Judea lit rebellion—encouraging a governor in the West to gamble. In truth, his undoing was forged at Rome. Aristocrats scorned the artist on the throne, the provincials and freedmen in office, the pageant of power performed in public. The plot that followed the fire showed how many of rank and sword were ready to try another Ides. Even failure planted a seed. Whispers about oracles and omens spread; a rumor machine turned and turned again. Ambitious men moved. A prefect unseated a rival, bought the Guard, and, perhaps from the night of the first flames, tugged at strings in the dark. The end came quickly: one ruler to the next, a year of chaos, until a soldier-emperor from a new house stabilized the state—and honored, oddly, the memory of the fallen performer. Had there been no fire, the story might have bent another way. Campaigns to Ethiopia and the Caspian could have remade him as conqueror, with years to reign and sons to continue the line. Instead, the blaze of July 19 set the course: the dynasty ended, and with it an era. The world that followed was born **from that night’s flames**. ### Nero Unmasked: The Fire, the Fame, and the Fury of Rome’s Most Infamous Ruler (Part 1) URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-romes-most-infamous-ruler-part-1/ Last updated: 2025-10-22T21:31:49.000Z In the flickering glow of Rome’s burning skyline, one name endures in infamy—Nero. To some, he was a monster who murdered his mother, wife, and rivals; to others, a misunderstood artist trapped inside an emperor’s crown. Between melody and madness, cruelty and creativity, Nero’s reign was a spectacle unlike any other in Roman history. He rebuilt the capital in marble and gold, performed before awestruck crowds, and ruled with a theatrical flair that blurred the line between empire and stage. Yet behind the music lay the echoes of screams, conspiracies, and a dynasty’s ruin. ## Choose your Nero myth The image of [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) that comes down to us depends on which myth one chooses to believe. To some, he was a ruler deeply entwined with literature — the most literary of [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), whose personality inspired creative production. To others, he cast a suffocating shadow over Roman letters, forcing writers to seek refuge in coded expression and veiled critique. In either case, Nero stands as a constant presence in the background of all literary creation of his time. The reason we even speak of “Neronian literature,” as we do of Augustan literature, lies partly in the luck of textual survival and partly in the magnetism of certain emperors. While other reigns — [Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/), [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/), [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-caligula-really-declare-war-on-neptune/) — are not granted literary labels, Nero’s age, vibrant with controversy and creativity, endures in the cultural imagination. [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/)’s tragedies, for instance, may have been written earlier, during his exile under Claudius, yet they fit so naturally with the artistic and introspective tone of Nero’s [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) that they are inevitably folded into the Neronian canon. Periodization itself becomes a form of characterization, a way of breaking up the vast continuum of culture into manageable chapters. Though we often speak of Nero’s accession as a rupture, in reality his reign carried deep continuities from Claudius. Early hopes for renewal are visible in Seneca’s [*Apocolocyntosis*](https://amzn.to/47nY7oJ?ref=romanempiretimes.com) — a biting “pumpkinification” of Claudius — and in the Eclogues of Calpurnius Siculus, which hailed a new Golden Age under a radiant Apollo-like prince. ![Nero (54-68 AD) by Paul Pontius, from the Art Institute of Chicago](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Nero--54-68-AD--by-Paul-Pontius--from-the-Art-Institute-of-Chicago.jpg) Nero (54-68 AD) by Paul Pontius, from the Art Institute of Chicago. Public domain Our portrait of Nero is filtered through the eyes of [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/), [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/), and [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) — historians whose agendas colored their narratives. Their hostility toward the last Julio-Claudian has shaped his reputation for centuries. The Nero they describe — the debauched ruler who “fiddled while Rome burned,” slept with countless partners, and even with his own mother (“motherf\*\*\*er” being the ultimate Roman slur) — is, in many ways, a creation of Flavian propaganda. The regime that followed Nero needed to define itself against him, and thus the emperor’s eccentric attempts to reinvent Augustan ideals were recast as monstrous excesses. Yet glimpses of another Nero surface here and there: the competent administrator, the dutiful performer of religious rites, and the victor of eastern campaigns. Still, Dio and his later Byzantine epitomators preferred spectacle to balance. They portrayed Nero not as a political ruler but as “an exhibitionist, a Roman curiosity.” When later Christian writers inherited this image, they amplified it into the portrait of a satanic tyrant. Before this monstrous figure emerged, however, there was the promising young emperor of the quinquennium Neronis — the “five good years” often praised even by his detractors. Nero, only sixteen when he became emperor, was initially guided by his formidable mother [Agrippina](https://romanempiretimes.com/agrippina-the-younger-the-first-empress-of-rome-in-a-male-dominant-society/), his tutor Seneca, and the praetorian prefect Burrus. These men managed the administration while Nero indulged his artistic leanings — singing, composing, [racing horses](https://romanempiretimes.com/fury-on-wheels-the-legendary-chariot-races-of-ancient-rome/), and performing music, as Seneca’s *Apocolocyntosis* and Calpurnius’ pastoral [poetry](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/) suggest. Suetonius even notes that the young emperor’s early virtues were > “duty to family, generosity, mercy, and affability”, Seneca’s treatises [*On Clemency*](https://amzn.to/43wNr5L?ref=romanempiretimes.com) and [*On Anger*](https://amzn.to/43wNr5L?ref=romanempiretimes.com) were likely written as moral instruction, offering the prince a mirror for ideal conduct. ![Equestrian statue of Nero, seen from behind, the Great Fire of Rome in the background, from Roman Emperors on Horseback, MET Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Equestrian-statue-of-Nero--seen-from-behind--the-Great-Fire-of-Rome-in-the-background--from-Roman-Emperors-on-Horseback--MET-Museum.jpg) Equestrian statue of Nero, seen from behind, the Great Fire of Rome in the background, from Roman Emperors on Horseback, MET Museum. Public domain Lacking military training, Nero found his calling in the arts. Suetonius begins his catalogue of the emperor’s vices not with cruelty but with music — his devotion to the *citharode* Terpnus, who taught him to sing and accompany himself on the lyre. His hunger for admiration led him to Greece, where he believed that only the cultivated Greeks could truly appreciate his talent. To secure his triumph in every contest, he commanded that all six great [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) games — [Olympian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-greek-glory-to-roman-spectacle-the-olympic-games-evolution/), Nemean, Isthmian, Pythian, Actian, and Heraian — be held in the same year. He won them all, returning to Italy as a self-styled victor, an imperator of art. Dio remarks with scorn: > “But he crossed over into Greece, not at all as Flamininus or Mummius or as Agrippa and Augustus, his ancestors, had done, but for the purpose of driving chariots, playing the lyre, making proclamations, and acting in tragedies. > > Rome, it seems, was not enough for him”. Nero’s admiration for Greece was not universally admired at home. Romans had long regarded their Greek neighbors with a blend of respect and condescension. Virgil, in the Aeneid, had Anchises instruct the Romans to “rule the nations,” leaving the arts to others. Nero refused to accept this division. He sang, painted, sculpted, and saw himself as an heir to Hellenic culture. His lineage partly explains this: his grandfather Germanicus had translated Greek poetry, and [Agrippina the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/agrippina-the-younger-the-first-empress-of-rome-in-a-male-dominant-society/) had written memoirs of her family’s misfortunes. [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/) would later salute Nero as a *poeta doctus*, a “learned poet”. The emperor’s passion was shared by many in his circle — men like Lucan, Persius, and the anonymous author of Laus Pisonis — revealing a court steeped in art and performance. Nero’s philhellenism reflected a broader cultural transformation. His reign stood at the threshold of the Graeco-Roman world and foreshadowed the Second Sophistic. His buildings — the [Baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), the Gymnasium, and above all the Domus Aurea — embodied this synthesis. ![Saint Peter and Simon Magus before the Emperor Nero (right), the crucifixion of Saint Peter (left), chromolithograph after Filippino Lippi, from the Wellcome Collection](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Saint-Peter-and-Simon-Magus-before-the-Emperor-Nero--right---the-crucifixion-of-Saint-Peter--left---chromolithograph-after-Filippino-Lippi--from-the-Wellcome-Collection.jpg) Saint Peter and Simon Magus before the Emperor Nero (right), the crucifixion of Saint Peter (left), chromolithograph after Filippino Lippi, from the Wellcome Collection. Public domain These architectural projects, often interpreted as symbols of excess, can also be seen as expressions of a new conception of leisure (*otium*) and civic life. Far from being merely decadent, they were manifestations of a Hellenizing future already taking shape in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/). Unlike [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) or Claudius, Nero left little in the way of oratory. Tacitus laments that he relied on Seneca as his speechwriter rather than composing his own. Suetonius claims that Seneca deliberately kept him from the genre to maintain control. The emperor’s eulogy for Claudius reportedly provoked laughter, and he preferred to send letters to the Senate rather than address it in person. He even avoided speaking to his guards, fearing it might strain his voice. The only speech scholars consider his own is the one delivered at Corinth in 67 CE, when he granted tax exemption and autonomy to Achaia — pronounced in [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/), a language befitting his self-image as a Hellenistic benefactor. His real passion was poetry. Suetonius describes how he composed verses with pleasure and skill: > “He was instructed, when a boy, in the rudiments of almost all the liberal sciences; but his mother diverted him from the study of philosophy, as unsuited to one destined to be an emperor; and his preceptor, Seneca discouraged him from reading the ancient orators, that he might longer secure his devotion to himself. > > Therefore, having a turn for poetry, he composed verses both with pleasure and ease; nor did he, as some think, publish those of other writers as his own. > > Several little pocketbooks and loose sheets have come into my possession, which contain some well-known verses in his own hand, and written in such a manner, that it was very evident, from the blotting and interlining, that they had not been transcribed from a copy, nor dictated by another, but were written by the composer of them.” Suetonius, [*Nero*](https://amzn.to/47rRgdY?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 52 ![Gold Aureus Roman Coin Portraying Emperor Nero](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Gold-Aureus-Roman-Coin-Portraying-Emperor-Nero.jpg) Gold Aureus Roman Coin Portraying Emperor Nero Tacitus offers a more cynical portrait, describing the emperor’s literary soirées: > “Nero affected also a zeal for poetry and gathered a group of associates with some faculty for versification but not such as to have yet attracted remark. > > These, after dining, sat with him, devising a connection for the lines they had brought from home or invented on the spot, and eking out the phrases suggested, for better or worse, by their master; the method being obvious even from the general cast of the poems, which run without energy or inspiration and lack unity of style.” Tacitus, [*Annals*](https://amzn.to/4ovYdRN?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 14.16 Among those around Nero, Lucan stands out — both for his brilliance and his tragic end. His uncle Seneca and the arbiter of taste, Petronius, also fell victim to imperial suspicion. Persius, though not part of Nero’s intimate circle, was familiar with its style and even parodied it. Some ancient commentators claim fragments of Persius’ satire echo Nero’s own lines, though this seems more likely mockery than quotation. Very little of Nero’s poetry survives. Dio tells us he wrote and performed a poem on the Trojan War — perhaps the same “Capture of Troy” he supposedly recited from his palace roof as Rome burned below. Seneca’s [*Naturales Quaestiones*](https://amzn.to/4732tT5?ref=romanempiretimes.com) preserves one line on the iridescence of doves, while the scholia on Lucan cite three lines on the Tigris. These scraps, linked stylistically to Seneca’s Troades, suggest a shared literary language among Neronian authors. Dio adds another revealing story: > “Nero was making preparations to write an epic narrating all the achievements of the Romans; and even before composing a line of it he began to consider the proper number of books, consulting among others Annaeus Cornutus... > > This man he came very near putting to death and did deport to an island, because, while some were urging him to write four hundred books, Cornutus said that this was too many and nobody would read them... > > Lucan, on the other hand, was debarred from writing poetry because he was receiving high praise for his work.” Dio, [*Roman History*](https://amzn.to/4hjbcUE?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 62.29.2–4 ![Medal with a Bust of Nero, original from the Minneapolis Institute of Art](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Medal-with-a-Bust-of-Nero--original-from-the-Minneapolis-Institute-of-Art.jpg) Medal with a Bust of Nero, original from the Minneapolis Institute of Art. Public domain Such anecdotes capture the tension between Nero’s artistic ambitions and his insecurity. His reign fostered extraordinary literary production, yet it also consumed its creators. The emperor’s aesthetic fervor inspired what later generations would call the “Neronian Renaissance,” a revival of Augustan forms and genres under his patronage. But his erratic behavior and ruthless temper ensured that this cultural flowering perished with him. Suetonius records the lampoons whispered by the people of Rome — cruel verses that condensed his legend into biting rhyme: > “Nero, Orestes, Alcmeon their mothers slew.” > “A calculation new. Nero his mother slew.” > “Who can deny the descent from Aeneas’ great line of our Nero? > One his mother took off, the other one took off his sire.” > “While our ruler twangs his lyre and the Parthian his bowstring, > Paean-singer our prince shall be, and Far-darter our foe.” > “Rome is becoming one house; off with you to Veii, Quirites! > If that house does not soon seize upon Veii as well.” Suetonius, [*Nero*](https://amzn.to/47rRgdY?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 39 These epigrams encapsulate the contradictions of Nero’s image — parricide, performer, and megalomaniac — the emperor who wanted to rule as an artist. His final words, “What an artist dies in me!” (*Qualis artifex pereo*), sum up the self-image he never abandoned. With his death, the dynasty ended — and so too did a distinct cultural epoch. For none of the Neronian writers survived him; their emperor was, in every sense, the last of them to go. (*Introduction: The Neronian (Literary) ‘Renaissance’, by Martin T. Dinter, in* [*A companion to the Neronian age*](https://amzn.to/49bhIe8?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, edited by Emma Buckley and Martin T. Dinter*) ![Nero, Emperor of Rome, line engraving, from the Wellcome Collection](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Nero--Emperor-of-Rome--line-engraving--from-the-Wellcome-Collection.jpg) Nero, Emperor of Rome, line engraving, from the Wellcome Collection. Public domain ## The Nero We Think We Know The Nero we know is the emperor who “fiddled while Rome burned,” indulged in “bizarre sex with a stable of partners (including his mother),” and was “amazingly extravagant.” He appears as a selfish child obsessed with the “arts,” irresponsible in governance, cruel, and incapable of endurance. This image, as enduring as it is lurid, comes to us primarily through three ancient voices—Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Suetonius—whose writings mediate the space between the man and the myth. ### The First Assessments The legend of Nero began taking shape almost immediately after his death. Tacitus himself admits in the [*Annals*](https://amzn.to/4nlIEvg?ref=romanempiretimes.com) that he drew upon earlier historians and that they disagreed about key events. He writes: > “Fabius Rusticus is behind the story that orders were written to Caecina Tuscus giving him command of the Praetorian Guard but that Burrus maintained his position with the help of Seneca. Pliny and Cluvius report that trust in Burrus was never in doubt. Of course, Fabius is inclined to praise Seneca with the aid of whose friendship he flourished.” Tacitus, [*Annals*](https://amzn.to/4nlIEvg?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 13.20.2 These early writers—[Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/), Fabius Rusticus, and Cluvius Rufus—became the foundation upon which all later accounts were built. Each wrote in the first years after Nero’s death, under the Flavian dynasty, whose legitimacy depended on contrasting its sober rule with Nero’s flamboyant tyranny. Pliny portrayed Nero as unworthy of succeeding Claudius; Fabius Rusticus, a protégé of Seneca, was predictably hostile; and Cluvius Rufus, once a court insider, chronicled events into the civil wars of AD 68–69. Their works have not survived, but their influence pervades all later history. The favorable portrayals of Nero that existed during his lifetime quickly vanished, replaced by Flavian narratives of corruption and spectacle. As one later observer concluded, > “the only Nero we have is the Nero they created.” ![Cameo Portrait of the Emperor Nero (16th century (late Renaissance)), from The Walters Art Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Cameo-Portrait-of-the-Emperor-Nero--16th-century--late-Renaissance----from-The-Walters-Art-Museum.jpg) Cameo Portrait of the Emperor Nero (16th century (late Renaissance)), from The Walters Art Museum. Public domain ### Cassius Dio: Nero the Exhibitionist Writing in the early third century, Cassius Dio inherited this tradition and shaped it for his age. His Roman History once spanned eighty books; of Nero’s reign, only Byzantine excerpts survive. Dio claimed to rely on reading, hearsay, and personal observation, though for Nero he could use only the first. His surviving narrative is therefore a “selection of selections,” filtered by medieval compilers—but it still preserves remarkable detail. Dio alone tells us that during the Juvenalia, an octogenarian named Aelia Catella danced. He records that Nero sent agents, “pretending to be drunk and rioting,” to spread fires during the Great Fire of Rome. His account of Nero’s final two years—Tiridates’ visit, the emperor’s tour of Greece, and his triumphal return—fills the gap left by Tacitus, whose *Annals* break off in AD 66. Dio’s inclusion of foreign affairs provides moral contrast. In [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-leave-britain/), [Boudicca](https://romanempiretimes.com/boudicca-the-warrior-queen-stand-against-romes-conquest-of-britannia/) rallies her people with speeches that condemn Roman cruelty and mock Nero’s effeminacy; in Armenia, Corbulo appears as a paragon of old Roman virtue, only to be executed on Nero’s orders. Dio’s hostility is unrestrained. He writes bluntly that Nero: > “viewed the body of his dead mother and admired her beauty” whereas Tacitus and Suetonius treat the story with hesitation. Dio’s structure verges on biography. The *Nero Books* (61–63) begin with omens at birth, outline character, proceed year by year, and close with death and portents. This “biostructuring” turns history into moral theatre. For Dio and his epitomators, Nero is not a statesman but an “exhibitionist,” a “Roman curiosity.” ![The Death of Britannicus by Alexandre Denis Abel de Pujol, from the MET Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/The-Death-of-Britannicus-by-Alexandre-Denis-Abel-de-Pujol--from-the-MET-Museum.jpg) The Death of Britannicus by Alexandre Denis Abel de Pujol, from the MET Museum. Public domain ### Tacitus: The Historian and the Drama of Decline Tacitus, writing in the early second century, sought to write history rather than life. His *Annals* trace imperial rule from [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/) to Nero, arranged by consular years and alternating domestic and foreign affairs. Nero dominates the final six books (13–18), though the text ends abruptly in AD 66\. Tacitus weaves political analysis and psychological portraiture into an unbroken thread—the revelation of a ruler’s corruption over time. At first, Nero’s reign shows promise. Tacitus notes wise appointments, fair taxation, modesty in honors, [clemency](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-continence-of-scipio-a-legacy-of-clemency-in-roman-history-and-art/), and effective rebuilding after the Great Fire with new safety measures. Later generations would mythologize these years into a quinquennium Neronis, the “five good years” of competent rule. But even from the outset, Tacitus speaks of Nero’s “hidden vices” and his “slippery nature,” restrained only by his mentors Burrus and Seneca. Tacitus’ narrative follows a pattern of vivid tableaux—dramatic set pieces that reveal character. The poisoning of Britannicus becomes a story of legitimacy: Nero kills his younger stepbrother, “the true and worthy stock” of the Claudian house, whose song about his stolen birthright earned him death. Tacitus fills the banquet with terror and pity—Agrippina’s horror, Octavia’s silence, the guests frozen in disbelief. The murder of Agrippina is another masterpiece of grim reconstruction. Ancient sources disagreed on every detail: the collapsing boat, the failed mechanism, the drowning plot. Tacitus sifts the confusion into coherence. When the boat fails, assassins finish the deed on land. He paints the silence before death: > “Now there was solitude and sudden noises and the signs of a final evil.” The psychological terror echoes the banquet of Britannicus. Afterward, Agrippina’s ghost haunts Nero— > “entering with the Furies’ torches to the sound of distant trumpets.” The tragedy continues with Octavia’s banishment and death, marking the end of the Claudian line. Tacitus describes the crowd’s pity as she sails for exile: > “Some still remembered Agrippina’s banishment by Tiberius and that of Julia by Claudius.” In the Octavia, the chorus bids her farewell with the lament that her wedding had been her funeral; Tacitus echoes this: “She was now a widow and no more than a sister.” The *Annals* culminate in the Pisonian conspiracy of AD 65, the longest surviving episode. Senators, equestrians, and guards plot against Nero, but betrayals expose them all. Seneca and the philosopher Thrasea Paetus are forced to suicide. Tacitus, drawing from the *acta senatus*, lists nearly thirty victims. The episode, half political tragedy and half courtroom drama, displays both the corruption of power and the futility of resistance. Tacitus’ effort to write sober history only makes Nero’s excesses more memorable. Critics faulted him for theatricality, yet the Nero of Tacitus—the artist, murderer, and haunted son—remains the most human and enduring version. ![After the suicide of Seneca the Younger, the Emperor Nero orders the arrest of the suicide of Seneca's wife Pompeia Paulina, from the Wellcome Collection](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/After-the-suicide-of-Seneca-the-Younger--the-Emperor-Nero-orders-the-arrest-of-the-suicide-of-Seneca-s-wife-Pompeia-Paulina--from-the-Wellcome-Collection.jpg) After the suicide of Seneca the Younger, the Emperor Nero orders the arrest of the suicide of Seneca's wife Pompeia Paulina, from the Wellcome Collection. Public domain ### Suetonius: The Life of a Performer Suetonius, writing a generation later, turned Nero’s story into biography. His *Life of Nero* follows the model of “birth to death,” arranged by topic—ancestry, virtues, vices, habits, and final fate. He opens with the Domitii Ahenobarbi, remarking: > “Although Nero discarded the virtues of his forefathers, he nonetheless perpetuated the vices of each of them as if they were inherited and a part of him from birth” (Nero 1.2\*). \* His theme of illegitimacy runs through the entire narrative. Suetonius begins with Nero’s virtues—piety, generosity, mercy, and affability—and devotes long sections to the emperor’s spectacles. The Juvenalia, Ludi Maximi, and Neronia are praised as acts of imperial beneficence. The reception of Tiridates is counted among these, introduced with the line: > “Not without thought would I report among the other entertainments he put on the entrance of Tiridates to Rome” (Nero 13.1\*).\* Then comes the reversal: > “I have collected here these actions of his… to separate them from his abuses and crimes, which I shall relate from this point on” (Nero 19.3\*). \* What follows is the portrait that fixed Nero’s image for posterity. He trains obsessively with a lyre-player, sings publicly at Naples in AD 64, organizes his own cheering crowds, races chariots, and travels to Greece in AD 67 to compete in every contest he can—returning with trophies in parody of a military triumph. His reign descends into the catalogue of vices: *petulentia, libido, luxuria*, *avaritia, crudelitas*—insolence, lust, extravagance, greed, and cruelty. He murders Claudius, Britannicus, Agrippina, and others; persecutes after the Pisonian plot; and turns the Great Fire into “cruelty to the city walls.” Suetonius’ narrative of Nero’s final days ranks among the most dramatic in Roman biography. Facing rebellion from Gaul, Nero flees Rome, hides among freedmen, and ends his life with the cry: “Qualis artifex pereo” — “What an artist dies in me!” After his death, the biographer notes, the people rejoiced yet some mourned; impostors appeared, claiming to be the lost emperor. In a striking structural twist, Suetonius places Nero’s physical description and personal habits after his death—his poetry notebooks, craving for popularity, and longing for immortality—closing the life with a posthumous echo: the artist’s spirit refusing to die. ![George Kleine presents the Cines photo drama Quo Vadis, Nero sings while Rome burns, chromolithograph, motion picture poster for 1913 film](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/George-Kleine-presents-the-Cines-photo-drama-Quo-Vadis--Nero-sings-while-Rome-burns--chromolithograph--motion-picture-poster-for-1913-film.jpg) George Kleine presents the Cines photo drama Quo Vadis, Nero sings while Rome burns, chromolithograph, motion picture poster for 1913 film ### The Enduring Portrait Across these traditions, Nero emerges not from a single pen but from layers of interpretation. The Flavian historians gave him infamy; Tacitus supplied depth; Dio magnified grotesquerie; Suetonius sealed it with theater. Even attempts to balance his record with administrative or military detail vanish beneath the magnetism of the set pieces—the murdered mother, the poisoned brother, the singing emperor, the burning city. Roman lampoons immortalized that image: > “Nero, Orestes, Alcmeon their mothers slew.” > “A calculation new. Nero his mother slew.” > “Who can deny the descent from Aeneas’ great line of our Nero? > One his mother took off, the other one took off his sire.” > “While our ruler twangs his lyre and the Parthian his bowstring, > Paean-singer our prince shall be, and Far-darter our foe.” > “Rome is becoming one house; off with you to Veii, Quirites! > If that house does not soon seize upon Veii as well.” When Nero cried, “What an artist dies in me!”, he unwittingly defined his own legacy. For in the centuries that followed, it was not the statesman or the reformer that survived—but the artist, forever dying in the flames of his own myth. ("Biographies of Nero" by Donna W. Hurley in “A companion to the Neronian age”, edited by Emma Buckley and Martin T. Dinter) To be continued... [Nero Unmasked: The Fire, the Fame, and the Fury of Rome’s Most Infamous Ruler (Part 2)Through myth, theatre, and fire, Nero transformed scandal into legend. Reviled by elites yet adored by crowds, he turned empire into stagecraft and himself into Rome’s most enduring paradox.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/icon/Screenshot-2023-10-05-at-22.54.45-1-40.png)Roman Empire TimesChristina Athanasiou![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/thumbnail/Wilhelm-Peters-s-painting--Nero-in-circus.jpg)](https://romanempiretimes.com/nero-unmasked-the-fire-the-fame-and-the-fury-of-rome-most-infamous-ruler-part-2/) ### Valerius Maximus: The Collector of Roman Virtue and Vice URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/valerius-maximus-the-collector-of-roman-virtue-and-vice/ Last updated: 2025-10-19T13:13:10.000Z In the conservative early years of the Roman Empire, when public speech was measured and remembrance of the Republic still lingered, Valerius Maximus undertook a different kind of history. His [*Memorable Deeds and Sayings*](https://amzn.to/3Wehj2T?ref=romanempiretimes.com) gathered centuries of moral examples—of courage and cowardice, loyalty and betrayal, piety and impiety—into a vast treasury of Roman experience. Written under Tiberius, it was both a manual of rhetoric and a mirror of moral order, teaching citizens how to speak of virtue while navigating a world where power had replaced freedom. ### Who was Valerius Maximus? Valerius Maximus (flourished around 30 A.D.) was a Roman historian and moralist best known for his [*Factorum et Dictorum Memorabilium libri IX*](https://amzn.to/3Wehj2T?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (Nine Books of Memorable Deeds and Sayings), a collection that became central to Roman education and rhetorical training. Born to a modest family, he advanced through the patronage of Sextus Pompeius, consul in 14 A.D. and later proconsul of Asia, whom he accompanied to the [East](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/) around 24 A.D. His work compiles hundreds of brief anecdotes—mainly from Roman history, though often including [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) examples—arranged by moral themes such as courage, justice, piety, and temperance. Written in an ornate rhetorical style, his book reflects the atmosphere of [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/)’s reign: outwardly loyal to imperial power, yet deeply rooted in Republican virtue. Drawing heavily on earlier authors like [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) and [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/), Valerius preserved many stories otherwise lost to time. Despite its stylistic excesses and occasional inaccuracies, the work achieved immense popularity throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, remaining one of the most copied and studied texts of Latin prose. ![Cartouche containing a quote from Valerius Maximus, in a frame of rollwork with grotesques, mascarons and garlands](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Cartouche-containing-a-quote-from-Valerius-Maximus--in-a-frame-of-rollwork-with-grotesques--mascarons-and-garlands.jpg) Cartouche containing a quote from Valerius Maximus, in a frame of rollwork with grotesques, mascarons and garlands. Public domain ### Valerius Maximus and the Tradition of Exemplary Lives As mentioned above, the *Facta et dicta memorabilia*, is a collection of “Memorable Deeds and Sayings” drawn from the lives of famous men, Roman and foreign alike. It was composed by Valerius Maximus, whose work can be placed in the middle years of Tiberius’s reign. The collection offers an extensive repertoire of moral anecdotes, a reservoir of examples that later writers could employ to illustrate conduct or enliven narrative. These episodes, known as exempla in rhetorical terminology, were particularly useful to orators, historians, and biographers, who drew upon them to provide moral or emotional weight to their compositions. Yet this practical function raises a deeper question: what purpose did Valerius himself intend for his work? His own statements, most clearly expressed in the preface but also scattered throughout the nine books, reveal an author conscious of belonging to a defined literary tradition. The language he employs aligns his collection with the genre of the *De viris illustribus*—works dedicated to the deeds of illustrious men—and suggests that the Facta et dicta memorabilia may be understood as a biographical subform of this tradition. In recent scholarship, the work has often been studied for its ideological and moral significance within the context of early imperial [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/). However, its literary dimension—its structure, vocabulary, and stylistic inheritance—offers further insight. The repeated use of verbs such as *cognoscere*, meaning “to become acquainted with” or “to study,” points to a tradition of moral biography in which the reader is invited not only to admire virtue but to learn from it. Valerius’s method thus reflects the influence of earlier authors, particularly Cornelius Nepos, whose [*De viris illustribus*](https://amzn.to/3Ji3XQa?ref=romanempiretimes.com) established the model for concise moral biography. Although modern discussions have tended to focus on other influences, the connection between Valerius and the *viri illustres* tradition clarifies both the composition and purpose of his work. The *Facta et dicta memorabilia* stands within a continuum of Roman literature that sought to preserve moral exempla as guides to conduct. In this sense, it is more than a treasury of anecdotes—it is part of the biographical and rhetorical heritage through which Roman virtue was remembered and taught. ![The Temperate and the Intemperate, Valerius Maximus teaches Emperor Tiberius about temperance in table manners, contrasting noble restraint with peasants’ wild indulgence in a lively medieval depiction](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/The-Temperate-and-the-Intemperate--Valerius-Maximus-teaches-Emperor-Tiberius-about-temperance-in-table-manners--contrasting-noble-restraint-with-peasants----wild-indulgence-in-a-lively-medieval-depiction.jpg) The Temperate and the Intemperate, Valerius Maximus teaches Emperor Tiberius about temperance in table manners, contrasting noble restraint with peasants’ wild indulgence in a lively medieval depiction. Public domain ### Remembering and Forgetting: Valerius Maximus and the Shadow of Tiberius The work of Valerius Maximus is, at its core, an act of remembrance. Yet the author does not aim to record all things; he chooses carefully what deserves to be recalled and what must fade from memory. Beneath his collection of moral examples lies another, invisible text—a counterpart made up of the deeds and words that Valerius silently passes over. This unwritten “book of things to be forgotten” challenges modern readers to recognize that silence can be deliberate, and that omission may itself convey meaning. To read Valerius properly is therefore to be aware of what he refuses to preserve. He excludes much that belonged to his own age, including events and people he must have known personally. With rare exceptions, his anecdotes come from earlier centuries, while the world of Tiberius remains conspicuously absent. Yet these omissions are not neutral. The concerns and anxieties of Valerius’s own time are felt in the texture of his examples, even when they are dressed in the clothing of the past. The task for modern interpreters is to listen for these echoes—to understand what Valerius’s contemporaries would have recognized between the lines. One way to measure what Valerius “forgets” is to set him beside [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/). The historian’s [*Annals*](https://amzn.to/4ndtpnZ?ref=romanempiretimes.com) describe the same age with a very different tone, and the contrast helps us sense what Valerius chose not to say. Tacitus’s dark vision of the reign of Tiberius can make Valerius appear complacent, even disingenuous, a writer who flatters the emperor and masks the unease of his time in the guise of moral instruction. Yet this contrast may tell us more about the two writers’ intentions than about their integrity. Tacitus sought to expose the shadows of power; Valerius sought to show how virtue might still survive within them. To Valerius, the rule of Tiberius was a *felix aetas*, a blessed age governed by the *optimus princeps*, the best of rulers. To Tacitus, the same reign was one of gloom and decay, its corruption radiating from the emperor himself. Reconciling these opposing visions has always been difficult, since the two authors appear to belong to different worlds of thought. ![Charles Méryon's drawing of the Presentation of Valerius Maximus's works to King Louis XI ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Charles-M--ryon-s-drawing-of-the-Presentation-of-Valerius-Maximus-s-works-to-King-Louis-XI-.jpg) Charles Méryon's drawing of the Presentation of Valerius Maximus's works to King Louis XI. Public domain Tacitus writes as a historian of causes and consequences, tracing Rome’s moral decline through narrative; Valerius arranges anecdotes from centuries of history into a moral anthology, each story a lesson detached from chronology. Where Tacitus studies the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/)’s character, Valerius keeps him in the background, preferring to look toward the exemplary rather than the scandalous. His silence is not ignorance but choice—a reflection of caution and of literary purpose. Valerius openly declares his reluctance to dwell on the faults of great men, writing that to reproach them for their vices would shame him. Tacitus, by contrast, finds his calling precisely in revealing such failings. The one looks to the virtues that inspire imitation; the other to the flaws that warn against corruption. Yet both rely on the same raw material—*facta et dicta*, the deeds and sayings of the past—as tools for moral instruction. They differ less in substance than in tone: Valerius’s vision is optimistic, Tacitus’s profoundly tragic. Still, each believes that history’s purpose lies in ethical reflection. Part of this divergence comes from circumstance. Valerius composed his work in the early years of Tiberius’s reign, probably completing it shortly after the fall of Sejanus in A.D. 31, one of the few datable events he mentions. Tacitus, writing long afterward, saw the full arc of that reign and its descent into tyranny. Where Valerius experienced a stable and orderly principate, Tacitus saw its aftermath—a world of fear, suspicion, and moral exhaustion. His narrative, therefore, carries a foreboding knowledge of what Valerius could not yet foresee. Yet the two authors meet at important intersections. Both use the deeds and words of the past to illuminate the moral fabric of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/incense-in-ancient-rome-smoke-ritual-and-power/). Tacitus, though drawn to corruption and tragedy, still preserves acts of courage and integrity. Valerius, for his part, is capable of moral indignation, denouncing greed and cruelty with the same fervor with which he praises self-control. Their writings, taken together, form a dialogue across time—two modes of confronting the same moral landscape, one by celebrating virtue, the other by dissecting its decay. Reading Valerius through Tacitus reveals that the *Facta et dicta memorabilia* is not blind to the tensions of its age. Its restraint, its very omissions, may conceal a deeper awareness of the fragility of virtue under imperial power. Tacitus helps us recognize this undertone, while Valerius reminds us that even in an age of suspicion, memory could still serve as a vessel for hope. Each in his way teaches that the moral history of Rome was not fixed by events, but shaped by the act of remembering—and forgetting. ("Reading by Example: Valerius Maximus and the Historiography of Exempla" edited by Jeffrey Murray David Wardle) ![The manuscript of Valerius Maximus, Memorable facts and sayings, translated from Latin by Simon de Hesdin, depicted here presenting it to King Charles V](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/The-manuscript-of-Valerius-Maximus--Memorable-facts-and-sayings--translated-from-Latin-by-Simon-de-Hesdin--depicted-here-presenting-it-to-King-Charles-V.jpg) The manuscript of Valerius Maximus, Memorable facts and sayings, translated from Latin by Simon de Hesdin, depicted here presenting it to King Charles V. Public domain ### The Purpose and Design of the Facta et dicta memorabilia The *Facta et dicta memorabilia* of Valerius Maximus stands within a long tradition of Latin prose, yet its nature and purpose continue to invite debate. Before considering its later influence, it is necessary to examine the literary environment from which it emerged and the genre it occupies. Valerius himself provides frequent hints about his intentions, both in the preface and throughout his nine books. > “I have resolved to collect together the deeds and sayings of most note, and most worthy to be remembered, of the most eminent persons both among the Romans and other nations, taken out of the most approved authors, where they lie scattered so widely, that makes them hard to be known; to save the trouble of a tedious search, for those who are willing to follow their examples. > > Yet I have not been over-desirous to comprehend everything. > > For who in a small volume is able to set down the deeds of many ages? Or what wise man can hope to deliver the course of domestic and foreign history, which our predecessors have done in such happy styles, either with greater care, or more abounding eloquence?” Valerius Maximus, *Memorable Deeds and Sayings*, Preface {To Augustus Tiberius Caesar} His work has often been described as a hybrid creation: a compilation of moral examples arranged as a catalogue of virtues and vices, yet shaped with the artistry of a literary composition. Written around 25–30 A.D., it draws upon earlier authors of the late Republic and early [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/), transforming their material into a new synthesis. Traditionally, his work has been regarded as a rhetorical manual or handbook for moral instruction, a resource from which orators could extract examples without the labor of extended research. This view stems from Valerius’s own statement that he wrote *ut documenta sumere volentibus longae inquisitionis labor absit*— > “so that those who wish to take examples may be spared the toil of long inquiry.” The collection’s wealth of episodes and moral contrasts supports this idea, and its arrangement allows readers to locate suitable examples for speeches, histories, or moral essays. Yet modern scholarship increasingly recognizes the work’s literary sophistication: its deliberate structure, narrative artistry, and rhetorical embellishment reveal a composition far removed from a mere reference book. It possesses the refinement of a finished literary work. It opens with a dedicatory preface to the emperor, includes acclamations, apostrophes, personifications, and artfully inserted quotations, and employs stylistic devices such as litotes, chiasmus, and direct speech. > “Therefore, Caesar, your country's only safety, I invoke you at the beginning of my undertaking, whom the consent of gods and men has ordained the great commander both of sea and land; by whose divine providence those virtues, of which I am to discourse, are most favourably cherished, and vices most severely punished. > > For if the ancient orators did well to begin from omnipotent Jove, if the most excellent poets did always call some particular deity to assist them; much the rather does my little work fly to your protection. > > For other gods we adore only in opinion, you we behold equal to your father's and your grandfather's stars in brightness, whose resplendent lustres have added not a little to the ceremonies of our religion. > > Others we receive for gods, Caesars we make such. And because it is my intention to begin with the worship of the gods, I shall discourse briefly of its nature.” Valerius Maximus, *Memorable Deeds and Sayings*, Preface {To Augustus Tiberius Caesar} The vividness of its narrative, sustained by metaphors of sight and vision (*energeia or evidentia*), points to an aesthetic ambition comparable to that of Cicero’s [*De oratore*](https://amzn.to/42PMR2V?ref=romanempiretimes.com). Rather than offering raw material for rhetorical practice, Valerius presents a model of composition in action—an embodiment of how persuasion might be achieved through moral example. ![Jean-Baptiste Greuze's painting of Roman Charity, of a daughter breastfeeding her famished father, based on a story told by Valerius Maximus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Jean-Baptiste-Greuze-s-painting-of-Roman-Charity--of-a-daughter-breastfeeding-her-famished-father--based-on-a-story-told-by-Valerius-Maximus.jpg) Jean-Baptiste Greuze's painting of Roman Charity, of a daughter breastfeeding her famished father, based on a story told by Valerius Maximus. Public domain His declaration of modest intent, therefore, should not be taken at face value. The phrase *ut documenta sumere volentibus*… belongs to a familiar literary topos of humility. Similar expressions appear in earlier writers: [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/)’s commentaries, praised for providing material for others to shape; [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/)’s and Cicero’s remarks on the gathering of facts for historical writing; and [Pliny’s letters](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/), offering unpolished details for Tacitus to refine. Valerius’s formulation echoes these conventions. By appearing self-effacing, he diverts attention from the scale of his own project—a work that aims not merely to compile examples but to create an encyclopaedia of Roman morality. Seen in this light, the *Facta et dicta memorabilia* is both a practical sourcebook and an original literary achievement. It provides moral instruction through example while demonstrating the rhetorical artistry that turns moral discourse into literature. Valerius transforms the ancient practice of collecting exempla into something larger: a structured moral universe, where virtue and vice are not only remembered but rendered visible through language. ## Valerius Maximus and His Legacy in the Later Empire The influence of his work extended well beyond Valerius Maximus’s own generation. His collection of moral examples began to circulate almost immediately after its completion, finding use among authors concerned with ethical and rhetorical instruction. Early readers such as [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/) and Quintilian, each in their respective philosophical and educational writings, appear to have drawn on his treasury of exempla as a source of moral illustration. In the second century, Aulus Gellius’s Noctes Atticae often employed the same anecdotes known from Valerius, suggesting that his collection served at least as a subsidiary reference. The biographical tradition that had gained momentum under Suetonius at the start of the second century continued to flourish in subsequent generations. Writers such as Marius Maximus, whose imperial biographies partly survive within the *Historia Augusta* of the late fourth century, developed the same interest in moral portraiture that characterized Valerius’s method. Beyond biography, traces of his influence can also be detected in moral treatises and historical writing, where his arrangement of virtues and vices offered a model for later authors seeking moral clarity within narrative. By the late [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), Valerius’s presence was deeply embedded in the Latin literary tradition. Two compendia from Late Antiquity confirm that his work remained widely known, and the extraordinary number of surviving medieval manuscripts attests to its enduring popularity. Yet identifying direct borrowings is difficult. Because Valerius himself relied heavily on earlier authorities such as Cicero and Livy, later writers often drew upon his material without naming him, blurring the distinction between his work and that of his predecessors. The problem is compounded by the likelihood that intermediate authors, including Seneca and Quintilian, transmitted his examples indirectly to later centuries. ![Part of the manuscript of Valerius Maximus, Memorable facts and sayings, translated from Latin by Simon de Hesdin and Nicholas de Gonesse](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Part-of-the-manuscript-of-Valerius-Maximus--Memorable-facts-and-sayings--translated-from-Latin-by-Simon-de-Hesdin-and-Nicholas-de-Gonesse.jpg) Part of the manuscript of Valerius Maximus, Memorable facts and sayings, translated from Latin by Simon de Hesdin and Nicholas de Gonesse. Public domain Even so, numerous parallels suggest that his moral vocabulary and repertoire of anecdotes continued to shape Roman thought. Lactantius, in his critique of pagan religion, employed many mythological exempla familiar from Valerius, while [Ammianus Marcellinus](https://romanempiretimes.com/ammian-or-ammianus-marcellinus-from-a-roman-soldier-to-one-of-the-best-historians-of-all-time/), writing in the tradition of Livy and Tacitus, shared Valerius’s preference for historical rather than mythological examples. Ammianus does not name him, yet his harmonization of republican and imperial virtues echoes the spirit of the *Facta et dicta memorabilia*. It is plausible that he made use of Valerius, particularly in the middle books of his *Res Gestae* covering the years up to Julian’s reign. Traces of Valerius are also discernible in later rhetorical literature. The [*Panegyrici Latini*](https://amzn.to/4otIram?ref=romanempiretimes.com), the great corpus of imperial orations composed between 289 and 389 A.D., reveal the influence of his moral style and narrative structure. These orators, steeped in the classical tradition, likely viewed Valerius as part of their rhetorical heritage. Modern studies, such as the analysis of Nazarius’s speech of 321 A.D., have noted verbal and stylistic affinities that point to him as a model of refined Latin prose. Far from being a marginal compiler, Valerius Maximus emerged as one of the enduring custodians of Roman language and ethics. His collection, valued not only for its moral instruction but also for its elegance of expression, may well have been regarded as a standard of classical Latin equal to that of Caesar and Cicero. In the learned circles of Late Antiquity, he remained both a moral guide and a stylistic exemplar—proof that the memory of Rome’s virtues, once set in his pages, continued to instruct long after the Republic had faded. (*Valerius Maximus’ Facta et dicta memorabilia and the Roman Biographical Tradition, by Diederik Burgersdijk*) --- Valerius Maximus did not write history to settle accounts but to train judgment. By arranging Rome’s deeds and sayings into a living gallery of virtue and vice—and by choosing when to be silent—he taught readers how to remember well. That discipline of memory, tested under empire and preserved through Late Antiquity, **kept Rome’s moral language alive long after the Republic was gone**. ### Did the Romans Know Nessie? Exploring Roman Links to the Loch Ness Monster URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/did-the-romans-know-nessie-exploring-roman-links-to-the-loch-ness-monster/ Last updated: 2025-10-18T19:12:54.000Z The name **Loch Ness** conjures an image faster than any citation: a long dark trough of water and, somewhere beneath it, an unknown. The historical question that concerns a Roman-minded reader sounds deceptively simple—**did Romans know about a creature in these waters?**—but meaningful answers rarely arrive at the surface. ### A Question Cast into Deep Water The evidence lives in different registers that hardly ever speak to one another directly. Northern stones cut with animals and symbols resist easy labels and tidy identifications. A saint’s life set on the River Ness, written a century after its events, offers a miracle story that places danger in the water and holiness on the bank. The interwar years recast the loch as a modern stage, where a new road, a famous photograph, and organized searches turn a local story outward. Late-twentieth-century expeditions bring instruments—the disciplined gaze of lenses and sonar—without providing a final specimen. Rather than beginning with a verdict, the available material unfolds in roughly the order that a curious reader would meet it: 1. First **iconography** (what the early stones say without words), 2. then **hagiography** (what a structured miracle story records about local belief), 3. next the **modern revival** (how cameras, roads, and media reframed the loch), 4. and finally **scientific appraisal** (how evidence is sorted, tested, and found either wanting or suggestive). Only once those layers have had their say do we return, at the end, to the question of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/)’s knowledge. What the sources do not say matters as much as what they do; silence need not be emptiness if it is correctly situated. ![Urquhart Castle, on the shore of Loch Ness, Scotland](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Urquhart-Castle--on-the-shore-of-Loch-Ness--Scotland.jpg) Urquhart Castle, on the shore of Loch Ness, Scotland. Public domain ### Before (and around) Rome: Pictish Symbols and Water Beasts Across northern and eastern Scotland, places that Romans had their mind set upon when [conquering Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-life-really-like-in-roman-britain/), stand the **Pictish symbol stones**, carved slabs and pillars whose vocabulary includes animals (recognizable and not), objects, and paired signs. Among this repertoire, scholars note an enigmatic figure commonly called the “**Pictish Beast**.” Its outline—arched back, an elongate snout or beak, sometimes a curled appendage—does not neatly match any standard fauna. The result is a motif that invites hypotheses without fastening on a single answer. Some envisage an **aquatic** identity; some see a **mythic composite**; some treat it as a **heraldic** or name-marker, significant more for social meaning than for zoology. The stones serve purposes as various as memory, status, boundary, or ritual, and the beast moves among those settings without a caption. Two orienting cautions help keep the stones in proportion. First, they do **not** label a **Loch Ness Monster**; they are widely distributed and do not confine themselves to the Great Glen. Second, while a few stones belong to the period of Roman presence in Britain, much of the corpus is **late antique to early medieval**, produced in a milieu where imperial administrators do not set the terms. ![Sculptured Stone at Glen Urquhart, (Image from Mackay, W 1886), where we can see another Pictish carving of a possible aquatic beast, popping over the water](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Sculptured-Stone-at-Glen-Urquhart---Image-from-Mackay--W-1886---where-we-can-see-another-Pictish-carving-of-a-possible-aquatic-beast--popping-over-the-water.jpg) Sculptured Stone at Glen Urquhart, (Image from Mackay, W 1886), where we can see another Pictish carving of a possible aquatic beast, popping over the water What the stones do establish, however, is clear: northern [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-leave-britain/)'s communities had **visual frameworks** for potent, sometimes **water-associated** creatures long before the modern legend cohered. If [Roman soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/), scouts, or merchants consumed local gossip around a Highland hearth, those stories would have found an immediate fit in this sort of imagery—whether or not that talk ever reached Latin prose. The attraction of the stones, from the standpoint of historical method, lies in what they **cannot** do as much as in what they can. They do not prove a zoological population in any loch. They do not name locations. But they do demonstrate a northern imagination that took seriously the possibility of strong, strange beings associated with water. When later textual traditions begin to tell explicit river-beast stories in the Ness district, they land on cultural ground already prepared by images. ![Sculptured Monument at Aberlemno (Obverse), where we notice the distinct Pictish carvings of aquatic beasts of legend](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Sculptured-Monument-at-Aberlemno--Obverse---where-we-notice-the-distinct-Pictish-carvings-of-aquatic-beasts-of-legend.jpg) Sculptured Monument at Aberlemno (Obverse), where we notice the distinct Pictish carvings of aquatic beasts of legend. Public domain ### After Rome: St. Columba and the Water Beast (AD 565) The first sustained narrative to place a fearsome creature in the Ness district does not appear in a Roman itinerary or a provincial gazetteer. It is found instead in a saint’s life, written with devotional purpose: Adomnán of Iona’s [*Vita Columbae*](https://amzn.to/3KT3Z1D?ref=romanempiretimes.com), composed about a century after the events it recounts. In one episode, usually dated to **AD 565** and set near Inverness, locals are preparing to bury a man said to have been “bitten” by a “**water beast**.” Columba orders a companion to swim the **River Ness**. When the creature surges toward the swimmer, the saint raises his hand, invokes the sign of the cross, and commands the beast to flee. The animal withdraws, and the onlookers praise God. The passage writes: > *On another occasion also, when the blessed man was living for some days in the province of the Picts, he was obliged to cross the river Nesa (the Ness); and when he reached the bank of the river, he saw some of the inhabitants burying an unfortunate man, who, according to the account of those who were burying him, was a short time before seized, as he was swimming, and bitten most severely by a monster that lived in the water; his wretched body was, though too late, taken out with a hook, by those who came to his assistance in a boat.* > > *The blessed man, on hearing this, was so far from being dismayed, that he directed one of his companions to swim over and row across the coble that was moored at the farther bank.* > > *And Lugne Mocumin hearing the command of the excellent man, obeyed without the least delay, taking off all his clothes, except his tunic, and leaping into the water.* > > *But the monster, which, so far from being satiated, was only roused for more prey, was lying at the bottom of the stream, and when it felt the water disturbed above by the man swimming, suddenly rushed out, and, giving an awful roar, darted after him, with its mouth wide open, as the man swam in the middle of the stream.* > > *Then the blessed man observing this, raised his holy hand, while all the rest, brethren as well as strangers, were stupefied with terror, and, invoking the name of God, formed the saving sign of the cross in the air, and commanded the ferocious monster, saying, "Thou shalt go no further, nor touch the man; go back with all speed."* Adomnán's the [*Life of St. Columba, Founder of Hy*](https://amzn.to/4nYFYVy?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ![St Columba commanding the beast to retreat](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/St-Columba-commanding-the-beast-to-retreat.jpg) St Columba commanding the beast to retreat. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times A careful reading keeps three distinctions straight: - **Geography**: the scene is on the **river**, not necessarily inside **Loch Ness**, although the river flows from the loch and the tradition soon binds the two. - **Genre**: a hagiography seeks edification, not natural history; miracle stories demonstrate sanctity set against danger. - **Historical value**: the account shows that, **by the sixth century**, people in the Ness district told stories about a dangerous creature in the water, and that Christian authors could repurpose such stories to exhibit holy power. It does not, on its own, establish a breeding population, and it says nothing directly about what Romans did or did not know. What it does reliably provide is a **literary touchstone** that later writers and modern enthusiasts return to whenever the early history of the legend is in view.(*The Loch Ness Monster, by D.G. Gowler*) ![St Colmcille Detail (St Columba), stained glass by Harry Clarke, in St. Mary's Ballinrobe](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/St-Colmcille-Detail--St-Columba---stained-glass-by-Harry-Clarke--in-St.-Mary-s-Ballinrobe.jpg) St Colmcille Detail (St Columba), stained glass by Harry Clarke, in St. Mary's Ballinrobe. Credits: NateBergin, CC BY 4.0 ### The Modern Revival: Road, Reports, and the “Surgeon’s Photograph” (1933–1934) The version of the story most readers carry today coalesces in the interwar years. In **1933**, improvements to the **A82** along the **north shore** created **long, stable sightlines** over the water. That civil-engineering decision coincided with an upturn in reported sightings, a link noted in mid-century summaries and reaffirmed in later reviews. Descriptions vary: dark humps like an upturned boat; disturbed wakes that seem to move against a pattern; in fewer cases, a head and neck. The following year delivers an image that becomes emblem: the **“Surgeon’s Photograph”** (1934), printed in the *Daily Mail*, a small silhouette rising from a calm surface. It is reproduced so often that for many readers it replaces argument with an icon. ![The famous Surgeon photograph of the Loch Ness monster Nessie in 1934, many believe today to be a hoax](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/The-famous-Surgeon-photograph-of-the-Loch-Ness-monster-Nessie-in-1934--many-believe-today-to-be-a-hoax.jpg) The famous Surgeon photograph of the Loch Ness monster Nessie in 1934, many believe today to be a hoax The photograph’s afterlife becomes a debate in its own right: allegations of **hoax**; rejoinders that the hoax narrative itself contains gaps and contradictions; the observation that even a genuine photo of a small object would prove little about what, if anything, lives **beneath**. Yet the more important transformation is structural. The loch becomes a **modern stage**. Organized watches set up along the shore. Expeditions tow **sonar** across transects. Photographers attempt submerged shots in the same windows when instruments report large targets. The **Dinsdale film** (1960) enters this dossier as a recurrent point of reference: a triangular dark hump moving at speed with a heavy wake, then compared against a control boat filmed on the same path. Photo-interpreters, television programs, and later analysts revisit the frames, while expeditions log additional sonar returns at depth and report occasional underwater images. These modern materials do not compel a single reading, but together they set the **terms** of twentieth-century discussion: how to value eyewitness testimony; how to weigh a handful of photographs and films that invite competing explanations; what to make of **instrument traces** that register as large and moving without resolving into a species. (*The Loch Ness Monster, by D.G. Gowler; The case for the Loch Ness "Monster": The scientific evidence, by Henry Bower*) ![Saint Columba commanding the Water Demon to retreat, you may notice this depiction differs from the rest as the beast is part animal, part aquatic creature](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Saint-Columba-commanding-the-Water-Demon-to-retreat--you-may-notice-this-depiction-differs-from-the-rest-as-the-beast-is-part-animal--part-aquatic-creature.jpg) Saint Columba commanding the Water Demon to retreat, you may notice this depiction differs from the rest as the beast is part animal, part aquatic creature ### Scientific Appraisal: Evidence, Energetics, and Interpretation The **scientific** discussion turns on recurring categories of evidence and a single basic constraint: 1. **Eyewitness testimony** has volume and pattern. Many accounts describe dark coloration; a rough, hide-like texture rather than scales; vertical sinking rather than an arcing dive. In the sciences, testimony is **suggestive** but not **determinative**. It organizes a search; it does not decide it. 2. **Photographs and film** polarize interpreters. Supporters look to wake geometry and silhouette stability and point to sequences—such as in the **Dinsdale film**—where a control boat filmed at similar range behaves differently. Skeptics point to birds, otters, logs, and complex wave dynamics in a long, dark loch, any of which can mimic form at low resolution. Enhancement and expert review sharpen frames without erasing ambiguity. 3. **Sonar records** accumulate over decades. Multiple expeditions log **large, moving targets** at depth; at times, underwater photographs are taken in near-synchrony with instrument detections. Even so, interpretation remains contested. Fish shoals, thermal layers, debris, instrument artifacts, and local bathymetry can produce puzzling returns. Sonar remains **promising** yet **inconclusive**. 4. **Underwater photography** produces occasional frames—flipper-like shapes, textured surfaces—that draw attention chiefly when paired with sonar targets. Arguments hinge on contrast, distance, and whether enhancement alters content or simply clarifies it. 5. **Ecological capacity** asks the hard, non-iconic question: **could Loch Ness support a breeding population of very large predators?** Using energy-flow and standing-stock reasoning, some limnological exercises suggest that a **small number** might be **ecologically possible** in an oligotrophic lake, while others respond that a viable population should have left collateral signs: **carcasses**, **bones**, consistent **surface behaviors**. These calculations do not settle existence; they stress-test **plausibility**. Taken together, the modern dossier supports a cautious middle line: **Loch Ness offers a handful of intriguing records—film, sonar, photographs—yet insufficient proof for a new species**. The strongest pro-monster case leans on the Dinsdale film, repeated sonar echoes, and underwater images coincident with sonar. The skeptical stance emphasizes alternative readings and the lack ofreplicable, unambiguous records. Taxonomy remains unclaimed. (*The case for the Loch Ness "Monster": The scientific evidence, by Henry Bower; The Population Density of Monsters in Loch Ness, by R.W. Sheldon and S.R. Kerr*) ![William Hole's painting of Saint Columba converting King Brude of the Picts to Christianity](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/William-Hole-s-painting-of-Saint-Columba-converting-King-Brude-of-the-Picts-to-Christianity.jpg) William Hole's painting of Saint Columba converting King Brude of the Picts to Christianity. Credits: Scottish National Portrait Galler, CC BY-SA 3.0 ### What the Roman Record Shows—and Why the Legend Outran It After stones, saints, cameras, and sonar, the original question can be faced squarely. On the specific point of **Romans and Loch Ness**, the surviving classical record is **silent**: there is **no Roman text** that reports a creature in the loch. Writers who mention northern Britain—military narratives, geographical sketches, ethnographic notes—do not attach a lake-monster to the Great Glen. Keeping this statement for the end gives it the correct weight: it is a conclusion drawn with the surrounding evidence in view, not a teaser designed to end inquiry. Three observations locate that silence: 1. First, local communities had a visual language for powerful, possibly aquatic beings—the **Pictish stones**—that functioned without textual mediation. Roman validation was not required for those images to carry meaning. 2. Second, the earliest literary scene comes later, in Adomnán’s account of **St. Columba** on the **River Ness**. As hagiography, it showcases sanctity rather than zoology, but it preserves a memory of danger in the water and of a tale that listeners in the district would understand. 3. Third, the modern period reframed the issue entirely. The 1930s brought a road with uninterrupted sightlines, a photograph ready for the front page, organized searches, and then instruments—sonar and cameras—that kept the question open without closing it. A direct Roman testimony would be a notable find, but its absence is not unexpected. Roman provincial prose seldom recorded **local lake lore**, and the survival of texts for northern Scotland is thin. [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/)’s [*Agricola*](https://amzn.to/48wq8wq?ref=romanempiretimes.com) recounts the governor’s northern campaigns in Caledonia without a single aquatic beast in the Great Glen. Roman itineraries, military dispositions, and later imperial summaries likewise pass over the loch’s waters in silence. (*The Loch Ness Monster, by D.G. Gowler; The case for the Loch Ness "Monster": The scientific evidence, by Henry Bower; The Population Density of Monsters in Loch Ness, by R.W. Sheldon and S.R. Kerr*) --- The cautious summary is therefore straightforward: **Romans left no record of a Loch Ness monster**; what we have though is Picts (who lived there ages before the Romans) sharing stories about mythological creatures, then dead silence from the Romans, and after that a sudden surge of new stories, fueled by the Christian and Late Pict stories from St. Columba onwards. So, it is either that Roman records of monster tales are lost, or–most likely–that Romans, actually being pragmatic, never believed the stories unless they were actually confirmed; since they were, they is no written record. Thus, the world awaited for strong scientific evidence to see that there is nothing in the Loch, but in truth, **if they looked to the Romans, they would have found the truth much earlier**. ### Aurelian: Restorer of the World and Savior of a Fractured Empire URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/aurelian-restorer-of-the-world-and-savior-of-a-fractured-roman-empire/ Last updated: 2025-10-18T00:20:00.000Z In an age when the Roman world seemed beyond repair, one man rose from the ranks of the army to restore it. Emperor Aurelian, who reigned from 270 to 275 CE, inherited an empire torn by invasion, rebellion, and economic collapse. Yet within five years, he reunited the provinces lost to breakaway powers, strengthened Rome’s defenses, reformed its coinage, and proclaimed a new divine order under the sun god *Sol Invictus*. His rule, brief but transformative, marked the moment when the empire began to recover from its deepest crisis—earning him the enduring title *Restitutor Orbis*, “Restorer of the World.” ![Calcography in Giovanni Battista Cavalieri & Thomas Treterus, Romanorum imperatorum effigies, Rome, Vincenzo Accolti](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Calcography-in-Giovanni-Battista-Cavalieri---Thomas-Treterus--Romanorum-imperatorum-effigies--Rome--Vincenzo-Accolti.jpg) Calcography in Giovanni Battista Cavalieri & Thomas Treterus, Romanorum imperatorum effigies, Rome, Vincenzo Accolti. Public domain ### The Empire Before the Storm In the early third century CE, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) still appeared unshakable. Its [armies](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) guarded a vast frontier stretching from the Atlantic to the Euphrates, its provinces thrived under a shared system of law, and its emperors projected the authority of centuries-old stability. Yet beneath this calm, the mechanisms that had sustained the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/) for generations were beginning to fail. The reign of [Septimius Severus](https://romanempiretimes.com/septimius-severus-founder-fighter-and-father-of-a-new-rome/) offered strength, but it also planted the roots of crisis. To secure his throne, Severus relied heavily on the [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-mystery-of-the-lost-roman-legion-the-ninths-final-march/), enlarging their numbers and increasing their pay. The [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/), once the moral center of government, found itself marginalized, while the cost of loyalty drained the treasury. The silver coinage lost its purity, prices soared, and confidence in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s currency faltered. At the same time, pressures mounted along the frontiers. Beyond the Rhine and the Danube, migrating peoples pushed westward, testing the borders. In the east, the Parthian kingdom fell to the new Sassanid dynasty under Ardashir I, whose ambition and resources far exceeded those of his predecessors. The [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/)’s enemies had grown stronger just as its internal cohesion began to weaken. [Caracalla](https://romanempiretimes.com/brothers-divided-the-tragic-tale-of-emperors-caracalla-and-geta/)’s universal grant of citizenship, meant to broaden taxation, erased the legal distinctions that had once defined [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s hierarchy. Soldiers from the provinces no longer saw service as a path to citizenship, and the quality of recruits declined. When Severus Alexander attempted to restore order through moderation and consultation with the Senate, his restraint only alienated the army. The [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) entered the 230s with its borders strained, its economy unstable, and its soldiers restless — an uneasy calm before the disintegration that was to come. ![Palmyra (Tadmor), Monumental Arch of Septimius Severus that Aurelian completed](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Palmyra--Tadmor---Monumental-Arch-of-Septimius-Severus-that-Aurelian-completed.jpg) Palmyra (Tadmor), Monumental Arch of Septimius Severus that Aurelian completed. Credits: Herbert Frank, CC BY 2.0 ### The Age of the Soldier-Emperors The murder of Severus Alexander in 235 CE shattered what remained of imperial legitimacy. Henceforth, [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/69-ce-the-year-of-the-four-emperors/) were made not by decree of the Senate but by the will of the troops. The throne became a prize for generals, each ruling only as long as he could hold the loyalty of his legions. [Maximinus Thrax](https://romanempiretimes.com/maximinus-thrax-how-did-a-towering-barbarian-giant-soldier-become-roman-emperor/), the first of these military rulers, embodied the new order. A man of humble origin and immense strength, he governed by fear and force. His efforts to secure the loyalty of the army through lavish pay increases crippled the economy and provoked revolts. Across the provinces, governors and landowners raised rival [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-shadow-of-the-dagger-assassinations-of-roman-emperors/), while the Senate attempted in vain to reassert its authority. What followed was an age of endless civil war. Armies once stationed to defend the frontiers turned inward against each other, leaving the borders exposed to invasion. The Gordians’ brief uprising in Africa, the Senate’s desperate appointments, and the repeated rebellions of provincial commanders revealed an empire losing control of its own machinery. Barbarian incursions multiplied. The Goths and other northern peoples crossed the Danube; in the East, the Persians advanced into Roman territory. The constant struggle for power drained men and resources. By mid-century, the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) was fractured into rival realms, its unity preserved only in name. Amid this chaos, one lesson became clear: the empire could no longer survive through tradition or lineage. Its salvation would depend on the strength of a soldier capable not only of commanding armies but of restoring order — a man who would soon appear in the figure of Aurelian. ![Aureus (Coin) Portraying Emperor Aurelian by Ancient Roman](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Aureus--Coin--Portraying-Emperor-Aurelian-by-Ancient-Roman.jpg) Aureus (Coin) Portraying Emperor Aurelian. Credits: Art Institute of Chicago, Public domain ### A Glimmer of Recovery Out of the empire’s long turmoil emerged the first signs of renewal. Gallienus, though embattled on every frontier, began reshaping the army into a more professional and mobile force, ending the Senate’s control over military command. His reforms prepared the ground for stability, even as the empire fractured between the [Gallic](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/) usurpers in the west and the Palmyrene dominion in the east. After Gallienus’s death, Claudius II defeated the Goths at Naissus, restoring Roman morale and authority. His brief reign marked the first true turning of the tide. When he succumbed to plague, the throne passed to his fellow soldier Aurelian—who would soon transform recovery into restoration. ### From Humble Fields to the Sword’s Edge The origins of Lucius Domitius Aurelianus Augustus, later known as Aurelian, remain uncertain. The only source for his early years is the Historia Augusta under the name of Flavius Vopiscus, whose reliability has long been questioned. Yet, in the absence of any alternative record, his account—part myth, part memory—remains the sole narrative that survives. Aurelian was born on 9 September, around 214 or 215 CE, probably at Sirmium in Pannonia, though some traditions place his birthplace further east in Lower Moesia, later called Dacia Ripensis. His family was of humble status: his father a farmhand employed by a senator named Aurelius, and his mother a priestess of the Sun god. Their modest origins later fed the legend that the future emperor’s rise was foretold by divine signs. Ancient superstition wrapped Aurelian’s infancy in omens. His mother, weary of poverty, is said to have rebuked her husband with the words, “Behold the father of an emperor,” and fashioned the infant’s first garments from a [purple](https://romanempiretimes.com/purple-pollution-how-rome-lust-for-luxury-stained-the-ancient-seas/) cloak once dedicated to the Sun. An [eagle](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-has-the-eagle-become-the-roman-symbol/), according to the tale, carried the [purple](https://romanempiretimes.com/tyrian-purple-the-royal-dye-of-the-ancient-world-and-the-secrets-of-murex-extraction/)\-clad child to a nearby shrine, laying him there unharmed—a symbol that the gods had chosen him. Other stories told of a household snake that wrapped itself around his basin, a creature his mother took as the spirit protecting their home. ![A walk along the Aurelian wall from the Porta Portese to the Janiculum Hill](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/A-walk-along-the-Aurelian-wall-from-the-Porta-Portese-to-the-Janiculum-Hill.jpg) A walk along the Aurelian wall from the Porta Portese to the Janiculum Hill. Credits: bob, CC BY 2.0 When he reached manhood, Aurelian joined the Roman army, likely around 235 CE, at the close of Severus Alexander’s reign. Described as tall, strong, and commanding in appearance, he quickly distinguished himself in combat. One early tale claims that he alone struck down hundreds of Sarmatians in a single campaign—an impossible feat, yet one that captures his reputation for ferocity and endurance. Songs were said to have been sung about him, celebrating “a thousand slain.” Behind such exaggerations lay a soldier’s reality: Aurelian’s exceptional discipline, courage, and skill were evident from the outset. Rising through the ranks, he served as a centurion, then as tribune of the Sixth Legion at Mogontiacum (Mainz), where he fought against the Franks during their invasions of Gaul. Here again, the chroniclers credited him with astonishing numbers of victories, though the achievements likely belong to the legion as a whole. What mattered was his relentless conduct in the field. His discipline was absolute—so much so that he earned the epithet *manu ad ferrum*, “hand to the sword,” for his uncompromising severity. He was known to demand order from his men with unflinching precision. One preserved letter, whether genuine or not, reflects the spirit attributed to him: that soldiers must plunder only Rome’s enemies, maintain their arms and animals with care, and be treated as soldiers, not as [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/). His insistence on moral and material discipline would later define his rule as emperor. Omens continued to follow him. Once, wounded and unable to ride, he entered Antioch in a carriage draped with imperial [purple](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/)—a privilege forbidden within city walls. Forced to mount a horse, he was unknowingly given the emperor’s own steed. The episode, like others before it, was taken as a sign of destiny. From such beginnings—half legend, half record—emerged the soldier who would one day restore the empire’s unity. ![Norman Prescott Davies' painting, Ambassadors of the Alumanni before Aurelian](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Norman-Prescott-Davies--painting--Ambassadors-of-the-Alumanni-before-Aurelian.jpg) Norman Prescott Davies' painting, Ambassadors of the Alumanni before Aurelian. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### The Rise of a Soldier and the Path to Power Aurelian’s career advanced steadily during the reign of [Emperor Valerian](https://romanempiretimes.com/valerian-the-only-roman-emperor-who-was-captured-alive-by-an-enemy/). He likely rose to the post of legion prefect, serving as deputy to senior generals commanding troops on the empire’s frontiers. His abilities earned him diplomatic and military assignments, including a mission to Persia where he received imperial gifts from the king—tokens normally reserved for emperors—which he dutifully presented to Valerian. His loyalty and distinction brought further promotion to Inspector of Military Camps, along with public recognition and financial support during his stay in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/). At this stage, Aurelian became associated with the figure of Ulpius Crinitus, a senator said to have commanded forces in Illyricum and Thrace. Though his existence is uncertain, the narrative describes Aurelian serving under him and later repelling Gothic incursions with independent command. His victories were said to enrich the provinces with spoils and to provide the emperor with substantial tribute. Crinitus, impressed by his deputy, reportedly adopted Aurelian as his heir and arranged for him to hold a consulship—a symbolic act connecting him to the legacy of the Ulpii, the family of [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/). The record then grows obscure. During the reign of Gallienus, Aurelian’s activities are scarcely mentioned. He may have taken part in campaigns against the Gothic invasions or in the suppression of the eastern usurpers, but no certain evidence survives. With the rise of Claudius II Gothicus, the sources become clearer: Aurelian served loyally under him, commanding legions against the Goths and Heruli in the Balkans. His effectiveness led to his appointment as general of the empire’s heavy cavalry, one of the most prestigious commands of the time. ![Walls of Rome, The Aurelian Wall, with the Pyramid of Cestius, a painting by Isaac Weld](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Walls-of-Rome--The-Aurelian-Wall--with-the-Pyramid-of-Cestius--a-painting-by-Isaac-Weld.jpg) Walls of Rome, The Aurelian Wall, with the Pyramid of Cestius, a painting by Isaac Weld. Credits: Yale Center for British Art, Public domain When Claudius died of plague in 270, his brother Quintillus briefly claimed the throne with senatorial backing. Aurelian, commanding in the Balkans, was acclaimed emperor by his troops, who regarded him as Claudius’s legitimate successor. His victory over the remaining Gothic forces strengthened his claim, and the legions soon deserted Quintillus, whose short reign ended in suicide. By the autumn of 270, Aurelian stood as uncontested ruler of the Roman Empire—a soldier of humble birth who had risen through discipline, loyalty, and the support of the army to the imperial purple. ### The Army Aurelian Took to War By Aurelian’s accession, the legions still fought in the old Roman way—heavy infantry “like a wall,” reserves behind, light troops screening in front—but the striking edge now lay with elite cavalry and agile *vexillationes* that could be rushed to crises. Against Persia and Palmyra, Rome faced *clibanarii*, horse and rider sheathed in armour; Heliodorus describes them: > “enclosed completely in a single, tight-fitting helmet with only two openings for the eyes,” charging > “like a man made of iron.” Their weakness was weight and momentum. Aurelian’s answer was practical: shock them, unhorse them, and let disciplined infantry and mobile cavalry finish the work. Money and order shaped behavior. Real pay had collapsed in debased coin, so the state made good in rations, kit, and donatives—but temptation bred indiscipline. Aurelian’s hallmark was to re-impose strict control: guarded pay chests, daily fortified camps, plunder only on command, proceeds shared across the ranks. On the field, doctrine was simple and relentless: hold formation, wear the enemy with missiles, commit cavalry at the moment of disorder, and never let the infantry wall dissolve in pursuit—the light troops and horse did the chasing. The result was a still-Roman army, modernized by crisis and made lethal again by command, timing, and discipline. ![Engraved Portrait of Aurelian](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Engraved-Portrait-of-Aurelian-1.jpg) Engraved Portrait of Aurelian. Credits: Getty Museum, Public domain ### Seizing the Purple, Facing the Fire (late 270–271) After Quintillus’ death, Aurelian was swiftly acknowledged across Rome-loyal mints (Cyzicus, Siscia, then Mediolanum and Rome). He met senators at Ravenna (Nov. 270) aiming for cooperation and a shared consulship with T. Pomponius Bassus. Asked how to rule well, the advice was: “*Make use of gold and iron*.” He then beat back rapid northern threats in sequence: ambushed the Juthungi as they recrossed the Danube; crushed Vandals in Pannonia (winter 270/271)—polling his exhausted troops, who chose clemency; and checked Germanic bands driving toward Rome, culminating in victory near the Metaurus (*Fanum Fortunae*), commemorated by inscriptions at Pisaurum and Fanum calling him invictus and “of eternal victory.” Aurelian suppressed the mint-workers’ revolt on the Caelian (heavy fighting; mint halted), then punished elite backers: a few senators executed and estates seized. The man who urged “gold and iron” “tasted the iron of his own recommendation.” From his bed, M. Nummius Albinus said: > “If the Fatherland is well, to be sure I will die unwillingly… if otherwise, I die gladly.” Usurpers—Septimius, [Domitianus](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/), Urbanus—briefly surfaced and were extinguished. Pattern: swift force, then consolidation. ![Palmyra (Tadmor), Temple of Baal Shamin, God of Storm and Rain, completed by Emperor Aurelian](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Palmyra--Tadmor---Temple-of-Baal-Shamin--God-of-Storm-and-Rain--completed-by-Emperor-Aurelian.jpg) Palmyra (Tadmor), Temple of Baal Shamin, God of Storm and Rain, completed by Emperor Aurelian. Credits: Herbert Frank, CC BY 2.0 Aurelian restored order with conservative instincts: honor the Senate when loyal (consulship with Bassus on 1 Jan. 271), punish corruption, enforce strict accountability. Ancient sketches show a fiery, frugal ruler (red wine, fasting when ill). Command continuity and formations tied to the *Protectores Aureliani Augusti* point to a trusted cadre bound by discipline and personal loyalty. With Rome, the Gallic Empire, and Palmyra dividing the legions, strategy pointed east: recover wealth and grain to stabilize the West. He began the Aurelian Walls, repaired [roads](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/), and left the pomerium unchanged. En route east, Aurelian beat back fresh Gothic raids in Thrace/Balkans, then made the hard call to evacuate [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/trajan-bridge-ancient-world-first-to-surpass-1km-kilometer-2000-years-ago/)’s Dacia north of the Danube. Willing civilians and troops were resettled south, forming *Dacia Ripensis* (later subdivided). Prestige dipped, but defenses and manpower concentration improved; a mint opened at Serdica. Administratively, the frontier was rationalized—even as some inhabitants remained north of the river. Aurelian moved through Thrace into Syria, beat Palmyrene forces near Immae (Antioch) and again at Emesa, and took Palmyra, sparing the city on submission. In Egypt he expelled Palmyrene garrisons to secure the grain supply. A second rising at Palmyra brought a harsher return; the revolt was extinguished and the eastern settlement held. With Syria and Egypt restored and the treasury replenished, he turned to the West. ![Navolger van Bartholomeus Breenbergh's painting, depicting an Italian Landscape with the Aurelian Wall](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Navolger-van-Bartholomeus-Breenbergh-s-painting--depicting-an-Italian-Landscape-with-the-Aurelian-Wall.jpg) Navolger van Bartholomeus Breenbergh's painting, depicting an Italian Landscape with the Aurelian Wall. Public domain ### Restitutor Orbis After defeating Palmyra in the East—recovering Egypt and Syria—Aurelian turned west and finished the work of reunion. Spain was already back; Gaul and Britain followed when Tetricus capitulated and the Rhine line was reset with disciplined garrisons and repaired towns. He rebuilt *Cenabum* as *Aureliani* (Orléans), kept useful Gallic officers in post, and curbed frontier temptations by closing the Trier mint and reopening Lugdunum. With the empire whole, he assumed the earned title *Restitutor Orbis* and celebrated a triumph in Rome. To bind the restoration, he raised *Sol Invictus* as the state cult, consecrated a grand temple, endowed new games, and stamped the Sun across [imperial coinage](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/). Milestones and inscriptions from his final years present a settled message—recovered provinces, secure roads and defenses, and a unity made durable by reform. ([*The Roman Emperor Aurelian. Restorer of the world*](https://amzn.to/4o7UWZ6?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by John F. White*) ![Queen Zenobia in the Tent of Aurelian, attributed to Gerolamo Bassano](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Queen-Zenobia-in-the-Tent-of-Aurelian--attributed-to-Gerolamo-Bassano.jpg) Queen Zenobia in the Tent of Aurelian, attributed to Gerolamo Bassano. Public domain ### Arbiter, Not Persecutor At [Antioch](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), Aurelian settled the dispute over Paul of Samosata by ordering the church premises handed to those “in communion with the bishops of Italy and Rome,” a first clear instance of imperial arbitration inside the Church—more stabilizer than scourge. Later Christian writers cast him on the brink of repression. Lactantius claims > “his bloody edicts had not yet reached the more distant provinces,” while Eusebius says Aurelian was > “just on the point” of signing decrees when > “divine Justice” intervened. No dates, no texts—just rumor fitted to providential narratives. In a reunited but fragile empire, Aurelian’s policy aligned with order: quiet cities, reliable allies, and no self-defeating crusade. (*Some Thoughts on the Emperor Aurelian as “Persecutor”, by Patrick Hurley*) ![Triumph of Emperor Aurelian in 274, by Bernard Picart. Queen Zenobia is paraded in the streets of Ancient Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Triumph-of-Emperor-Aurelian-in-274--by-Bernard-Picart.jpg) Triumph of Emperor Aurelian in 274, by Bernard Picart. Queen Zenobia is paraded in the streets of Ancient Rome. Public domain ### Sun Made Roman: Aurelian’s Sol Invictus Sol Invictus—the Unconquered Sun—was a state-backed solar cult that blended Rome’s traditional Sol with eastern solar traditions (*Helios, Baal*), presenting the Sun as the supreme guardian of the empire rather than an exclusive, monotheistic deity. Its worship was public and civic—temple sacrifices, priestly colleges, and circus games (including the *Dies Natalis Invicti* on 25 December)—meant to bind soldiers and citizens under a single protective power. In Aurelian’s program, other gods were subsumed under Sol’s radiance, a Roman syncretism that crowned tradition instead of replacing it. Aurelian didn’t import an eastern cult whole; he Romanized the Sun and set it at the center of a reunited state. He proclaimed Deus Sol Invictus the empire’s chief protector (274), pushed the formula “*Sol Dominus Imperii Romani*” on coinage, and used imagery where the Sun crowns concord between emperor and empire—an explicit program of unity through a single, syncretic god. He built a new state temple to Sol on the Field of Mars (Regio VII), lavishly endowed with gold, gems, textiles (much of it Palmyrene booty), and lined with porticoes that even stored fiscal wine—a public, not private, cult space. Inside, he placed images of Helios and Baal and other deities to signal that Sol summed their powers—a Roman syncretism, not [Elagabalus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-divine-chaos-of-elagabalus-romes-most-unconventional-emperor/)’ supremacy of one foreign god. Dedication rites were solemn and respectable, stripped of the Syrian excesses that had once scandalized Rome. ![Zenobia, ruler of the Palmyrene empire, is besieged in Antioch by the Roman emperor Aurelian, and gives orders for the moving of her treasure, a line engraving by Charles Etienne Gaucher](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Zenobia--ruler-of-the-Palmyrene-empire--is-besieged-in-Antioch-by-the-Roman-emperor-Aurelian--and-gives-orders-for-the-moving-of-her-treasure--a-line-engraving-by-Charles-Etienne-Gaucher.jpg) Zenobia, ruler of the Palmyrene empire, is besieged in Antioch by the Roman emperor Aurelian, and gives orders for the moving of her treasure, a line engraving by Charles Etienne Gaucher. Credits: Wellcome Collection, Public domain To make the Sun’s cult feel Roman in practice, he instituted the *Agones Solis*, quadrennial games, and fixed 25 December (*Dies Natalis Invicti*) with thirty [circus races](https://romanempiretimes.com/fury-on-wheels-the-legendary-chariot-races-of-ancient-rome/); other Sol-games ran in October—probably the anniversary of his reform. This calendarization, priestly colleges (pontifices Dei Solis drawn from senators), and circus culture anchored Sol in Roman civic life. Politically, Sol made the monarchy intelligible: the emperor as Sol’s chosen, even styled “*Deus Aurelianus et Dominus*” on celebratory issues, with the diadem and jeweled cloak as public insignia. The message was clear—one empire, one leader, one guardian god—which is why the program outlived him (Probus and later rulers kept backing Sol). (*The cult of Sol Invictus, Etudes preliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’ empire Romain. Publiees par M.J Vermaseren, Tome Vingt – Troisieme, Gaston H. Halsberghe*) --- Aurelian fell to assassination on the road at Caenophrurium in 275, the work unfinished but the direction unmistakable. The empire he left was smaller in theory yet stronger in fact: frontiers rationalized, roads and walls renewed, coinage on the path to order, the army drilled back to discipline, and a state cult that spoke a single language of unity. Deified by a grateful Senate, **he was remembered not for promises but for results**—the soldier who made recovery possible and gave later emperors something solid to govern. ### Nerva: The First of the Good Roman Emperors URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/nerva-the-first-of-the-good-roman-emperors/ Last updated: 2025-10-14T22:38:23.000Z When Domitian fell beneath the assassin’s blade in 96 A.D., Rome stood on the edge of chaos. The Senate, long humiliated and afraid, sought a man who could calm the storm without igniting another. Their choice was Marcus Cocceius Nerva — elderly, childless, and untainted by tyranny. In less than two years on the throne, he would repair a shattered empire, restore the Senate’s dignity, and set in motion a line of emperors that would carry Rome to its greatest heights. ### The Fragile Art of Succession: From Domitian’s Death to Nerva’s Rise A change in government is among the most perilous moments for any state’s stability. While modern democracies have developed mechanisms to manage transitions—through elections, transitions, or caretaker governments—autocracies remain vulnerable to turmoil, particularly at the death or overthrow of a ruler. The [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) exemplified this danger. Its lack of a fixed succession system meant that power could pass by heredity, election, or adoption, but each method carried risk. Sudden deaths, [assassinations](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-assassinations-lit-rome-civil-wars-what-can-roman-history-teach-us/), and rival claimants frequently led to instability or civil war. From [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) to[ Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/), hereditary succession often ended in bloodshed, with few [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) dying natural deaths. When Nero’s suicide extinguished the Julio-Claudian line, the civil wars of 68–70 A.D. revealed the lethal consequences of a vacant throne. [Vespasian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/)’s victory restored temporary stability through a new hereditary line, yet [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/)’s eventual assassination reopened the same uncertainty: he left no heir, and his adopted cousins were mere boys. To prevent another descent into civil conflict, conspirators swiftly elevated Marcus Cocceius Nerva—an elderly, childless senator whose very neutrality made him a safe choice. His adoption of the general [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/) would later secure a peaceful transition, but the years 96–98 A.D. remained a moment of profound tension. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) stood on the edge of another civil war that, remarkably, never came. ![Bust of Emperor Nerva in Palazzo Altemps, Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Bust-of-Emperor-Nerva-in-Palazzo-Altemps--Rome-1.jpg) Bust of Emperor Nerva in Palazzo Altemps, Rome. Credits: José Luiz Bernardes Ribeiro, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### The Emperor Who Calmed the Storm Nerva was a man whose reputation for moderation promised stability without vengeance. Yet his age and frailty also made him a temporary solution to a deeper crisis: who would command [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s armies and hold together an [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/) accustomed to dynastic rule? In the first months of his reign, Nerva sought to undo the [harsh legacy of Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/dining-with-domitian-and-the-enigma-of-domitian-black-dinner/). He recalled exiles, restored confiscated properties, and promised a freer political climate. His coinage proclaimed *libertas* *publica* and *concordia senatus populi Romani*, signalling reconciliation between ruler and [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/). But harmony proved fragile. The [Praetorian Guard](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/), furious that [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-titus-and-domitian-brotherhood-on-rome-imperial-stage/)’s [assassins](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-shadow-of-the-dagger-assassinations-of-roman-emperors/) went unpunished, rioted and forced Nerva to submit to their demands. The episode exposed the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/69-ce-the-year-of-the-four-emperors/)’s weakness and made clear that the army, not the Senate, would decide [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s future. To avert disaster, Nerva turned to the principle of adoption. In October 97 A.D., after private consultations across the empire’s command network, he adopted Marcus Ulpius Traianus — a younger general of proven loyalty — as his son and successor. The choice united Senate and [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) under a single figure and transformed a potential civil war into a peaceful transition. Nerva’s final months were quiet; when he died in January 98, [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/)’s accession was accepted without violence. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Bust-of-Roman-Emperor-Nerva.jpg) ## Though his reign lasted barely sixteen months, Nerva accomplished what few emperors before him had managed: he stabilized the empire without bloodshed. **Bust of Roman Emperor Nerva. Credits: cascoly, Canva* By separating the throne from heredity and introducing a system of succession based on merit and consent, he became the first of the so-called “*Five Good Emperors.*” His brief rule marked the end of fear and the beginning of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s most enduring age of peace. ### Justice, Frugality, and the Care of Empire Nerva’s approach to governance reflected moderation and moral repair after years of autocratic excess. He introduced reforms that restored public confidence in imperial justice and finance. Fiscal disputes were removed from imperial officials and reassigned to praetorian courts, ensuring fairer adjudication under senatorial oversight. He also eased the burden of inheritance taxes, relieved financial pressures on citizens, and modified the *fiscus Judaicus* to prevent its abuse. To stabilize the treasury, he even sold palace furnishings and repurposed Domitian’s statues — gestures that symbolized restraint and accountability in an empire long accustomed to extravagance. Determined to include the Senate in state affairs, Nerva created a commission of distinguished senators, among them [Frontinus](https://romanempiretimes.com/frontinus-rome-master-of-strategy-and-water/) and Spurinna, to examine imperial finances and propose measures of economy. This body signaled a renewed partnership between emperor and aristocracy — a stark contrast to Domitian’s solitary rule. The commission’s work helped Nerva re-establish confidence that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/niche-perfumes-in-ancient-rome-how-did-emperors-smell-like/) could be governed by consultation rather than fear. Though his reign was brief, Nerva ensured the completion and maintenance of essential public works. He continued Domitian’s construction of the *Forum Transitorium,* later known as the Forum of Nerva, linking the imperial fora into a continuous civic space. Projects on the [Circus Maximus](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-circus-maximus-and-why-there-is-nothing-left-of-it/), aqueducts such as the Aqua Marcia and Anio Novus, and several provincial road systems were sustained without interruption, showing that stability, not grandeur, defined his architectural policy. [Coin](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) legends such as Annona Augusta and Tutela Italiae reveal Nerva’s concern for Italy’s prosperity. He supported local economies, encouraged legacies to municipalities, and reduced taxation where possible. Though modest in scale, these measures reflected a broader vision of restoring Italy’s central role in the empire — a policy later developed under Trajan’s alimenta program. ([*Nerva and the Roman succession crisis of AD 96-99*](https://amzn.to/4nSx77K?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by John D. Grainger*) ![Gold aureus Roman coin portraying Emperor Nerva and Libertas Publica](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Gold-aureus-Roman-coin-portraying-Emperor-Nerva.jpg) Gold aureus Roman coin portraying Emperor Nerva and Libertas Publica. Credits: Art Institute of Chicago, Illustration by Roman Empire Times ### Nerva’s Finances: Moderation Amid a Mirage of Abundance Contrary to later tradition, the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/) Nerva inherited was not bankrupt. Domitian had left a treasury in good condition, its revenues sustained by disciplined administration rather than waste. Yet in the political upheaval that followed the assassination, Nerva’s government began spending rapidly — not from necessity, but to secure loyalty and calm public unrest. Lavish donatives and *congiaria* were paid to both the people and the Praetorian Guard, while tax remissions and new benefits were issued to win approval. The Economy Commission that followed months later was therefore not an emergency measure to refill an empty treasury, but a corrective against the extravagance of Nerva’s early months in power. To symbolize change, Nerva melted Domitian’s gold and silver statues, sold imperial furnishings, and declared parts of the palace public property — acts meant less to restore finances than to project virtue and humility. Despite gestures of frugality, spending continued through public works, road restoration, [aqueduct](https://romanempiretimes.com/marvel-ancient-roman-aqueducts/) maintenance, and generous civic relief. As aforementioned, his coinage reflected this moral and fiscal program, celebrating *equitas, libertas,* and *fides publica.* Nerva’s short reign thus stood between two extremes: Domitian’s rigor and Trajan’s expansion. His reforms did not arise from crisis but from principle. By balancing generosity with restraint and preserving financial health while easing the burdens of citizens, he laid the fiscal and moral foundations of the peace that followed. (*The Imperial Finances under Domitian, Nerva and Trajan, by Ronald Syme*) ![Illustration of a statue of Nerva in the Vatican, by James Anderson](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Illustration-of-a-statue-of-Nerva-in-the-Vatican--by-James-Anderson.jpg) Illustration of a statue of Nerva in the Vatican, by James Anderson. Credits: Getty Museum ### Symbols of Fairness and Freedom: Nerva’s Coinage as Moral Communication The coinage of Nerva carried messages far beyond the value of metal. Among its most striking motifs were the paired figures of *Aequitas* and *Iustitia*—fairness and justice—appearing on gold, silver, and bronze issues throughout his short reign. Rather than technical references to the purity of the coinage or the control of state finances, these images embodied the emperor’s character and ideals. The scales and cornucopia of Aequitas suggested balance and abundance, while Iustitia, holding a sceptre and branch, represented lawful judgment and mercy. These symbols echoed the language of the age. Contemporary writers praised Nerva for his moderation, fairness, and respect for right conduct. The same moral tone appeared in public art: on the frieze of the Forum of Nerva, the figure of Aequitas is shown in a scene of judgment, linking the emperor’s name with the restoration of justice in public life. The imagery on the coins thus mirrored the virtues celebrated in verse and oratory—a ruler who ruled through equity rather than fear. Alongside Aequitas and Iustitia, the personification of Libertas Publica held a central place in Nerva’s coinage. Depicted with the *pilleus* and *vindicta*, symbols of manumission, she proclaimed the end of oppression and the return of open speech and lawful governance. Together, these personifications created a language of virtue that defined the new age. Nerva’s coins were not mere instruments of exchange, but miniature declarations that fairness, justice, and liberty had once again found their place in Rome. (*Aequitas and Iustitia on the Coinage of Nerva: a Case of Visual Panegyric, by Nathan T. Elkins*) ![Le Colonnacce, Rome, remains of the Inner Walls of the Forum of Nerva](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Le-Colonnacce--Rome--remains-of-the-Inner-Walls-of-the-Forum-of-Nerva.jpg) Le Colonnacce, Rome, remains of the Inner Walls of the Forum of Nerva. Credits: Yale Center for British Art Nerva’s reign may have been brief, yet **its impact was lasting**. In a world exhausted by fear and excess, he governed through reason, restraint, and fairness. His adoption of Trajan secured the line of good emperors that followed, but his true legacy lay in proving that power, when tempered by virtue, **could heal an empire**. ### How truly Great was Emperor Constantine the Great? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/how-truly-great-was-emperor-constantine-the-great/ Last updated: 2025-10-10T22:37:58.000Z Few emperors have been praised, studied, and mythologized as much as Constantine the Great — the man who ended the persecutions, legalized Christianity, and founded a new capital that would bear his name for a thousand years. Yet behind the golden legends lies a more complex figure: a ruler shaped as much by politics as by faith, whose conversion still divides historians. Was Constantine truly a Christian emperor, or a pragmatic statesman who saw in the new religion a tool to restore unity to a fractured world? His reign stands at the meeting point between the pagan past and the Christian future — an age not of miracles, but of transformation. ![Statue of Constantine the Great in Oria,Copy of the statue destroyed by the earthquake of 1743 by local author Mario Sabatelli](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Statue-of-Constantine-the-Great-in-Oria-Copy-of-the-statue-destroyed-by-the-earthquake-of-1743-by-local-author-Mario-Sabatelli.jpg) Statue of Constantine the Great in Oria,Copy of the statue destroyed by the earthquake of 1743 by local author Mario Sabatelli. Credits: Livioandronico2013, CC BY-SA 4.0 ## The Making of an Emperor Constantine’s beginnings were humble and, in some respects, mysterious. He was born in or near the Moesian city of Naissus (modern Niš, Serbia), the eldest son of Flavius Valerius Constantius, who would later become[ emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/the-year-of-the-four-emperors/). The exact year of his birth remains uncertain: most scholars accept February 27, 272 CE, though some ancient sources suggest 276 or even 288\. Constantine himself may have encouraged the confusion, often depicting his features as younger than his years in official portraits and imperial panegyrics — a deliberate reshaping of image that would mark his career. [His mother, Helena](https://romanempiretimes.com/saint-helen-the-life-of-helena-augusta-the-empress-who-changed-history/), was of modest background. Later writers, such as Jerome and Ambrose, described her as a concubine or even a stable maid when she met Constantius, who left her around 289 to marry Theodora, the stepdaughter of Emperor Maximian. Constantine’s family origins, then, were provincial and unpretentious — Illyrian rather than aristocratic — but the rise of his father within the imperial military provided him with a powerful foothold. Constantius, originally a protector (imperial bodyguard) under Emperor Aurelian, advanced rapidly when fellow Illyrians [Diocletian](https://romanempiretimes.com/diocletian-architect-of-the-roman-empires-renewal/) and Maximian seized power in the 280s. By 293, Diocletian’s new system of government — the Tetrarchy, or “rule of four” — elevated Constantius to the rank of Caesar, serving as junior emperor under Maximian in the West, while Galerius, another Illyrian officer, became Caesar in the East. Constantine prospered under this new arrangement. He received a thorough education, mastering Latin, gaining fluency in [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/), and developing an interest in philosophy and literature. Yet his true path was military. Sent east to the courts of Diocletian and Galerius, he served as both a promising officer and a political hostage — proof of his father’s loyalty to the Tetrarchy. ![Gravure of Equestrian Statue of Constantine the Great](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Gravure-of-Equestrian-Statue-of-Constantine-the-Great.jpg) Gravure of Equestrian Statue of Constantine the Great. Public domain Ancient sources credit him with campaigns in Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, where he likely fought under Galerius in Persia (298 CE) and accompanied Diocletian during his Egyptian expedition. By his early thirties, Constantine had already seen the eastern frontiers of the empire — experience that would later distinguish him from his western rivals. When Diocletian abdicated in 305, compelling his co-emperor Maximian to do the same, the system faced its first true test. Constantius and Galerius became the new Augusti, appointing Severus and Maximin Daia as Caesars. This succession sidelined the natural heirs — Constantine, and Maximian’s son Maxentius — sowing resentment that would soon erupt into civil war. Under Galerius’s watch, Constantine’s life was precarious. Later accounts, colored by legend, claim he was sent on dangerous campaigns and even forced into combat with wild beasts to satisfy Galerius’s cruelty. Whatever the truth, Constantine distinguished himself and earned the title of tribune of the first order. In 305, hearing of his father’s campaign in Britain, Constantine sought leave to join him. Galerius, reluctant to release a potential rival, granted permission only after a night of heavy drinking — too late to retract it the next morning. Constantine had already fled, galloping westward through the imperial postal system (*cursus publicus*), selecting the best horses at each station and crippling the rest to prevent pursuit. He reached Constantius first in Bononia (modern Boulogne), and together they crossed to Britain to fight the Picts. Months later, Constantius died in Eburacum (York), with Constantine at his side. ![Detail from the Battle of Constantine and Maxentius, by Lazzaro Baldi after Giulio Romano](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Detail-from-the-Battle-of-Constantine-and-Maxentius--by-Lazzaro-Baldi-after-Giulio-Romano.jpg) Detail from the Battle of Constantine and Maxentius, by Lazzaro Baldi after Giulio Romano. Public domain ### From York to the Tiber: Acclamation and the Fall of Maxentius (306–312) On July 25, 306, the army at Eburacum (York) acclaimed Constantine emperor on the death of his father, Constantius—an act traditional to Rome’s legions but disruptive to Diocletian’s Tetrarchic order. Galerius, the senior Augustus, fumed, then grudgingly recognized Constantine only as Caesar, promoting Severus to Augustus. In[ Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/), Maxentius (son of the retired emperor Maximian) mocked Constantine as the son of a harlot and, on October 28, 306, had the praetorians and urban cohorts proclaim him ruler (with the archaizing title princeps). He soon recalled Maximian from retirement to share the purple and launched a populist program in the capital—expanding the guards, flattering the populus Romanus, and pouring money into monumental works ([Circus Maximus](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-circus-maximus-and-why-there-is-nothing-left-of-it/), the great basilica), even naming his son [Romulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-and-remus-the-legendary-founders-of-rome/). When Severus marched from Milan to suppress Maxentius, his troops defected—many had served under Maximian—and Severus fled to Ravenna, only to be lured out and captured. Galerius then invaded Italy himself (307), threatening Rome’s Senate and people, but his troops, tempted by Maxentius’s money and propaganda, wavered; he withdrew, allowing them to plunder the countryside as the price of loyalty. Rome’s stout walls and political theater had bought Maxentius time. Constantine, meanwhile, behaved like a dutiful junior ruler on the Rhine: campaigning against Franks (parading chieftains Ascaric and Merogaisus and having them thrown to beasts at Trier), bridging the Rhine near Cologne, and shoring up his position through dynastic alliance. In 307, Maximian married his daughter Fausta to Constantine, who set aside Minervina and—crucially—began styling himself Augustus. A celebratory panegyric framed the new hierarchy with studied deference: > “It becomes you, father, to survey from your pinnacle of command the world you share… You, young man, it behooves to traverse frontiers tirelessly… to send frequent laurels of victory to your father-in-law.” Maxentius’s [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/), however, grew volatile. His rupture with Maximian alienated North Africa, where the *vicarius* L. Domitius Alexander was acclaimed; the grain lifeline to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) faltered, famine struck, riots erupted, and by 309 Maxentius unleashed the [praetorians](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/), with reports of thousands slain. In the east, the religious climate hardened: though Galerius issued an edict of toleration in 311, Maximin Daia soon revived persecution. ![Byzantine mosaic of Constantine the Great](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Byzantine-mosaic-of-Constantine-the-Great.jpg) Byzantine mosaic of Constantine the Great. Public domain Constantine, who had witnessed the Great Persecution’s beginnings and whose father had never enforced it zealously, quickly granted freedom of worship in his own realms—marking him as a pragmatic friend to [Christians](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/) even while his public symbolism remained unabashedly pagan. The politics turned deadlier in 310\. Maximian rebelled in Gaul; Constantine raced from Cologne to Massalia (Marseilles), forced his surrender, and later compelled him to suicide after an alleged assassination plot. In the same year, Constantine’s propaganda pivoted. One panegyric “discovered” an imperial ancestor—Claudius Gothicus—to burnish Constantine’s pedigree. Another celebrated a daylight epiphany at a temple of Apollo (probably Grand, Vosges): > “You saw, O Constantine, your Apollo, accompanied by Victory, offering you laurel wreaths, each bearing a portent of thirty years… > > You saw, and recognized yourself in the likeness of him to whom the divine songs had foretold rule over the whole world.” From 310 onward, Constantine’s [coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) portrayed him alongside *Sol Invictus,* his “divine companion,” and carried vows for decades of rule — a blend of faith and propaganda asserting both divine favor and imperial longevity. By 312, the alliance map was set. Constantine betrothed his half-sister Constantia to Licinius; Maxentius aligned with Maximin Daia against Licinius. Refusing to wait, Constantine marched fast and light over the Alps in spring 312: he burned Segusio (Susa) for resistance, beat Maxentian forces near Turin, and took Milan. At Verona, he fought on two fronts, broke Ruricius Pompeianus, and compelled Aquileia to surrender—securing northern Italy in a whirlwind campaign. Maxentius withdrew behind [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s defenses, cutting bridges over the [Tiber](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/), including the Milvian Bridge, while stockpiling supplies. Constantine encamped on the Via Flaminia (near Malborghetto). Then came the miscalculation: on October 28, 312—the sixth anniversary of his reign—Maxentius marched out, reportedly emboldened by an oracle that “*the enemy of Rome would be killed that day*.” At Saxa Rubra, north of the city, his army was routed. The retreat to the makeshift boat-bridge beside the shattered Milvian crossing turned to disaster; pressed by panic, armored men toppled into the river. Maxentius drowned with them. Constantine entered Rome as victor. The praetorian guard would be abolished; the Tetrarchy’s fragile balance was broken. The struggle for the Roman world had a new master. ![Constantine the Great at the Milvian Bridge by Flemish and after Giulio Romano](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/IMG_3103.jpg) Constantine the Great at the Milvian Bridge by Flemish and after Giulio Romano. Credits: The Walters Art Museum, Public domain ### Maximus Augustus: Triumph and the Turn to Faith The death of Maxentius in the waters of the Tiber marked more than the end of a civil war — it marked the birth of a new imperial order. His body, recovered downstream, was decapitated, and the head was displayed on a pike as Constantine entered Rome in triumph. To many, this was justice, not fratricide. Constantine’s propaganda swiftly reimagined his rival not as a lawful emperor but as a tyrannus, a usurper whose fall liberated the city. The dedicatory inscription of the new Arch of Constantine, erected near the Colosseum in 315 CE, captured this narrative in solemn marble: > “To the emperor Caesar Flavius Constantinus the greatest, dutiful and blessed Augustus, the Senate and people of Rome dedicated this arch... because, by the inspiration of divinity and by greatness of his mind (*instinctu divinitatis mentis magnitudine*), with his army he avenged the state with righteous arms against the tyrant and his faction at one and the same time. > > To the liberator of the city, and the establisher of peace.” [Rome’s Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/), wary yet grateful, had framed the victory as divine and restorative. The language — “by the inspiration of divinity” — left the god unnamed, a deliberate ambiguity for an emperor whose faith was still evolving. Panegyrists described Maxentius as a monster and the Romans as jubilant at his demise, while Constantine moved quickly to erase his rival’s memory. Maxentius’s images and inscriptions were effaced ([*damnatio memoriae*](https://romanempiretimes.com/damnatio-memoriae-condemnation-and-eradication-in-the-political-sphere-of-rome/)), and his grand architectural projects were completed under Constantine’s name, including a great *tetraconchic* arch in the *Forum Boarium* symbolizing restored abundance. ![Peter Paul Rubens’s painting, The Triumph of Rome, The Youthful Emperor Constantine Honouring Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Peter-Paul-Rubens---s-painting--The-Triumph-of-Rome--The-Youthful-Emperor-Constantine-Honouring-Rome.jpg) Peter Paul Rubens’s painting, The Triumph of Rome, The Youthful Emperor Constantine Honouring Rome. Credits: Txllxt TxllxT, CC BY-SA 4.0 Yet Constantine’s victory was also spiritual. Ancient sources tell that, before the battle of the Milvian Bridge, he received a dream instructing him to mark his soldiers’ shields with a sacred sign: > “He was advised to mark the heavenly sign of God on the shields of his soldiers... and by means of a slanted letter X with the top of its head bent round, he marked Christ on their shields. Lactantius, [*De Mortibus Persecutorum*](https://amzn.to/46KX82H?ref=romanempiretimes.com) The symbol — the Chi-Rho (☧) — intertwined the first two letters of Christos (ΧΡιστός) and transformed a solar emblem he had seen in 310 into a Christian monogram. Whether a divine revelation or a reinterpretation of earlier imagery, Constantine now understood his triumph as heaven’s mandate. Pagan inscriptions spoke of divine inspiration; Christians saw the hand of Christ. Though the Chi-Rho was slow to appear on his coinage, Constantine’s conversion was unmistakable in action. During his months in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) after the victory, he began building monumental Christian basilicas — foremost the Lateran Basilica, erected over the razed barracks of Maxentius’s guards. He restored confiscated Christian property, granted clergy exemptions from civic duties, and wrote to Caecilianus, bishop of Carthage, ordering privileges for the African clergy. These gestures culminated in the Edict of Milan (313 CE), issued jointly with Licinius, guaranteeing religious freedom throughout the empire and ordering the restitution of all property seized from Christians. Within a year of crossing the Milvian Bridge, Constantine had turned divine vision into imperial policy. He was emperor by arms and Augustus by providence — the liberator of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/incense-in-ancient-rome-smoke-ritual-and-power/) and, soon, of the Christian faith. ![Arch of Constantine, Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Arch-of-Constantine--Rome.jpg) Arch of Constantine, Rome. Credits: bradhostetler, CC BY 2.0 ### The Final Conflict with Licinius (324 CE) In 324 CE, Constantine moved to end the diarchy. Establishing his base at Thessalonica, he built a major fleet and summoned his seasoned son Crispus to command it. On July 3, Constantine seized the initiative near Adrianople, forcing a crossing of the Hebrus and, though wounded, routed Licinius, who fled to Byzantium. While Constantine began a land siege of the fortified promontory city, Crispus fought for control of the waterways. At the mouth of the Hellespont near Elaius, he engaged Amandus’s larger fleet with only eighty ships, outmaneuvered it in the narrow, fast current, and won decisively. The next day, near Callipolis (*Gallipoli*), strong winds drove Amandus’ remaining ships onto the shore; with only four vessels left, he retreated to Byzantium. Realizing the city was lost, Licinius escaped across the Bosphorus to Chalcedon (Kadıköy). Playing the old Tetrarchic card, Licinius named a co-Augustus, Martinianus, and posted him at Lampsacus to block a crossing. Constantine countered by assembling a separate flotilla of light transports and ferried his army across the Bosphorus to the Sacred Promontory, outflanking Licinius north of Chalcedon. Licinius hastily recalled Martinianus and marched to meet him, but on September 18 at Chrysopolis (Üsküdar), his battered forces were crushed again. He fled to Nicomedia, where, with no army left, he sued for terms through Constantia, Constantine’s half-sister and Licinius’ wife. Constantine agreed to spare Licinius and his son if they abdicated; Martinianus was immediately removed. The two Licinii were sent under house arrest to Thessalonica, subjected to damnatio memoriae, and—on later charges of treason—executed (father in 325/326, son in 326). Constantine now stood sole ruler of the Roman world. ([*The Cambridge companion to the age of Constantine*](https://amzn.to/3KROQgR?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, edited by Noel Lenski*) ![A statue of Emperor Constantine the Great in York](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/A-statue-of-Emperor-Constantine-the-Great-in-York.jpg) A statue of Emperor Constantine the Great in York. Credits: Old Eboracum ruler, CC BY-SA 2.0 ### The Emperor as God’s Instrument From the moment of his conversion in 312 CE until his death in 337, Constantine reshaped the very meaning of imperial power. What had once been the dominion of men ruling by might became the image of a ruler governing by divine mandate. The emperor now stood as the earthly instrument of God, entrusted to bring unity and peace to a world fractured by war and disbelief. The transformation began on the eve of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, when Constantine reportedly saw a radiant cross above the sun bearing the words **“In this sign, conquer.”** The victory that followed convinced him that the Christian God had chosen him for a sacred purpose. From that moment, he ruled not only as emperor but as one ordained by heaven to guide the empire toward truth. His conversion was sincere yet measured. Constantine legalized Christianity and restored property seized during the persecutions, but he did not immediately abandon the [older gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/). Instead, he pursued balance—maintaining traditional forms of worship while openly favoring the faith he believed had delivered him to power. His new allegiance was made visible through the grand churches he commissioned: the Lateran Basilica in Rome, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, and the basilicas that soon marked the empire’s great cities. Constantine’s view of his role was unprecedented. He described himself as “the servant of God” (*famulus Dei*) and even as “bishop of those outside the Church.” The [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/) who had once acted as high priest of the pagan gods now imagined his authority as flowing from the Christian God. Political power was recast as a sacred trust. This sense of divine responsibility drew him deeply into the life of the Church. When disputes divided the faithful—from the Donatist schism in North Africa to the Arian controversy in Egypt—he acted as arbiter, summoning councils and urging peace among bishops. The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE became the clearest expression of his new authority: the emperor himself presiding over the assembly of bishops, uniting empire and Church beneath a single divine order. ([*Constantine the Great and Christian Imperial Theocracy*](https://amzn.to/4okPPot?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Charles Matson Odahl*) ![Colossal statue of Caesar Constantine the Great, reconstruction from 2022-2023 Capitoline museums, Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Colossal-statue-of-Caesar-Constantine-the-Great--reconstruction-from-2022-2023-Capitoline-museums--Rome.jpg) Colossal statue of Caesar Constantine the Great, reconstruction from 2022-2023 Capitoline museums, Rome. Public domain ## Was Constantine’s Conversion Real or a Political Game? The story of Constantine’s conversion remains one of history’s most debated moments. In 312 CE, after a vision said to have changed the course of empire, he embraced the Christian God and began reshaping Rome in faith and law. But was this the revelation of a believer—or the calculation of a statesman? Historians still disagree, and each reading reveals a different face of the first Christian emperor. ### H. A. Drake — The Believer Who Governed by Faith Drake sees Constantine as a man of conviction whose faith and politics worked in harmony. His conversion was genuine, yet never naïve. Having witnessed decades of civil war, he believed the Christian God offered the unity his empire so desperately needed. Drake calls this vision concordia—a sacred balance between Church and state. For him, Constantine’s rule was less about enforcing belief than about securing peace under divine order. ### Timothy D. Barnes — The Politician of Providence Barnes reads the same story differently. To him, Constantine’s conversion was the move of a master strategist who understood that aligning with Christianity meant commanding a growing, disciplined community. The emperor’s faith deepened only later, shaped by bishops and court theologians who cast him as heaven’s chosen ruler. What began as political wisdom, Barnes suggests, was later wrapped in the language of revelation. ### Peter Leithart — The Visionary of Christendom Leithart paints a portrait of a ruler guided by conviction rather than calculation. Constantine, he argues, did not distinguish between belief and empire: both were part of the same divine plan. His victories, his laws, even his new capital were extensions of that faith. In Leithart’s telling, Constantine truly believed history itself had turned toward Christ—and that he was its chosen instrument. ### A. H. M. Jones — The Soldier of Two Worlds Jones offers the most tempered view. Constantine’s faith, he writes, was sincere but incomplete—the faith of a soldier-emperor still standing between two worlds. His tolerance for pagan worship was not hypocrisy but prudence, the mark of a ruler who could not erase centuries of custom overnight. Only at the end, when baptized on his deathbed, did Constantine’s belief fully eclipse his old loyalties. ![Saint Costantine and Saint Helena with the Holy Cross, from Giovanni Mosco](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Saint-Costantine-and-Saint-Helena-with-the-Holy-Cross--from-Giovanni-Mosco.jpg) Saint Costantine and Saint Helena with the Holy Cross, from Giovanni Mosco. Credits: Davide Mauro, CC BY-SA 4.0 Under Constantine, the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) evolved into a Christian monarchy. The ruler was no longer a mere commander but the visible agent of divine will, governing by the grace of God and for the protection of His people. This union of throne and faith transformed both institutions. The [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/) became Christian in purpose, and the Church, bound to imperial favor, became universal in reach. What began as one man’s vision before battle reshaped the destiny of the ancient world and gave birth to a new idea of empire—an empire under God. Constantine’s faith has been praised as vision and dismissed as policy, yet the two may never have been separate. In his world, the favor of the gods and the fate of empire were one and the same. Whether guided by conviction or calculation, Constantine’s conversion reshaped history. It gave Rome a new god, a new capital, and a new idea of power—one that would endure long after the last emperor laid down his crown. ### How Did the Romans Conquer Greece? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-romans-conquer-greece/ Last updated: 2025-10-07T22:15:44.000Z Greece was no prize to be claimed overnight, yet by the mid-2nd century BCE it lay under Roman rule. How did a republic rooted in central Italy come to dominate the cradle of philosophy, drama, and democracy? The story begins not with a single decisive battle, but with decades of intervention, alliance, and manipulation—first in the periphery, then at the heart of Greek affairs. Rome’s path to conquest was paved through her wars with Macedon, her interventions in the Greek leagues, and, ultimately, the crushing of the Achaean League in 146 BCE. It was a conquest by degrees—legal, military, and cultural—one that left Greece politically subjugated yet culturally undefeated. ![Red-Figure Ancient Greek Stamnos, depicting a Greek warrior in battle](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Red-Figure-Ancient-Greek-Stamnos--depicting-a-Greek-warrior-in-battle.jpg) Red-Figure Ancient Greek Stamnos, depicting a Greek warrior in battle. Credits: Brooklyn Museum ### Prelude to Conquest: Warnings from Naupactus In the decades before [Roman legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/) ever landed in Greece, the Hellenistic world was already showing cracks. The successors of [Alexander the Great](https://romanempiretimes.com/alexander-the-great-in-roman-thought-hero-rival-and-legend/)—Macedon, the Seleucids, and the Ptolemies—had carved his empire into rival kingdoms whose constant wars left the [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) mainland divided and exhausted. Independent city-states like Athens, Sparta, and Corinth had long lost their old strength, surviving now through shifting alliances and fragile leagues such as the Aetolian and Achaean. [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/), writing a century later, saw that the summer of 217 BCE marked a turning point. At the Conference of Naupactus, the Aetolian leader Agelaus warned the [Greeks](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) that “*clouds were gathering in the west*.” He meant the rise of a new power—[Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)—whose wars against [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) would soon bring its gaze toward the eastern Mediterranean. His prophecy proved correct. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s first encounter with the Greek world had come earlier, in 229 BCE, when [Roman armies](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) crossed the Adriatic to curb Illyrian piracy that threatened Italian traders. What began as a limited expedition created a precedent: [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) now claimed a protector’s role in Balkan affairs. Each time [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) withdrew its forces, it left behind a deeper dependence. The Greek states, torn by their own rivalries, began to appeal to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/incense-in-ancient-rome-smoke-ritual-and-power/) for arbitration, inadvertently legitimizing Roman authority. Meanwhile, Macedon under Philip V dreamed of restoring its supremacy. The young king ended the Greek “Social War” of 220–217 BCE abruptly after learning of [Hannibal](https://romanempiretimes.com/hannibal-ad-portas-how-37-african-elephants-crossed-the-alps/)’s victory at Lake Trasimene, persuaded by his advisor Demetrius of Pharos that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/)’s distraction offered a rare opportunity. Philip’s plans to move westward into Illyria and Italy brought the two powers into collision. From that moment, Greek independence would slowly give way to Roman intervention, first in Illyria, then across the Greek mainland itself. ![Didrachma, silver coin found in Greece (Pella or Amphipolis), depicting Philip V of Macedonia, in the back King Philip (Vasileos Filippou) is written in Greek](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Didrachma--silver-coin-found-in-Greece--Pella-or-Amphipolis---depicting-Philip-V-of-Macedonia--in-the-back-King-Philip--Vasileos-Filippou--is-written-in-Greek.jpg) Didrachma, silver coin found in Greece (Pella or Amphipolis), depicting Philip V of Macedonia, in the back King Philip (Vasileos Filippou) is written in Greek. Illustration by Roman Empire Times ### Across the Adriatic: Rome’s First Step Toward Greece In 229 BCE, Rome crossed the Adriatic for the first time. What began as a campaign against piracy became the Republic’s opening move into the Greek world. Illyrian raiders under Queen Teuta had long menaced Adriatic trade and attacked cities allied to both Greece and Italy. When Roman envoys sent to negotiate were killed, the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) acted with characteristic resolve, dispatching a fleet of two hundred ships and twenty thousand soldiers—nominally to punish the Illyrians, but in truth to project power beyond the Italian peninsula. The campaign was swift. Roman forces captured Corcyra, Apollonia, and Epidamnus, driving the Illyrian garrisons north and forcing Teuta into submission. She was forbidden to sail armed ships south of Lissus or to harm Rome’s allies. The expedition created a bridgehead on the eastern Adriatic and gave Rome its first taste of Greek politics. The Illyrians were subdued, but their defeat brought the Republic face to face with the fractured Greek world, where every alliance was a prelude to intervention. The First Illyrian War did not conquer Greece, but it set a precedent. Rome had acted as an arbiter across the sea, and Greek states—seeking protection rather than fearing domination—sent envoys to thank the Senate. They did not yet realize that, in celebrating Rome’s victory, they were greeting their future master. ![A bust of Queen Teuta of Illyria](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/A-bust-of-Queen-Teuta-of-Illyria.jpg) A bust of Queen Teuta of Illyria. Credits: Hyjnesha, CC BY-SA 4.0, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### Rome and the Macedonian Wars: The Freedom of the Greeks By the early second century BCE, Rome’s influence across the Adriatic had ceased to be accidental. The Republic, victorious in Illyria and hardened by years of war with Carthage, began to look east with a new sense of purpose. To many in the Senate, the Hellenistic kingdoms were unstable, arrogant, and in need of restraint — the same justification Rome had used to subdue Italy. In Macedonia, King Philip V sought to restore the old prestige of Alexander’s house. His alliance with Hannibal during the Second Punic War made him Rome’s natural enemy. The first clash, the First Macedonian War (214–205 BCE), ended inconclusively, but it introduced Rome to the tangled politics of Greece. The Aetolian League, once wary of Rome, now courted its protection against Macedon; others followed. Every new alliance drew the Greeks deeper into dependence. Peace brought no stability. When Philip attacked cities along the Aegean and in Asia Minor, Pergamon and Rhodes appealed to Rome for help. The Senate, wary but tempted by opportunity, sent legions east once again. The Second Macedonian War (200–197 BCE) unfolded across Thessaly and northern Greece, pitting the Macedonian phalanx against the [flexible Roman legion](https://romanempiretimes.com/testudo-the-military-formation-that-lasted-from-ancient-rome-to-today-2/). In 197 BCE, the two armies met at *Cynoscephalae* — “the Dog’s Heads” — a range of rolling hills near modern Larissa. There, Titus Quinctius Flamininus, a young Roman commander fluent in Greek and sympathetic to Hellenic culture, crushed Philip’s army. The defeat ended Macedon’s bid for supremacy and exposed the vulnerability of every Greek state. ![A painting depicting the Battle of Cynocephale between the Roman legion and the Macedonian phalanx armies](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/A-painting-depicting-the-Battle-of-Cynocephale-between-the-Roman-legion-and-the-Macedonian-phalanx-armies.jpg) A painting depicting the Battle of Cynocephale between the Roman legion and the Macedonian phalanx armies. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times At the Isthmian Games two years later, Flamininus addressed the assembled crowd. The herald proclaimed: > “The Senate and people of Rome, having overcome King Philip and the Macedonians, now restore freedom to the Greeks — freedom to govern themselves, to enjoy their own laws, and to pay no tribute.” The response was thunderous. Ancient sources describe the crowd erupting in shouts so loud they startled the birds from the sky. Yet behind this act of magnanimity lay the first clear form of Roman control. By claiming to give freedom, Rome defined the terms of it. Greek gratitude soon turned to dependence, and the language of liberty became the instrument of [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/). ### The False Dawn: Antiochus III and the Greek Revolt The peace proclaimed by Rome after Cynoscephalae proved fragile. Many Greeks quickly realized that “freedom” under Roman protection was freedom only in name. Among them, resentment simmered within the Aetolian League, which had once allied with Rome but now saw itself eclipsed by more compliant neighbors. Seeking to restore its influence, the League turned to a new savior from the east — Antiochus III, king of the Seleucid Empire. Antiochus, a descendant of one of Alexander’s generals, had long dreamed of restoring his dynasty’s former reach. Victorious in campaigns through Asia Minor and beyond, he appeared to many Greeks as a champion of Hellenic independence. In 192 BCE, answering Aetolian pleas, he crossed the Aegean with a modest force and landed in Greece, where he proclaimed that his mission was to “*liberate the Hellenes*.” Yet few answered his call. The cities hesitated, remembering the ruin that past wars had brought, and Rome’s diplomats swiftly branded him an intruder. The Roman Senate, alarmed but confident, sent Manius Acilius Glabrio to confront him. In 191 BCE, the two forces met at Thermopylae, the mountain pass immortalized by Leonidas and his Spartans. Antiochus fortified the ancient position and invoked the spirit of past Greek resistance, but his army — outnumbered and poorly supported — collapsed before the disciplined Roman advance. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Sculpture-of-Antiochus-III--The-Great--at-Louvre.jpg) ## The defeat was total. Abandoning his troops, Antiochus fled back across the Aegean, his brief campaign in Greece reduced to legend. **Sculpture of Antiochus III (The Great) at Louvre. Public domain* For the Greeks, the episode was a cruel awakening. The “liberator” had failed, and with him vanished the last illusion that foreign kings might restore their autonomy. Rome, now undisputed master of the Greek mainland, pressed eastward in pursuit. The dream of resistance flickered out, replaced by uneasy acceptance that the balance of power had shifted for good. ### Rome Across the Aegean: The Defeat of Antiochus the Great Antiochus III’s flight from Greece did not end Rome’s advance; it merely shifted the battlefield eastward. The Senate was determined to crush the Seleucid threat once and for all. While Antiochus regrouped in Asia Minor, Rome forged new alliances with Pergamon and Rhodes, maritime powers that feared Seleucid expansion as much as the Romans did. Their fleets joined the campaign, marking the first great coalition between Rome and the Hellenistic East. In 190 BCE, the combined Roman and allied armies under Lucius Cornelius Scipio (known as Scipio Asiaticus), brother of [Scipio Africanus](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-was-the-best-roman-warrior-scipio-africanus-a-man-who-never-lost-a-battle/), crossed into Asia Minor. Facing them near Magnesia, close to Mount Sipylus, was a vast Seleucid force—war elephants, scythed [chariots](https://romanempiretimes.com/fury-on-wheels-the-legendary-chariot-races-of-ancient-rome/), and heavy cavalry drawn from across the eastern provinces. The battle was brief but decisive. When the chariots panicked and broke formation, the [Roman legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-enigmatic-disappearance-of-the-9th-roman-legion/) advanced with their usual discipline, enveloping the Seleucid flanks. Antiochus fled the field, leaving tens of thousands dead. The following year, the Treaty of Apamea (188 BCE) ended the war. Antiochus surrendered all territories west of the Taurus Mountains, handed over his fleet and elephants, and agreed to pay an enormous indemnity spread over twelve years. The Seleucid Empire, once the mightiest successor to Alexander, was reduced to a shadow of its former self. The victory made Rome the dominant power of the eastern Mediterranean without annexing a single province. Instead, she ruled through “friends and allies”: Rhodes, Pergamon, and smaller client kingdoms that owed their position to Roman favor. This new system of indirect control allowed Rome to expand her influence while avoiding the costs of occupation. Greek freedom remained the official slogan, but it was Rome that now defined the terms of peace and alliance. ![Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres’s painting of Antiochus sending Scipio's son back, which was destroyed in 1871](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Jean-Auguste-Dominique-Ingres---s-painting-of-Antiochus-sending-Scipio-s-son-back--which-was-destroyed-in-1871.jpg) Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres’s painting of Antiochus sending Scipio's son back, which was destroyed in 1871\. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### Rome’s Grip Tightens on Greece The defeat of Antiochus III left Rome unrivaled in the eastern Mediterranean, but conquest was followed by restraint. The Senate had no appetite for direct rule over Greece; its states were to remain “free,” provided they aligned with Roman interests. Thus began a new kind of domination—one exercised not through occupation but through influence. Greek envoys thronged to the Senate in search of favor, and their rival petitions offered Rome the perfect excuse to intervene whenever useful. The Greeks, by appealing to Rome as arbitrator, unwittingly legitimized her supremacy. Even minor disputes were now judged in the Forum rather than in Delphi or Corinth. Rome’s favored allies—Rhodes and Pergamon—acted as proxies, enforcing Roman policy while preserving the illusion of independence. Yet this arrangement bred resentment. In Greece, the Aetolian League was dismantled, the Achaean League grew restless under supervision, and Macedon, humbled but intact, quietly rebuilt its strength. Beneath the surface calm, ambitions and grievances were stirring again. By mid-century, Greek politics had become a chessboard on which Rome moved the pieces. Her officials seldom stayed long, her legions seldom marched—but the threat of both hung constantly in the air. Freedom had become conditional, and the language of alliance was indistinguishable from that of subordination. Rome ruled Greece at a distance, and distance made her power feel both inevitable and irreversible. ### Macedonia’s Last Stand In the uneasy calm that followed the defeat of Antiochus, Macedonia once again became the center of Greek politics. Its king, Perseus, son of Philip V, inherited a kingdom that had been weakened by Rome’s earlier wars but not destroyed. Intelligent and cautious, Perseus aimed not to provoke Rome directly, but to restore Macedonian dignity and leadership among the Greeks. His vision was of unity under Macedon’s guidance — a revival of Hellenic independence that would not openly defy Roman power but might, in time, replace it. Perseus pursued diplomacy before war. He sought alliances with Epirus, Boeotia, and the Achaean League, married Laodice, daughter of the Seleucid king, and extended friendly overtures to Rhodes and Pergamon. Yet every move, however cautious, alarmed the Senate. The Romans had learned to see strength in others as a potential challenge to their authority. When Pergamon’s king Eumenes II, a loyal Roman ally, denounced Perseus in a speech before the Senate, his words sealed Macedonia’s fate. Rome accused Perseus of plotting to dominate Greece and prepared for war. The conflict that followed — the Third Macedonian War (171–168 BCE) — would decide the region’s future. Perseus began well, winning early skirmishes and earning the admiration of Greek observers who saw in him a disciplined, just ruler compared to Rome’s overbearing presence. Yet his caution proved fatal. "*He preferred hesitation to boldness*", and the opportunity to strike decisively never came. Rome responded with overwhelming force. The veteran commander Lucius Aemilius Paullus, father of the future conqueror of Corinth, took command of the [Roman army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/). In 168 BCE, the two sides met near Pydna, on the plains of northern Greece. The Macedonian phalanx initially pressed forward with its iron wall of spears, but the uneven ground broke its formation. The Roman legions, fighting in flexible maniples, slipped through the gaps and slaughtered the encircled Macedonians. By nightfall, Perseus had fled; his kingdom was finished. The defeat at Pydna ended not only the Macedonian monarchy but the dream of Greek autonomy. Rome divided Macedonia into four client republics, forbade intermarriage between them, and imposed tribute. The day of kings was over; in their place stood the imperium of Rome. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Andrea-del-Verrocchio---s-painting--The-Battle-of-Pydna.jpg) Andrea del Verrocchio’s painting, The Battle of Pydna. Public domain ### Rome’s Unquestioned Supremacy The victory at Pydna in 168 BCE ended more than a war—it ended the balance of power in the Greek world. Macedonia, once the empire of Alexander, was reduced to fragments under Roman oversight. The Senate divided the country into four republics, each forbidden to trade or intermarry with the others, ensuring that unity—and rebellion—would never return. The monarchy was formally abolished, and the royal treasury was shipped to Rome, where the influx of Macedonian silver “*changed the texture of Roman politics itself*.” While Roman soldiers were ordered to show restraint, their commanders moved decisively to extinguish any lingering resistance. Perseus, captured while seeking refuge on Samothrace, was paraded through the streets of Rome in Aemilius Paullus’ triumph—a living symbol of conquered royalty. Thousands of Macedonian soldiers and sympathizers were enslaved, and leading citizens from Greek states that had wavered during the war were summoned to Italy for questioning. Few ever returned. Rome now stood as the arbiter of all Greek affairs. Her policy of indirect control continued, but the tone had changed: behind the courteous language of friendship lay the certainty of command. The Senate dictated settlements between quarrelling leagues, drew new borders, and decided who might rule and who must yield. To the Greeks, freedom was again proclaimed—but this time it came from conquerors who no longer felt the need to pretend. Across the Aegean, the message was clear. The Seleucids and Ptolemies, watching from afar, understood that the Republic would brook no rival. Macedonia’s fall marked the end of kingship as a credible force in the Hellenistic world. What remained was diplomacy conducted on Roman terms, and a Mediterranean orbiting around a single center of power. ![Jean-François Pierre Peyron’s painting, King Perseus before Aemilius Paulus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Jean-Fran--ois-Pierre-Peyron---s-painting--King-Perseus-before-Aemilius-Paulus.jpg) Jean-François Pierre Peyron’s painting, King Perseus before Aemilius Paulus. Public domain ### The Architecture of Control After Pydna, Rome no longer needed to prove her dominance; she simply exercised it. The Republic’s authority now extended from the Atlantic to the Aegean, and the Greek world, though still nominally free, was woven into a structure of power the Romans called the *imperium Romanum* — the “Roman command.” The Senate, cautious of governing lands directly, perfected the art of ruling through dependence. In Greece and Asia Minor, Rome avoided the appearance of [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/), preferring to govern through allied kings, leagues, and city councils. Yet every decision of consequence — from boundary disputes to dynastic successions — passed through Rome’s hands. In effect, Rome could now achieve more through a letter than once through an army. The new order rested on deterrence. Greek states remembered what happened to those who challenged Roman policy, and that memory maintained obedience more effectively than legions. Still, the Senate did not hesitate to act when loyalty wavered. In 150 BCE, Macedon briefly rose again under Andriscus, a pretender claiming descent from Perseus. His rebellion was crushed within a year, and in its aftermath Macedonia became Rome’s first formal province in the East — a precedent soon followed by others. The material benefits of victory flooded into Italy. Plundered wealth and [enslaved captives](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) transformed Rome’s economy and reshaped its society. Yet the Republic itself, was not immune to the spoils of conquest: the influx of riches deepened inequality and corrupted the civic ideals that had once defined it. Rome had mastered the world but was beginning to lose mastery over itself. ![Giovanni di ser Giovanni Guidi’s painting, Triumph of Lucius Aemilius Paullus after the Battle of Pydna](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Giovanni-di-ser-Giovanni-Guidi---s-painting--Triumph-of-Lucius-Aemilius-Paullus-after-the-Battle-of-Pydna.jpg) Giovanni di ser Giovanni Guidi’s painting, Triumph of Lucius Aemilius Paullus after the Battle of Pydna. Public domain For the Greeks, the new reality was clear. Their cities retained their laws, temples, and games, but decisions of war, peace, and policy no longer belonged to them. The imperium Romanum had been built not through annexation, but through consent, exhaustion, and inevitability. By the mid-second century BCE, the Mediterranean world was, in essence if not in name, a Roman one. ### The Limits of Tolerance: Corinth, 146 BCE Tensions inside the Achaean League finally snapped in the mid-second century BCE. Resentment at Roman arbitration, border rulings, and the punishment of dissenters hardened into open defiance. When Achaean forces clashed with Roman troops, the outcome was never in doubt. In 146 BCE the consul Lucius Mummius defeated the League and entered Corinth. The city was sacked, its treasures seized, and its people sold into slavery. The League was dissolved. Rome did not annex Greece wholesale—it rarely needed to—but Corinth’s destruction signaled the end of meaningful Greek autonomy. From then on, even the appearance of independence depended on Roman forbearance. ![Thomas Allom’s painting, The Sack of Corinth](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Thomas-Allom---s-painting--The-Sack-of-Corinth.jpg) Thomas Allom’s painting, The Sack of Corinth. Public domain ### Conquered but Unbroken After Pydna, the Greek world entered a new age — one of dependence, but also of endurance. Politically, freedom was gone; culturally, Greece remained Rome’s teacher. Though the legions had triumphed in battle, the conquerors looked eastward for philosophy, art, and education. The result was a paradox: Rome’s empire expanded, **yet its civilization grew ever more Greek**. Across the mainland and the islands, daily life resumed under the new order. Cities administered themselves, [festivals](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/) continued, and philosophers debated in the gymnasia as they had for centuries. Athens, diminished but still radiant, became a finishing school for Roman youth; Rhodes taught oratory and diplomacy; Delphi, though silent in politics, retained its sacred prestige. The Achaean and Aetolian Leagues, relics of an older age, faded into ceremonial councils — tolerated, so long as they posed no threat. Wealth flowed westward, but influence moved east. Greek artists, architects, and scholars filled Roman homes, palaces, and libraries. “*The empire that ruled Greece found itself ruled by Greek culture*.” [Stoicism](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/), sculpture, and theater all took on new life in Roman form, blending discipline with refinement. Even Roman literature, from Ennius to Horace, spoke with a Greek accent. Yet beneath this cultural harmony lay memory and melancholy. The Greeks remembered their independence, even as they instructed their conquerors. Pride survived conquest, reshaped into a different kind of authority — that of intellect and tradition. The dream of political autonomy had died, but the legacy of Hellenism endured, transforming the civilization that had subdued it. ![Tony Robert-Fleury’s painting, The Last Day of Corinth](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Tony-Robert-Fleury---s-painting--The-Last-Day-of-Corinth.jpg) Tony Robert-Fleury’s painting, The Last Day of Corinth. Credits: Sailko, CC BY 3.0 By the close of the second century BCE, Rome stood supreme, and Greece, though no longer sovereign, remained its spiritual capital. In victory, the Romans had inherited not just land but identity — for to rule the Greek world was, inevitably, to become part of it. ([*Taken at the flood. The Roman Conquest of Greece*](https://amzn.to/436O9q8?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Robin Waterfield*) --- From Illyria’s coasts to the ruins of Corinth, the Roman conquest of Greece was never a single campaign but a gradual submission of one civilization to another. The legions triumphed by strength, but the Greeks endured through spirit, intellect, and art. When Rome claimed dominion, it also claimed a heritage far older and richer than its own. In the centuries that followed, the conqueror and the conquered would become inseparable — Rome wearing the laurels of Greece, and Greece, though subdued, forever shaping the soul of Rome. 📜 For those that want to learn the more about how the Romans conquered Greece****,** we hope you’ll enjoy [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5q1rerf-qw&ref=romanempiretimes.com): ### Did Ancient Romans Have Pets? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/did-ancient-romans-have-pets/ Last updated: 2025-10-06T22:39:10.000Z Did Ancient Romans have pets? On first glance, the question might seem modern — after all, we instinctively imagine dogs, cats, birds, or even little monkeys sitting at our feet or running through gardens. Yet archaeological finds, funerary deposits, and Roman literature all attest that the Romans, too, shared their homes with animal companions. From loyal dogs to exotic monkeys, from runaway cats to pet birds, the evidence reveals that Romans often cared for animals with emotional attachments—not just for utility. Their pets could occupy roles as guardians, playmates, or status symbols; some were even mourned and buried with care. Exploring this intimate corner of Roman life lets us glimpse how people and animals formed bonds in antiquity, in ways both familiar and surprising. ![Bronze statuette of a Roman dog](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Bronze-statuette-of-a-Roman-dog.jpg) Bronze statuette of a Roman dog. Credits: The MET, Public domain ### The Archaeology of Roman Pets Archaeological and zooarchaeological studies reveal that pet-keeping in ancient [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) was not merely a literary motif but a tangible part of urban life. Inscriptions, artistic depictions, and animal remains unearthed across Italy show that dogs were present in extraordinary variety and abundance. The Romans bred them extensively—some for work, some for companionship—and in doing so created a remarkable diversity of forms that mirrored the complexity of Roman society itself. Skeletal analysis from domestic contexts in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) demonstrates a wide range of dog sizes, from miniature types barely twenty centimeters tall to large breeds exceeding seventy centimeters at the shoulder. These were grouped into three rough categories: 1. Small dogs under thirty-five to forty centimeters (12-18 inches) 2. Medium breeds between fifty and sixty centimeters (20-24 inches) 3. Large animals above sixty centimeters (24+ inches) Medium-sized dogs predominated, typical of both rural and urban settlements. Evidence from faunal assemblages also records animals of all ages, proving that breeding occurred locally and that puppies were born and raised within Roman households. By the imperial period, dog types had become more specialized. Toy and lap breeds were increasingly common among the elite, reflecting social status and wealth, while sturdier animals served as guards and hunters. Meanwhile, countless mongrels and strays roamed freely through the streets, forming part of Rome’s familiar landscape. The archaeological record thus suggests a city alive with animals of every shape and purpose—creatures bred, traded, and loved across the entire social spectrum. (*Pack Animals, Pets, Pests, and Other Non-Human Beings, by Michael MacKinnon, in* [*The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rome*](https://amzn.to/42vnDXj?ref=romanempiretimes.com)) ![A child holding a dog, detail of the 6th century mosaic floor from the Palatium Magnum (Constantinople's Great Palace)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/A-child-holding-a-dog--detail-of-the-6th-century-mosaic-floor-from-the-Palatium-Magnum--Constantinople-s-Great-Palace-.jpg) A child holding a dog, detail of the 6th century mosaic floor from the Palatium Magnum (Constantinople's Great Palace). Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 ### The Faithful Dog Companions of Ancient Rome While archaeology reveals the physical presence and diversity of Rome’s dogs, ancient writers and artists captured the affection that bound these animals to their masters. The ancient [Greeks and Romans](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) expressed a profound affection for animals—perhaps more openly than the modern world does. Their close connection with animal life was not due to greater abundance of creatures, but to the intimacy encouraged by polytheistic belief and ritual. Since religion saturated every part of daily life, animals, often sacred to particular [gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) and goddesses, were welcomed freely into homes. Over time, even fierce beasts were tamed and kept as companions, blurring the line between the domestic and the divine. Among these companions, the dog held the highest place of honor. Unlike the Semitic peoples, who tended to view dogs with distaste, [Greeks and Romans](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) admired their loyalty and courage. From Homer to Plato, writers across centuries celebrated the dog’s steadfast devotion. In Plato’s [*Republic*](https://amzn.to/4h226LY?ref=romanempiretimes.com), the philosopher saw in dogs the perfect blend of gentleness and bravery required of his ideal guardians. Homer’s verses had already immortalized them as faithful watch-dogs, herders, and hunters—“*well-skilled in the chase*.” ![Gustave Boulanger’s painting, Hommes au chien (Men with Dog), depicting a typical Melitanean breed](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Gustave-Boulanger---s-painting--Hommes-au-chien--Men-with-Dog-.jpg) Gustave Boulanger’s painting, Hommes au chien (Men with Dog), depicting a typical Melitanean breed. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times Some were pampered household pets, the *trapezees kunes*, dogs fed directly from their masters’ tables, often kept as companions or ornaments. Telemachus is described as striding into assembly with his two swift hounds close behind, while Argus—the only animal in the Odyssey to bear a proper name—waited faithfully for Odysseus’s return before dying upon recognizing him. > “Then, as they spoke, a dog that lay there lifted up his muzzle and pricked his ears — Argus, the hound of brave Odysseus, whom he himself had bred but never used before he sailed to Troy. > > In earlier days the young men had taken him to hunt wild goats and hares and deer, but now he lay neglected, old and full of fleas. > > Yet, when he sensed Odysseus standing near, he wagged his tail and dropped both ears, though he had no strength to come closer to his master. > > Odysseus turned aside and brushed away a tear, hiding it quickly... And in that moment, darkness covered Argus’ eyes, for the hand that once had cared for him could care for him no more.” Homer, [*Odyssey*](https://amzn.to/48jcooC?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Art and archaeology confirm this intimacy. Vase paintings from as early as the sixth century B.C. depict dogs lying beneath dining tables or following their masters to the baths and gymnasium. Hesiod, writing in Boeotia, advised farmers to feed their sharp-toothed dogs well during harvest time lest thieves steal from their barns. Such images reflect not only practicality but affection—these animals were trusted members of household life. ![Statue of a Molossian hound, Roman copy after a Hellenistic bronze original](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Statue-of-a-Molossian-hound---Roman-copy-after-a-Hellenistic-bronze-original.jpg) Statue of a Molossian hound, Roman copy after a Hellenistic bronze original. Public domain The most prized lapdog of the ancient world was the small Melitaean, imported to Malta (or possibly the Adriatic island of Meleda) from Carthaginian Africa. Admired by both men and women from Egypt to Italy, these little dogs enjoyed all the privileges of modern pets. Theophrastus mocked the vain man who would erect a tombstone for his deceased Melitaean, and Aesop noted that travelers took puppies and monkeys to sea for amusement. Roman satire paints similar scenes: [Juvenal](https://romanempiretimes.com/juvenal-the-poet-who-held-a-mirror-to-rome/) complained that wealthy [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) valued their pampered *catellae* more than their husbands’ lives. > “She hugs to her bosom a puppy, gives it kisses on the mouth, and calls it her darling — while not once all day does she look at her husband” Juvenal, [*Satires*](https://amzn.to/46ZqIjW?ref=romanempiretimes.com) [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/) described a widow constantly cradling her lapdog: > “Some women, when they are widowed, keep little dogs or monkeys for company, taking them in their arms, fondling them, and always carrying them about. > > Such creatures, they say, are their darlings — but the affection they lavish on these poor animals is but a sign of an empty heart.” Plutarch,[*Moralia*](https://amzn.to/3Wob5gO?ref=romanempiretimes.com), *Conjugal Precepts* 142C–D while Lucian’s philosopher Thesmopolis was burdened with escorting a rich woman’s spoiled pet, Myrrhina, on daily outings—an image any modern husband might sympathize with. Children, too, doted on their dogs, as countless vase paintings attest. The same affection continued in Roman Gaul, where dogs frequently appear in funerary reliefs. ![Roman relief of a herdsman](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Roman-relief-of-a-herdsman.jpg) Roman relief of a herdsman. Public domain A grave discovered at Amiens in 1915 revealed the skeletons of nine dogs—one lying close to its master’s remains, two others carefully placed within urns. Even poets shared in this tenderness: [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/)’s *Epigrams* mention a catella Gallicana, a small lapdog among his gifts, and he immortalized his beloved Issa, “*dearer than Indian jewels*.” > “A Gallic lapdog — I come from the Belgae. You will see no creature more often beside a lady; nor is there one more lovely.” Martial, [*Epigrams*](https://amzn.to/4nH3kii?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Seneca records that [Emperor Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/) himself kept a white dog as his cherished companion: > “We even weep for the loss of little dogs and birds, and the Emperor Claudius himself was said to have cherished a small white dog as his companion — so much can softness of heart creep in, even amid the trappings of power.” Seneca, [*De Ira*](https://amzn.to/3IHBovr?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Through literature, art, and archaeology, the dog emerges as [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s most beloved domestic friend—guardian, companion, and reflection of fidelity itself. ![Cast of the dog in chains, from Pompeii, Italy. Public domain](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Cast-of-the-dog-in-chains--from-Pompeii--Italy.jpg) Cast of the dog in chains, from Pompeii, Italy ### Eternal Companions In life and in death, Romans refused to part with their beloved animals. Publius, who mourned his small dog Issa, had her likeness painted so that she might live on beyond the grave. She may have been a rich man’s pet, but affection for animals crossed class lines: one inscription honors a faithful guard dog who watched over his master’s carriage (*raeda*) and was praised because he “*never barked foolishly*.” Many such pets were immortalized in stone. [Funerary](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) stelae from both Greek and Roman contexts portray men, women, and children with their canine companions—proof that this bond transcended wealth and status. Trimalchio, in Petronius’ [*Satyricon*](https://amzn.to/48QQHwm?ref=romanempiretimes.com), famously ordered that his tomb depict his dog resting at his feet, beside a statue of his wife Fortunata holding a dove and leading her little catella by the belt. A remarkable tenderness can be seen in Gallo-Roman reliefs, where everyday affection is carved into marble. One relief shows a boy reclining on a couch, allowing his dog to lick his plate clean. Another, from a child’s grave, depicts a little girl named Graccha—dead at only one year and four months—holding a basket with three puppies while their anxious mother looks up toward them. In the museum at Beaune, a terracotta cradle preserves another touching scene: a sleeping infant tucked inside, a small dog curled at his feet. Dogs appear everywhere in ancient art, from schoolrooms to playful feasts. A hydria in the British Museum shows pets present at a music lesson, as if listening to the boys’ performance. ![‘Cave canem’ (beware of the dog) mosaic, from Pompeii, Casa di Orfeo](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/---Cave-canem-----beware-of-the-dog--mosaic--from-Pompeii--Casa-di-Orfeo.jpg) ‘Cave canem’ (beware of the dog) mosaic, from Pompeii, Casa di Orfeo. Public domain On a chous-shaped toy jug in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, children play at a mock banquet while their dog leaps up in excitement—an image that recalls Juvenal’s description of a rustic child playing with his little puppy. On another vessel, a dog climbs onto his mistress’s lap, peering curiously as she nurses her baby—a moment of domestic intimacy recognizable even today. Sometimes these animals share the stage with the ordinary labors of Roman life. One Gallic relief portrays a dog with a collar and bell attentively watching a mule turning a grain mill—its harness fitted with surprisingly modern-looking blinders, a reminder that *nihil novi sub sole*, “there is nothing new under the sun.” Elsewhere, the ever-faithful Melitaean lapdog appears in mythic scenes as well: one Faliscian cup shows the little dog beside his satyr master, leaping excitedly as a goat charges forward in a playful contest. Through sculpture, painting, and humble terracotta, Roman pets were remembered not merely as possessions but as family. Their images—curled at the feet of children, wives, and masters—capture the warmth of a world where affection for animals was carved into eternity. ![A detail from Andrea del Sarto’s painting Triumph of Caesar, showcasing a variety of Roman pets, from dogs and parrots, to monkeys and other exotic animals](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/A-detail-from-Andrea-del-Sarto---s-painting-Triumph-of-Caesar--showcasing-a-variety-of-Roman-pets--from-dogs-and-parrots--to-monkeys-and-other-exotic-animals.jpg) A detail from Andrea del Sarto’s painting Triumph of Caesar, showcasing a variety of Roman pets, from dogs and parrots, to monkeys and other exotic animals. Public domain ### Apes and Monkeys in Roman Homes Among the many animals cherished by the ancients, few were as curious—or as troublesome—as apes and monkeys. The custom of keeping them as pets was widespread throughout the Greek and Roman worlds, perhaps even more so than today. As W. C. McDermott observed in [*The Ape in Antiquity*](https://amzn.to/46ECzFa?ref=romanempiretimes.com), most pet apes in classical times were Barbary apes and Ethiopian monkeys, valued for their playful intelligence and human-like gestures. Pindar once called the ape “*ever beautiful to the eyes of children*,” while the orator Dinarchus, less charmed, mocked those who filled their homes with such mischievous companions. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) recorded that the kings of the Molossians in Epirus kept apes as their favored pets, and Latin writers made frequent reference to them. Plautus mentioned pet apes repeatedly in [*Miles Gloriosus*](https://amzn.to/46TfNIx?ref=romanempiretimes.com), while the Roman mime writer Laberius told of a pharmacist who absurdly fell in love with one. Martial, ever attentive to Roman amusements, even included a trained ape among the gifts in his [*Apophoreta*](https://amzn.to/47cA7FV?ref=romanempiretimes.com). Yet not all approved of this affection. The comic poet Eubulus complained that wealthy citizens who could afford to raise children instead chose to rear: > “a splashing goose, a sparrow, or a mischievous monkey.” ![A 19th-century depiction shows Roman women feeding birds. From the collection of the Museum of Architecture and Art, Alupka.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/A-19th-century-depiction-shows-Roman-women-feeding-birds.-From-the-collection-of-the-Museum-of-Architecture-and-Art--Alupka.jpg) A 19th-century depiction shows Roman women feeding birds. From the collection of the Museum of Architecture and Art, Alupka. (Photo by Fine Art Images/Heritage Images/Getty Images) King Massinissa likewise rebuked men who competed to own such pets, asking if their wives bore them no sons. Christian moralists later echoed these criticisms—Clement of Alexandria condemned such vanity, and Saint Gregory of Nazianzus mocked a pet ape adorned with a gold collar. Writers and artists alike delighted in portraying the ape’s antics. Aristophanes called the animal “*full of troublesome tricks*,” and Apuleius, describing the spring festivals of Isis, saw a monkey dressed in a straw hat and Phrygian tunic—an ancient echo of carnival jesters. These clever animals were trained to play instruments, ride goats, throw spears, and even perform dances. Wall paintings from [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/) depict boys forcing their pet apes to dance, while terracotta lamps show entertainers with trained apes alongside other performing animals. The poet Luxorius describes a miniature circus where tiny Melitaean dogs pulled chariots driven by apes—a scene reminiscent of Philostratus’ paintings of a prince’s hippodrome. [Galen](https://romanempiretimes.com/galen-of-pergamon-rome-most-famous-physician-galenus/), meanwhile, mentioned apes playing together with children, suggesting their role as lively household companions no less than dogs or birds. Archaeological evidence complements these literary glimpses. A fifth-century Attic toy jug depicts an ape stretching out its hand toward an apple offered by a youth, capturing both curiosity and mischief. A mosaic from [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) shows a lady shaded by a parasol while her servant holds the leash of her pet ape. On the funerary stele of C. Julius Saecularis, a young boy is surrounded by his favorite animals—a dog, a bird, and a small ape tugging at his cloak, just as another Roman relief shows the same gesture: a tiny hand pulling at its master’s garment, half-playful, half-pleading. These scenes reveal that for all their tricks and trouble, apes were not merely curiosities of wealth but participants in daily Roman life—imitating, amusing, and sometimes unsettling their human companions. ![A fresco depicting a Roman lararium, and below an altar with fruits and eggs between two benevolent snakes (agathodaimones)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/A-fresco-depicting-a-Roman-lararium--and-below-an-altar-with-fruits-and-eggs-between-two-benevolent-snakes--agathodaimones-.jpg) A fresco depicting a Roman lararium, and below an altar with fruits and eggs between two benevolent snakes (agathodaimones). Credits: ArchaiOptix, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### Unusual Pets of the Roman World Snakes and birds held a special place in [Roman life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/), bridging the realms of household affection and religious symbolism. Far from being mere curiosities, they appeared in homes, temples, and art as both companions and protectors. Snakes were venerated as sacred beings linked to the gods, especially Aesculapius. Philostratus wrote that Ajax had a pet serpent that: > “drank with its master and followed him like a dog,” while Lucian described tame Macedonian serpents that: > “slept with children and drank milk from women’s breasts.” [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) records that during a plague in 290 B.C., Rome imported Aesculapian serpents from Epidaurus—believed to bring healing—to dwell on the Tiber Island. [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) later noted that these serpents lived freely in [Roman homes](https://romanempiretimes.com/insulae-apartment-buildings-ancient-rome-romans/), guarding the storeroom (*penus*) like the Greek *Agathos Daimon*. ![Ancient roman mosaic from Pompeii (House of the Doves), depicting birds drinking water. Public domain](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Ancient-roman-mosaic-from-Pompeii--House-of-the-Doves---depicting-birds-drinking-water.jpg) Ancient roman mosaic from Pompeii (House of the Doves), depicting birds drinking water Even [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) kept serpents as omens or companions: [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) tells of [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/)’s pet snake, [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) claimed to have seen one in his chamber, and Seneca mentioned snakes gliding “*among cups and bosoms*” at banquets. Yet unease lingered—Cicero scorned those who could “*hold a viper in their bosom*,” a reminder that fascination often mingled with fear. Birds, by contrast, embodied grace and domestic joy. Scenes from Greek and Roman art show women and children with pet cranes, herons, ducks, and geese—creatures admired for beauty and temperament. Beazley suggested these birds appeared in art simply because “*they were domestic pets, cherished by their owners*.” Homer’s Penelope lovingly said: > “Twenty geese I have in the house… and my heart warms with joy as I watch them.” Funerary reliefs and terracottas capture similar tenderness: children kissing pet geese or holding quails and partridges in their arms. Philosophers and [poets](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/), from Porphyry to Fronto, recorded keeping tame birds that played, answered, and followed them like friends. Through serpents revered as guardians and birds adored for companionship, the Romans revealed a world where even the smallest creatures shared in family life—symbols of devotion, [beauty](https://romanempiretimes.com/beauty-in-ancient-rome/), and the divine within the everyday. (*Greek and Roman Household Pets, by Francis D. Lazenby*) ![The Favorite Pet or Feathered Friend by Pierre Olivier Joseph Coomans, a neo-Pompeian scene of daily life in Roman antiquity](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/The-Favorite-Pet-or-Feathered-Friend-by-Pierre-Olivier-Joseph-Coomans--a-neo-Pompeian-scene-of-daily-life-in-Roman-antiquity.jpg) The Favorite Pet or Feathered Friend by Pierre Olivier Joseph Coomans, a neo-Pompeian scene of daily life in Roman antiquity. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times From marble stelae and literary tributes to the traces unearthed in Roman soil, the story of pets in antiquity reveals a civilization that understood companionship as part of daily life. Dogs guarded homes and hearts, birds filled courtyards with color and sound, and even snakes and monkeys found a place beside their human keepers. Whether born of affection, superstition, or status, these bonds endured beyond life itself—etched in epitaphs, carved in stone, and immortalized in verse. Through them, we glimpse a gentler Rome, one where **love was not reserved for people alone**. ### Flamma: The Gladiator who Refused his Freedom Four Times URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/flamma-the-gladiator-who-refused-his-freedom-four-times/ Last updated: 2025-10-05T21:40:18.000Z Among the countless men who bled for Rome’s amusement, few left a mark like Flamma. A Syrian-born secutor, he fought more than thirty times in the arena and was crowned victor in most of them. Yet what made him legendary was not only his skill with the sword, but his defiance of freedom itself. Awarded the rudis—the wooden [gladius sword](https://romanempiretimes.com/forged-for-battle-the-six-century-reign-of-the-roman-gladius/) symbolizing release from gladiatorial servitude—**four times**, Flamma refused it every single time. His epitaph, carved in stone, remains one of the most haunting glimpses into the gladiator’s world: a man who could walk away, but chose instead to fight until death. ### Daniel P. Mannix and the Legacy of *Those About to Die* Daniel Pratt Mannix IV (1911–1997) was a man of many lives — writer, journalist, photographer, magician, animal trainer, and filmmaker. In 1958, he published [*Those About to Die*](https://amzn.to/4nB2V0z?ref=romanempiretimes.com), a vivid and often brutal reconstruction of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)’s arenas, later reissued as [*The Way of the Gladiator*](https://amzn.to/4nF2Vgj?ref=romanempiretimes.com). Though written as popular history, the book drew on authentic sources to capture the spectacle, danger, and psychology of the games with striking immediacy. Its cinematic detail proved enduring: the work inspired Ridley Scott’s 2000 film [Gladiator](https://amzn.to/4mQ8k2L?ref=romanempiretimes.com) and, decades later, the television drama [Those About to Die](https://amzn.to/46FcKok?ref=romanempiretimes.com). Through *Those About to Die*, Mannix shaped how modern audiences imagine the Roman arena—its blood, its grandeur, and the fatal courage of men like Flamma. ![Andrés Parladé’s painting, representing a Roman gladiator offering his weapons to the guardian Hercules](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Andr--s-Parlad-----s-painting--representing-a-Roman-gladiator-offering-his-weapons-to-the-guardian-Hercules.jpg) Andrés Parladé’s painting, representing a Roman gladiator offering his weapons to the guardian Hercules. Public domain ### The Birth of the Games In Rome’s earliest days, public competitions were limited to athletic displays. [Gladiatorial combat](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/) did not yet exist. According to tradition, the introduction of [gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-legends-about-gladiator-sweat-heres-what-we-found/) occurred almost by accident. Two patrician brothers, Marcus and Decimus Brutus, sought to honor their deceased father with an extraordinary funeral. Lavish processions and sacrifices were not enough to display their devotion, so Marcus recalled an ancient custom —a ritual combat at the grave of great leaders— and proposed reviving it. > “There was an old custom, dating back to prehistoric times, of having a few slaves fight to the death over the grave of some great leader,” he reminded his brother. > “Why not revive it to show how much we revere the memory of the old man?” The practice had once been a form of human sacrifice, ensuring that the spirits of the slain would accompany[ the dead](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) into the afterlife. Over time, it became a test of courage and a public spectacle. Though the Brutus brothers no longer believed in the old superstition, they recognized that such a display would please the crowd and elevate their social standing. The priests offered no objection, and half of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) gathered to watch three pairs of slaves fight to the death. The event’s popularity spread rapidly — within a century, games had grown from three pairs in 264 B.C. to ninety pairs fighting for three days by 145 B.C. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/A-detail-from-a-mosaic-depicting-two-gladiators-in-combat--from-the-House-of-the-Gladiators-in-Kourion--Cyprus.jpg) ## Soon, no ambitious politician could hope for election without sponsoring such shows. **A detail from a mosaic depicting two gladiators in combat, from the House of the Gladiators in Kourion, Cyprus. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0* Promoters began purchasing able-bodied [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) and prisoners of war, hiring them out as fighters. These professional combatants became known as gladiators, from gladius, the Latin word for sword. As the spectacles expanded, the venue shifted from the Forum to the [Circus](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-circus-maximus-and-why-there-is-nothing-left-of-it/), where gladiatorial bouts joined the [chariot races](https://romanempiretimes.com/fury-on-wheels-the-legendary-chariot-races-of-ancient-rome/) and wild animal hunts. Wealthy patrons sponsored them for prestige, while later [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) used them to placate the restless populace. Although no gladiator ever left behind a personal record — or if one ever did, it has long been lost — much can still be learned from Roman writers who described the games in remarkable detail, including [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/), [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/), and [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/). Among these half-forgotten names, one rose above the rest — Flamma, the Syrian-born gladiator whose courage and defiance of freedom made him legendary. ### Flamma’s Rise and Life in the Arena Flamma must have been a burly, strong-willed soldier, condemned to the arena for striking a superior officer. The young officer had insulted him; Flamma retaliated, knocking him down, and was sentenced to die in the games. Expecting to fight another soldier, he was instead pitted against a retiarius, a lightly armed opponent armed with a trident and net. The crowd mocked him as a mutineer unworthy of mercy, but when Flamma’s old regiment appeared in the stands shouting for him, he regained his spirit. > “All right, boys,” he cried, “I’ll do my best for the honor of the regiment!” The battle that followed was fierce and clumsy — the retiarius blinded him in one eye with a lead pellet, disarmed him, and nearly won, until Flamma seized his chance, kicked the trident across the arena, and with a blow from his shield, killed his adversary. The crowd demanded his life spared, amused that the bearded “loach” — as his comrades called him — had slain a “fisherman.” ![Gladiator fight in the Colosseum, a painting by J. Stallaert](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Gladiator-fight-in-the-Colosseum--a-painting-by-J.-Stallaert.jpg) Gladiator fight in the Colosseum, a painting by J. Stallaert. Public domain Spared by popular demand, Flamma was sent to train in one of the great gladiatorial schools of Italy, likely the one in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) under Augustus Caesar. There he entered a disciplined world of confinement and skill. Each gladiator had a small cell, and the ludus included kitchens, armories, hospitals, and even a graveyard. The Pompeian school’s remains reveal prisons fitted with shackles and branding irons. New recruits swore an oath: > “to suffer myself to be whipped with rods, burned with fire or killed with steel if I disobey.” Flamma’s routine was harsh but ordered. He trained against wooden poles, practiced ambidexterity, and sparred with blunted weapons before entering real combat. Meals were heavy in barley and meat, a diet believed to fortify and thicken the blood to reduce fatal bleeding. Over time, he adapted to his new life. ### Flamma’s Rewards from the Arena Fine armor was a trophy awarded for skill. Flamma’s helmets bore ostrich or peacock feathers; his breastplate was inlaid with gold and silver, his shield painted crimson within and adorned with brass studs. His first professional appearance came at a privately sponsored spectacle advertised across [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s walls and tombs. At such events, the crowd roared greetings to the emperor —“[Hail, Caesar! We who are about to die greet thee](https://romanempiretimes.com/ave-imperator-morituri-te-salutant-what-did-gladiators-actually-say-before-fighting/)!”— before the fighters marched through the *Porta Libitinensis* into the arena. In one early match, Flamma faced German prisoners of war, outnumbered but victorious. He fought methodically, like a soldier executing orders, while the crowd’s attention was seized by another dramatic duel — a Norseman battling a Roman officer. Afterward, Flamma’s calm discipline impressed his trainer, who saw in him a dependable, unflinching fighter rather than a showman. ![The Gladiator, a painting by Nicolao Landucci](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/The-Gladiator--a-painting-by-Nicolao-Landucci.jpg) The Gladiator, a painting by Nicolao Landucci. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times As his career advanced, Flamma faced opponents of every type — Hoplomachi, Dimachaeri, Andabatae — and consistently survived. Though beaten occasionally, he was saved by the crowd’s “[thumbs up](https://romanempiretimes.com/thumbs-down-to-the-myth-the-truth-behind-roman-arena-gestures/),” the traditional gesture of mercy. The exact meaning of these gestures remains uncertain; some believed the “thumbs down” condemned a man, while others claimed it was a stabbing motion signaling death. Whatever the case, Flamma’s courage earned the favor of the spectators. He never exaggerated his fights for attention, unlike others who staged performances with rehearsed heroics. Still, by his constancy and strength, he became a favorite of Rome. Statues bore his likeness; coins showed him as Mars, and walls were scrawled with the phrases: > “Flamma is a girl’s sigh and prayer.” > “Oh you Flamma! You’re the doctor who can cure what’s wrong with me.” With fame came wealth. After each victory, sponsors presented bowls of [gold coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/). Flamma’s reputation allowed him to sell tips on upcoming fights, accurately predicting which men might survive. Yet even at the height of his success, he remained bound to the arena. Gladiators fought for three years before earning the right to rest, and after five more years of service could be granted a wooden sword, the rudis, symbolizing freedom and release from combat. When Flamma’s moment came, the crowd’s demand was unanimous. > “After one of his most brilliant fights, the enthusiastic crowd voted Flamma the coveted wooden sword.” But he refused. > “Are you crazy?” he shouted to the stands. > “I’m making more money than anyone in Rome. I can have any woman I want, I’m living in a villa and I’m the toast of the empire. Leave the arena? What for?” The crowd laughed and cheered — “Good old Flamma!” — for he was the only gladiator ever to reject freedom not once but four times. His name endured because of that choice. When he finally retired, he was given an ivory identification tag, engraved with his name and that of his owner, and lived to old age, boasting that the gladiators of his youth had been braver than those of later days. ![Roman mosaic depicting gladiatorial combat, found in the Nennig Roman Villa](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Roman-mosaic-depicting-gladiatorial-combat--found-in-the-Nennig-Roman-Villa.jpg) Roman mosaic depicting gladiatorial combat, found in the Nennig Roman Villa. Credits: TimeTravelRome, CC BY 2.0 Flamma’s attitude was not entirely unique. Some gladiators, like the Myrmillo, complained of wasted years when fights were scarce, and others, as the philosopher Epictetus observed, prayed for more combats to win glory and fortune. Epictetus, a Roman writer, says that the gladiators used to pray for more fights so that they could distinguish themselves in the arena and make more money. (*Those about to die, by Mannix, Daniel Pratt*) --- While Daniel P. Mannix brought the arena to life with the emotional weight and sensory detail of a novelist, historical research provides a colder, more systematic picture of the men who fought there. Beneath the color and spectacle, the world of the gladiator was ruled by precision, discipline, and the expectations of a bloodthirsty audience. Archaeology, epigraphy, and Roman accounts reveal the routines, rewards, and grim realities behind the myth — the daily lives of fighters like Flamma, who lived and died according to the rhythm of the arena. ### Historical Accuracy on Life, Death, and the Economy of the Arena Apart from their armor, gladiators usually fought and trained wearing only their undergarments, as the Romans considered complete nudity improper. [Greek-](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/)style athletics, with their emphasis on naked exercise, never fully suited Roman sensibilities. For gladiators, however, two practical concerns dictated their attire: 1. The first was the expectation of blood and visibility — excess armor would hide the spectacle of wounds, depriving the crowd of what they came to see. 2. The second was hygiene. Without modern medicine, open wounds were easily infected, and fragments of wool or linen from heavier garments could worsen them. ![Juan Luna’s painting, Spoliarium](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Juan-Luna---s-painting--Spoliarium.jpg) Juan Luna’s painting, Spoliarium. Public domain Thus, most gladiators fought wearing only a *subligaculum*, a triangular linen cloth about four feet on each side, tied around the waist and pulled between the legs. Ordinary Romans used unbleached linen for this garment, rarely seen in public. Gladiators, by contrast, wore versions richly decorated with embroidery, ribbons, or bright colors, often held in place by a thick leather belt decorated with metal plates that offered minimal protection to the abdomen. After months of intense training, a novice was finally introduced to the [arena](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/). Beginners were rarely pitted against veterans — such pairings would end too quickly to please the crowd. Instead, novices fought one another, and casualties were high. Lacking the reflexes and defensive skills of experienced fighters, many were killed outright or mortally wounded. Those who survived often still faced death at the whim of the spectators, as they had not yet earned the admiration that might win them a missus — the signal of mercy. Few survived long enough to become seasoned professionals. For those who did, the odds improved. Epitaphs and monuments erected by and for gladiators reveal that veterans often won as many reprieves as victories. Skilled fighters could rely on their supporters’ cries for mercy if defeated, as fan clubs frequently rallied to save their favorites. ![Paris Bordone’s painting of a Gladiator Camp](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Paris-Bordone---s-painting-of-a-Gladiator-Camp.jpg) Paris Bordone’s painting of a Gladiator Camp. Public domain Flamma of Syria was one of the most successful of all, fought thirty-eight times, winning twenty-five bouts, drawing nine, and losing only four — and even then, being spared (as already mentioned). His career, spanning thirteen years, averaged one appearance roughly every four months — the rhythm of a life bound to blood. Victories brought not only fame but also tangible rewards. A palm branch marked each triumph, carried in procession before the crowd, and prize money was awarded according to prearranged agreements between the editor of the games and the lanista of the troupe. Sometimes, when a fighter gave an exceptional performance, the spectators themselves demanded additional rewards. The [Emperor Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/), known for indulging the crowd, would raise each coin before the arena, letting the people count aloud as he dropped them into the gladiator’s hand. Despite their enslaved status, gladiators were allowed to own property and money. Some spent their winnings on pleasure — food, drink, or [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) — while others supported wives and families or saved toward freedom. Yet this success came with a paradox. The better a man fought, the more valuable he became to his master. A *lanista* could grow too greedy to release his prize fighter, knowing his skill brought steady income. Those unable to buy their freedom often turned to less dangerous work within the *ludus*. The most talented might be retained as trainers or doctors, passing on their knowledge to the next generation. The injured or maimed might serve as cooks, attendants, or even curiosities at dinner parties, recounting their exploits for wealthy patrons. ![Giovanni Francesco Romanelli’s painting of Roman Gladiators with Wooden Swords](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Giovanni-Francesco-Romanelli---s-painting-of-Roman-Gladiators-with-Wooden-Swords.jpg) Giovanni Francesco Romanelli’s painting of Roman Gladiators with Wooden Swords. Public domain The *rudis*, a simple wooden sword, symbolized the greatest possible reward: freedom. It was sometimes granted by a generous editor seeking favor with the crowd. The gesture was both political and theatrical — freeing a famous gladiator could electrify an audience and secure votes in future elections. But even freedom did not always mark an end. Many former gladiators remained within the system as trainers or entrepreneurs, founding schools of their own, while others, tempted by vast offers, returned to the arena. Some were offered estates and [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) to fight again. The world of the arena promised glory, wealth, and adoration — yet its foundation was death. Every triumph was built upon a corpse, every cheer upon a life extinguished. **Defeated fighters were taught to die well**. Those who fell without mercy could kneel, grasping their opponent’s knee to expose the neck for a swift, ritual killing. Others, too injured to kneel, were dispatched with a single thrust to the heart. Their bodies were carried away for burial, though most received no tombstones unless their comrades pooled money to honor them. The life of a gladiator offered gold, fame, and the worship of the crowd, but for the majority, it was brief, painful, and violent — a profession where every victory postponed death rather than escaped it. ([*The age of the gladiators. Savagery and spectacle in ancient Rome*](https://amzn.to/4nyFqoX?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Rupert Matthews*) ![The Combat of Gladiators, a painting by José Aparicio](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/The-Combat-of-Gladiators--a-painting-by-Jos---Aparicio.jpg) The Combat of Gladiators, a painting by José Aparicio. Public domain ### Flamma and the Paradox of Freedom The epitaph of Flamma, carved in stone near Syracuse, remains one of the most extraordinary testimonies to the mindset of Rome’s gladiators. It records a man who fought thirty-four times, lived thirty years, and, most strikingly, was offered the wooden sword of freedom four times — yet refused it each time, a decision that still defies modern understanding. To the modern reader, this decision seems unfathomable, but within Rome’s moral framework it revealed something profound. In the arena, *virtus* and *gloria*—courage and fame—were not abstract ideals but living currencies of honor. To fight was to exist; to win was to be remembered. Freedom meant obscurity, the fading of cheers, the silence of forgotten names. Flamma’s choice was therefore not madness but conviction: he preferred to meet his death beneath the eyes of thousands rather than vanish into anonymity. His story, preserved in a few chiseled lines of Latin, endures as one of Rome’s clearest expressions of how glory could conquer liberty. In the end, Flamma’s legend reminds us that in Rome, a man’s freedom was fleeting, but his name, once won in the arena, could outlive empires. ### Incense in Ancient Rome: Smoke, Ritual, and Power URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/incense-in-ancient-rome-smoke-ritual-and-power/ Last updated: 2025-10-03T23:35:47.000Z Incense was not a marginal custom but a routine element of Roman religious life. Latin authors treat the offering of *tura* (frankincense) as ordinary in sacrifices and festivals: [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/)’s calendar of rites in [*Fasti*](https://amzn.to/4o4EtER?ref=romanempiretimes.com)has worshippers placing “grain, salt, and incense” on the fire, while [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/)’s annalistic scenes of sacrifice presume aromatic smoke rising with vows and thanksgivings. [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) devoted long chapters of [*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/4nwY6Fv?ref=romanempiretimes.com) to frankincense and myrrh, tracing their Arabian sources and lamenting Rome’s appetite for expensive imported aromatics. Theophrastus’ account [*On Plants*](https://amzn.to/48OENTD?ref=romanempiretimes.com) of the harvest of incense and myrrh and the [*Periplus of the Erythraean Sea*](https://amzn.to/3VKT0th?ref=romanempiretimes.com)’s notes on Red Sea trade reveal the network that fed Roman demand. ![Funerary altar of a Roman woman. In her left hand she holds a jar of incense; with her right hand she sprinkles it over a flaming thymiaterion](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Funerary-altar-of-a-Roman-woman.-In-her-left-hand-she-holds-a-jar-of-incense--with-her-right-hand-she-sprinkles-it-over-a-flaming-thymiaterion.jpg) Funerary altar of a Roman woman. In her left hand she holds a jar of incense; with her right hand she sprinkles it over a flaming thymiaterion. Credits: Mark Landon, CC BY 4.0 ### Roman Empire Incense: How, Where, and Why the Romans Burned Fragrance The question, then, is not whether incense ancient Rome used existed—it did—but how Romans used it across settings, why they valued it, and what its supply meant for the Empire. Terminology mattered. Romans used *tus* (frankincense) and *thus* (incense generally) for the fragrant resins burned on coals; Greek writers speak of *thymiama*. The implement was the *turibulum* (a censer/brazier), and the small box of resins the *acerra*. To “offer incense” was not an ornament added to sacrifice but part of what made the action a sacrifice. In the Roman Empire, incense marked [sacred time](https://romanempiretimes.com/marking-the-hours-the-roman-way-of-measuring-time/), purified space, and gave visible form to invisible intention: the thin blue column of smoke was the rite’s signature. ### Origins and Trade: Aromatics for an Empire Roman incense was chiefly frankincense (olibanum) from Boswellia and myrrh from Commiphora—resins tapped in South Arabia and the Horn of Africa. [Pliny](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-the-author-of-the-worlds-first-encyclopaedia-was-roman/) in *Natural History* summarizes a system in which groves were guarded, resin tapped seasonally, graded, taxed, and funneled north through caravan routes to Mediterranean ports. Theophrastus describes the technique of incisions and gatherings; the *Periplus* details anchorages and brokers along the Red Sea. By the Principate, monsoon-sailing opened a sea highway from Indian Ocean coasts to Egypt’s Red Sea ports; from there, cargos crossed to the Nile and out to Rome. Pliny complains that “*India, China, and Arabia*” drained Roman silver each year, and the [*Muziris papyrus*](https://amzn.to/3VQU6Uj?ref=romanempiretimes.com) later confirms the staggering value of single [aromatic](https://romanempiretimes.com/niche-perfumes-in-ancient-rome-how-did-emperors-smell-like/) shipments. In Roman vocabulary, tus and thus became routine liturgical items; the costly grades signaled status even as their smoke marked the act as ritually correct. Ancient descriptions of the producing zones are surprisingly precise. As we said, Theophrastus places frankincense-groves in Arabia; later writers and modern fieldwork locate prime production in Dhofar’s coastal belt and lower mountain slopes, where trees were scored and exudate collected in seasonal rounds. ![Thymiaterion in the Form of a Comic Actor seated on an Altar and a Separate Theatrical Wig, from the Roman period](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Thymiaterion-in-the-Form-of-a-Comic-Actor-seated-on-an-Altar-and-a-Separate-Theatrical-Wig--from-the-Roman-period.jpg) Thymiaterion in the Form of a Comic Actor seated on an Altar and a Separate Theatrical Wig, from the Roman period. Credits: Getty Museum, Public domain Resin was warehoused and shipped in winter. South Arabian polities controlled routes and exacted duties; middlemen protected knowledge of groves and grades, which helps explain contradictions in classical descriptions. To a Roman buyer the labels mattered—origin, color, size of tears—and the best lots commanded prices that made Roman Empire incense a small but lucrative sliver of the [eastern trade](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/). Debate over whether such imports were “luxury” or “necessity” already ran in antiquity. Pliny’s moralizing implies useless extravagance; yet civic religion required incense at festivals, and households used small pinches regularly. In other words, context determined value. In a city dedicating vows for victory, incense was not optional; in a private banquet, excess could be mocked. That flexibility helps explain how incense functioned simultaneously as staple of ritual and symbol of wealth. (*Frankincense and Myrrh in Ancient South Arabia, by Gus W. van Beek; The Reception and Consumption of Eastern Goods in Roman Society, by Matthew Adam Cobb*) ### Incense at the Altar: Civic and State Cults In public cult, incense framed communication with the gods. Priests cast tura onto the flames with prayers and mola salsa; Ovid’s *Fasti* sequences incense with other pure offerings. Horace in [*Odes*](https://amzn.to/3KGb8SF?ref=romanempiretimes.com) imagines Lares honored with “*garlands and frankincense*”, and temple calendars stipulate incense at anniversaries and vows. Incense marked presence and purity: its fragrant smoke carried petitions upward and delineated sacred time from ordinary time. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Closeup-of-the-thymiaterion-in-the-form-of-a-Comic-Actor-1.jpg) ## A sacrifice without incense would have looked—and smelled—unfinished. **Closeup of the thymiaterion in the form of a Comic Actor. Public domain* As the imperial cult spread, incense before imperial images acquired a new weight. To burn a few grains of frankincense before the altar of *Roma et Augustus* expressed civic loyalty in a instantly legible gesture. The act was deliberately simple: anyone could approach, take a pinch, and cast it on the coals. Provincial inscriptions advertising priesthoods and [festivals](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/) record this choreography of allegiance; the smell of incense thus became, in political contexts, the smell of consent. Roman religious time was scented. On [public holidays](https://romanempiretimes.com/saturnalia-the-roman-festival-that-inspired-the-spirit-of-christmas/) the city’s processions—victory celebrations, temple anniversaries, imperial birthdays—moved through streets hazed with aromatic smoke, while fixed cult sites maintained their own olfactory signatures. Such sensory consistency mattered: it taught citizens how a rite should look, sound, and smell, and it gave Roman religion one of its most memorable atmospheres. (*The Worship of the Roman Emperors, by Henry Fairfield Burton; Imperial Cult and Native Tradition in Roman North Africa, by J. B. Rives*) ### Household and Domestic Piety Romans also burned incense at home. The household shrine (*lararium*) received humble offerings—wine, garlands, small cakes, and pinches of incense—particularly on kalends, birthdays, and family rites. [Varro](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-terentius-varro-the-polymath-who-catalogued-the-roman-civilization/)’s language in [*De Lingua Latina*](https://amzn.to/4pKO45g?ref=romanempiretimes.com) for daily cult and [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)’s references in [*De Legibus*](https://amzn.to/3IJcjQQ?ref=romanempiretimes.com) to household Lares assume a repertoire in which incense signaled reverence and marked thresholds. As aforementioned, in domestic settings the *acerra* (incense casket) and *turibulum* (incense burner) appear in descriptions and on reliefs, indicating that ordinary households practiced small-scale fumigation. The same resins used in temples—frankincense, myrrh, storax—could be burned over charcoal, sometimes blended with spices or balms also used as [perfumes](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-aroma-of-rome-perfumes-of-power-pleasure-and-prestige/). Archaeology adds texture. Household shrines at [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/) and [Herculaneum](https://romanempiretimes.com/ancient-roman-beach-herculaneum-reopened/) preserve wall-paintings of Lares flanking a central altar; traces of heat and soot below such niches likely come from repeated burning. Portable bronze censers, some with long handles or chains, make sense of textual references to passing a censer during prayers. The domestic register of incense was intimate: a few grains, a spoken vow, a momentary cloud of scent shared by a family. Because domestic cult was frequent, the economy of incense ancient Rome made provision for modest quantities. Shop lists and moralists’ complaints imply that small packets of resin were routine purchases. While temples demanded steady supplies for the liturgical calendar, households kept incense among other consumables, alongside oil and wine. This banal presence underscores how familiar the act of burning incense was across the social spectrum. (*Perfumery in in Ancient Greek and Roman Societies, by Benton Kidd; Introduction: People, Places and Rituals in the Religions of Rome, by Lauren Hackworth Petersen*) ![Alfonso Savini’s painting, The incense burner](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Alfonso-Savini---s-painting---The-incense-burner.jpg) Alfonso Savini’s painting, The incense burner. Credits: [Christie’s](https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-4877044?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ### Funerary Rites and the Fragrant Dead Incense attended the Roman dead. Literary descriptions and epitaphs imply fumigation at the house of the deceased, processional incense at the *pompa*, and offerings at the pyre or tomb. Myrrh and other aromatics appear among the substances scattered or burned, and Pliny notes deodorizing and preservative uses for resins. Poets make the link explicit: “*give me frankincense*,” a mourner asks, “*to honor the shade*,” a formula that shows incense as a dignifying gift. In provincial contexts, traces of imported resins in graves suggest that long-distance aromatics reached far beyond Italy, granting [Roman funerals](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) a shared sensory vocabulary across the Empire. Modern reassessments of “death pollution” in Rome have challenged the idea that fear of miasma dominated practice; instead, obligation and convention best explain the patterned use of aromatics around death. Mourners were bound to act—keep vigil, hire musicians, process, burn offerings—without assuming a metaphysical danger from corpses. Within that obligation, incense and spices addressed sensory, medicinal, and honorific aims: they sweetened the air, soothed bodies, and dignified the dead. (*Re-examining Roman Death Pollution, by Allison L. C. Emmerson*) ![A Sick Child brought into the Temple of Aesculapius, a painting by John William Waterhouse](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/A-Sick-Child-brought-into-the-Temple-of-Aesculapius--a-painting-by-John-William-Waterhouse.jpg) A Sick Child brought into the Temple of Aesculapius, a painting by John William Waterhouse. Public domain ### Incense, Politics, and the Boundaries of Loyalty Emperors and governors understood the symbolism of incense. Public ceremonies that required a pinch of incense at an imperial altar made loyalty legible; refusal could be read as defiance. Later accounts of trials emphasize the act of “sacrificing” by incense before images—a minimal but decisive test. Conversely, the staging of imperial benefaction used aromatics as spectacle: [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/)’ [*Nero*](https://amzn.to/3IVwafw?ref=romanempiretimes.com) boasts banquet rooms whose mechanisms “rained flowers and perfumes,” and saffron mists perfumed theatres. Though exceptional, such scenes illuminate how elites could shape public air itself as a sign of power. At more ordinary civic scales, incense unified festivals, processions, and anniversaries. Priests and magistrates processed with acerrae; boys and girls carried garlands; spectators smelled what they saw. To a Roman crowd, fragrance worked as cue and confirmation: the rite was authentic because it looked and smelled as custom prescribed. In this sense, Roman Empire incense was a social technology—an olfactory agreement about what religion felt like. (*Imperial Cult and Native Tradition in Roman North Africa, by J. B. Rives*) ### Medicine, Magic, and Suspicion Aromatics lived double lives. Medical writers—Dioscorides and later [Galen](https://romanempiretimes.com/galen-of-pergamon-rome-most-famous-physician-galenus/)—prescribed resins and spices as expectorants, antiseptics, and digestives; the same resins burned as incense could be macerated into medicaments. Pliny lists pharmacological virtues for storax, frankincense, and myrrh even as he censures overuse. Because the same substances crossed spheres, meaning shifted with context. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Terracotta-group-of-women-seated-around-a-well-head--probably-a-local-cult-of-Demeter-and-Kore-who-were-widely-worshipped-in-Southern-Italy-and-Sicily-from-Ancient-Greeks.jpg) ## The very aroma that sanctified a temple could, when burned over a private charm, seem suspect. **Terracotta group of women seated around a well head, probably a local cult of Demeter and Kore who were widely worshipped in Southern Italy and Sicily from Ancient Greeks. Credits: The MET, Public domain* As long-distance trade expanded, Roman authors increasingly coded some eastern aromatics as exotic and morally ambivalent. Pliny rails at luxuria; satirists mock over-scented [elites](https://romanempiretimes.com/asarotos-oikos-mosaic-unswept-floor-roman-elite/). In Late Antiquity, literary and documentary evidence associates certain Indian spices and aromatics with “magical” practices, showing how distance, rarity, and ritual use could shade into suspicion. [*The Greek Magical Papyri*](https://amzn.to/46VR7iF?ref=romanempiretimes.com) prescribe blends that include storax or frankincense alongside invocations, while authors like Apuleius play with the boundary between medicine, magic, and popular belief. Even so, the same substances could be pious in one context (temple incense) and illicit in another (private spells), reminding us that meaning followed use rather than inhering in the goods themselves. Trade studies caution against flat categories. Spices and aromatics could be both necessity and [luxury](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/): “necessary” in civic and funerary rites, “luxurious” when lavished at [banquets](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-unknown-lucullus-far-more-than-just-lucullan-meals/). Their value was situational, and Romans knew it. That is why the same shipment recorded on a papyrus can look like high finance to a merchant, moral danger to Pliny, and simple adequacy to a city magistrate provisioning a festival. (*Indian Spices and Roman "Magic" in Imperial and Late Antique Indomediterranea, by Elizabeth Ann Pollard; The Reception and Consumption of Eastern Goods in Roman Society, by Matthew Adam Cobb)* ![A Roman bronze Thymiaterion (incense burner) from the Augustan Roman period](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/A-Roman-bronze-Thymiaterion--incense-burner--from-the-Augustan-Roman-period.jpg) A Roman bronze Thymiaterion (incense burner) from the Augustan Roman period. Credits: [Christie’s](https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-5958635?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ### Burners, Boxes, and Technique As already mentioned, incense that ancient Rome burned required hardware. *Acerrae* (incense boxes) stored graded resins; *turibula* (censers) and *thymiateria* (pedestal burners) managed the fire. Archaeology and art show portable bronze turibula with swinging chains, pedestal burners in sanctuaries, and simpler household bowls. Some have pierced lids to regulate burn rate; others have long handles to pass the ember-bed from person to person. Technique was simple but controlled: a bed of glowing charcoal; resins pinched or spooned from the acerra; occasional blending with wine-drops or oils to modulate smoke and scent. Domestic shrines left heat-scars and soot signatures; sanctuaries curated the sensory environment through sheer scale—more burners, more smoke, more scent. The smellscape of a temple was managed deliberately: clean wood smoke for heat, resin for sanctity, and limits set by ritual handbooks about when, where, and how much to burn. Material evidence also complicates social assumptions. Fine bronze thymiateria occur in elite houses and [villas](https://romanempiretimes.com/domus-romana-the-roman-villa-of-rabat-malta/), but plainer ceramic or iron burners turn up in modest quarters. Incense, in other words, was not a purely elite privilege; quantity and quality varied, but the practice was broadly distributed, especially when tied to calendrical obligations. (*Introduction: People, Places and Rituals in the Religions of Rome, by Lauren Hackworth Petersen*) ![Thymiaterion in the Form of a Singer seated on an Altar, from the Roman period](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Thymiaterion-in-the-Form-of-a-Singer-seated-on-an-Altar--from-the-Roman-period.jpg) Thymiaterion in the Form of a Singer seated on an Altar, from the Roman period. Credits: Getty Museum, Public domain ### Cost, Fashion, and Change Over Time Incense sat at the intersection of religion and economy. Pliny’s complaint that silver hemorrhaged toward Arabia and India translates into real household budgets and civic outlays for festivals. Town councils funded incense for processions; collegia and priesthoods kept accounts; families portioned small stores for life events—birthdays, weddings, funerals. The fashion cycle in aromatics is visible even beyond antiquity: later Near Eastern sources chart shifts after the seventh century CE, with camphor, agarwood, musk, and ambergris rising while older Mediterranean staples like balsam and myrrh receded. Those later transformations remind us that “incense” is a moving category: Romans burned what networks could reliably supply, and tastes and technologies changed. The trade frameworks that brought resin to Rome also brought ideas about how to burn it. Learned discussions on grades and blends moved with merchants; temple keepers compared notes with physicians; householders learned by imitation in public rites. In this sense, incense was as much knowledge as commodity. Its use knit together places—from Dhofar and the Somali coast to Egyptian ports, to the Tiber—into a single ritual economy. (*Trends in the Use of Perfumes and Incense in the Near East after the Muslim Conquests, by Amar Zohar and Efraim Lev*) --- Yes—Romans used incense widely. In temples, its smoke marked proper approach to the gods; in homes, it framed daily piety; in funerals, it honored the dead and managed the senses; in politics, it drew a bright line of loyalty around the imperial image. In art, it invoked the creation of wonderful items that awe even today’s modern audiences. Behind that familiar fragrance stood distant groves, monsoon sailing, brokers and taxes, and a Roman debate about luxury and propriety. To study Roman Empire incense is to see how a small, combustible gift connected households to altars, provinces to the capital, and ritual practice to the roads and sea-lanes of an empire. ### Orosius: The Fall of Rome Through Christian Eyes URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/orosius-the-fall-of-rome-through-christian-eyes/ Last updated: 2025-10-02T22:26:55.000Z When the Goths stormed [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/purple-pollution-how-rome-lust-for-luxury-stained-the-ancient-seas/) in 410 A.D., the shockwaves spread far beyond the crumbling walls. Pagan writers claimed the disaster proved [Christianity](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/) had doomed the Eternal City, leaving it abandoned by its [gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/). To answer them, Augustine began his City of God and turned to his disciple Orosius, urging him to write a sweeping history that would prove calamities had always haunted humanity, long before Christ. Rising to the task, Orosius crafted the most extensive surviving summary of Rome’s past, dating events from the city’s foundation in 751 B.C., weaving Roman and [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) history together, and reshaping the narrative of an empire through Christian eyes. ![Paulo Orosio represented in a miniature belonging to the codex of Saint-Epure](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Paulo-Orosio-represented-in-a-miniature-belonging-to-the-codex-of-Saint-Epure.jpg) Paulo Orosio represented in a miniature belonging to the codex of Saint-Epure. Public domain ### The Shape of a Christian Historian Aulus Orosius was most likely born at Bracara, today’s Braga in Portugal, sometime between 380 and 390, though some traditions suggest Tarraco in Spain. Evidence, however, points more strongly to Bracara. Despite his prominence, few of his contemporaries wrote about him, and only a sketchy outline of his life can be reconstructed. His additional name, Paulus, was first recorded by Jordanes in the Getica of the mid-sixth century. Nothing certain can be said about Orosius’ early years in Hispania, except that he became a presbyter and played a leading role in debates with the Priscillianists and Origenists. His writings show that he was well trained in both pagan and Christian culture. He was familiar with the major Roman authors, especially Vergil, Horace, and [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/), and had studied in the rhetorical schools, while also being firmly grounded in Christian belief and recognized for his strong faith. Around the age of thirty, in 413 or 414, Orosius left his homeland. He explains only that he departed *sine voluntate, sine necessitate, sine consensu*,(without will, without necessity, without consent) and that divine providence guided his ship during a storm to the African coast near Hippo, where Augustine was living. Some believe he fled because of the devastation of the Alans and Vandals in Hispania; others suggest he sought counsel against heresy. In any case, he was warmly received by fellow Christians and soon went to Augustine to discuss doctrines of the soul, which were under attack by the Priscillianists and Origenists. To brief Augustine, he wrote the *Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum* in 414, to which Augustine responded with *Ad Orosium contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas*. Still unsatisfied, Orosius resolved to visit Jerome in [Palestine](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-emperor-hadrian-vengeance-modern-palestine-israel/). Augustine supported this plan and sent him with a long letter of introduction ([*Epistle*](https://amzn.to/4pXx6ku?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 166). Augustine described Orosius as: > “a religious young man, a brother in the Catholic fold, in age a son, in dignity a fellow priest, alert of mind, ready of speech, burning with eagerness, longing to be a useful vessel in the house of the Lord…” ![Aerial photograph of the church Bom Jesus and its characteristic stairs, in Braga Portugal](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Aerial-photograph-of-the-church-Bom-Jesus-and-its-characteristic-stairs--in-Braga-Portugal.jpg) Aerial photograph of the church Bom Jesus and its characteristic stairs, in Braga Portugal. Credits: Joseolgon, CC BY-SA 4.0 Orosius traveled to Palestine in 415, passing through Egypt and venerating Christian shrines along the way. There he joined Jerome and others in opposing Pelagius, who was then spreading his teachings. The conflict reached a council in Jerusalem convened by Bishop John. Orosius defended Augustine and Jerome’s position, but his words were misinterpreted by an interpreter, and John accused him of blasphemy. Because Pelagius affirmed that man could not avoid sin without divine grace, he was not condemned, while Orosius was charged with maintaining that man could not avoid sin even with grace. To answer these charges, Orosius composed the [*Liber apologeticus*](https://amzn.to/48e39Ge?ref=romanempiretimes.com), which presented the Jerusalem council in detail and systematically explained Augustine and Jerome’s views on free will and Christian perfection. In 416, Orosius left Palestine, possibly via Minorca, but most likely sailed first to Africa, as Augustine had requested. He carried a letter from Jerome and writings from the Gallic bishops Hero and Lazarus, who were engaged in the Pelagian struggle, as well as relics of St. Stephen with an explanatory letter by Lucian. On Minorca, he deposited the relics in a church where they soon became the focus of widespread devotion. Unable to return to Hispania because of Vandal incursions, Orosius went back to Augustine in Africa. At Augustine’s request, he began the [*Historiae adversus paganos*](https://amzn.to/48e39Ge?ref=romanempiretimes.com). This seven-book work, finished around 418, was meant to supplement Augustine’s City of God. While Augustine had argued that calamities befell [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) both before and after Christianity, Orosius extended this proof across all of world history. He traced human affairs from the Flood to his own time, emphasizing that God determined the destiny of nations. Orosius identified four great empires in succession: Babylon, Macedon, [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), and [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/), a framework widely accepted in the Middle Ages. ![A map (in Spanish) showing the trips carried out by Paulo Orosio between 409 and 420](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/A-map--in-Spanish--showing-the-trips-carried-out-by-Paulo-Orosio-between-409-and-420.jpg) A map (in Spanish) showing the trips carried out by Paulo Orosio between 409 and 420\. Credits: Edward the Confessor, CC BY-SA 3.0 The *Historiae* begins with a geographical overview and then proceeds: Book One, from the Flood to Rome’s founding; Book Two, Rome to the Gallic sack, Persia to Cyrus, Greece to Cunaxa; Book Three, [Alexander](https://romanempiretimes.com/alexander-the-great-in-roman-thought-hero-rival-and-legend/) and his successors alongside Roman history; Book Four, Rome to [Carthage’s destruction](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/); Books Five through Seven, Roman history down to Orosius’ own era. Though hastily written and often borrowing heavily from sources such as Scripture, Jerome’s edition of Eusebius, [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/), Eutropius, Suetonius, Florus, and Justin, the *Historiae* adds details not preserved elsewhere, especially after 378 CE. His apologetic intent led him to highlight disasters and sometimes choose the more exaggerated version of an event to illustrate his point. After completing this work, Orosius disappears from the record, and his fate remains unknown. His reputation endured, however, largely through his association with Augustine. In 494 Pope Gelasius praised the *Historiae*, securing its authority in the Church. Nearly two hundred manuscripts survive, and while Augustine’s City of God eclipsed it in learned circles, Orosius’ work remained widely read. It influenced Isidore of Seville and Otto of Freising, and was even translated into Anglo-Saxon by Alfred the Great. ([*The fathers of the church – Paulus Orosius: The seven books of history against the pagans*](https://amzn.to/3KEqEhT?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, translated by Roy J. Deferrari*) ![Saint Augustine by Philippe de Champaigne. Public domain](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Saint-Augustine-by-Philippe-de-Champaigne.jpg) Saint Augustine by Philippe de Champaigne ### The *Historiae*: Universal History Through the Hand of Providence The *Historiae adversus paganos* was not a new tale but an old one retold through providence. Orosius assumed the triumph of Christianity and set about proving that God’s presence had always guided human history. He framed calamities of the pagan past as divine punishment for ignorance and showed that with Christ the world had entered an age of improvement. In doing so, he created the longest surviving universal history from antiquity, blending Roman chronology with Greek digressions, epitome with apologia, and theology with chronicle. What makes the work exceptional is its afterlife. With over 275 manuscripts in circulation—an astonishing survival compared to [Ammianus](https://romanempiretimes.com/ammian-or-ammianus-marcellinus-from-a-roman-soldier-to-one-of-the-best-historians-of-all-time/) or Arnobius—Orosius’ *Historiae* became the medieval standard for understanding antiquity. Pope Gelasius called it “indispensable,” Gennadius praised him as “most eloquent and learned,” and its echoes stretched from Jordanes and Isidore to Bede, Dante, and Petrarch. The opening world-survey circulated as an authoritative text on geography, while Orosius’ portrait of Alexander the Great helped shape the medieval Alexander Romance. Though Renaissance humanists dismissed him as ignorant, and modern scholars long derided his “naïve providentialism,” more recent work has uncovered Orosius’ rhetorical skill and the originality of his vision. Rather than a poor imitation of Augustine, he emerges as an independent author who forged a providential framework for world history—one that would dominate European thought for centuries. ![Dante's Paradise by Giovanni di Paolo, with Paul Orosius depicted in the bottom center, holding a scepter and wearing a crown, below St. Thomas Aquinas and Albert the Great](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Dante-s-Paradise-by-Giovanni-di-Paolo--with-Paul-Orosius-depicted-in-the-bottom-center--holding-a-scepter-and-wearing-a-crown--below-St.-Thomas-Aquinas-and-Albert-the-Great.jpg) Dante's Paradise by Giovanni di Paolo, with Paul Orosius depicted in the bottom center, holding a scepter and wearing a crown, below St. Thomas Aquinas and Albert the Great. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### Between History, Breviarium, and Apologia Orosius’s work, defies easy categorization. For over 1,600 years it has circulated widely, yet questions about its purpose, genre, and authorial intention remain unresolved. Scholars note that Orosius carefully avoided calling his work a “history” in the Prologue, where he refers to it instead as an opus, a volumen, or an opera. While he drew on “histories and annals” at Augustine’s request: > “You bade me, therefore, discover from all the available records of histories and annals whatever instances past ages have afforded of the burdens of war, the ravages of disease, the horrors of famine, of terrible earthquakes, extraordinary floods, dreadful eruptions of fire, thunderbolts and hailstorms, and also instances of the cruel miseries caused by parricides and disgusting crimes. > > I was to set these forth systematically and briefly in the course of my book.” Paulus Orosius, [*Histories against the Pagans*](https://amzn.to/3KtN6KJ?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ![17th-century retrospective portrait of Paulus Orosius, by Fernán González, currently in the Frei Manuel do Cenáculo National Museum, Évora, Portugal](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/17th-century-retrospective-portrait-of-Paulus-Orosius--by-Fern--n-Gonz--lez--currently-in-the-Frei-Manuel-do-Cen--culo-National-Museum----vora--Portugal.jpg) 17th-century retrospective portrait of Paulus Orosius, by Fernán González, currently in the Frei Manuel do Cenáculo National Museum, Évora, Portugal. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times He positioned his project as fundamentally different from earlier pagan writers, who began with Ninus of Assyria. Orosius criticizes them for omitting “3,184 years” of human history and for wasting the subsequent “2,015 years” between Ninus and Christ: > “From Adam, the first man, to Ninus, whom they call "The Great" and in whose time Abraham was born, 3,184 years elapsed, a period that all historians have either disregarded or have not known. > > But from Ninus, or from Abraham, to Caesar Augustus, that is, to the birth of Christ, which took place in the forty-second year of Caesar's rule, when, on the conclusion of peace with the Parthians, the gates of Janus were closed and wars ceased over all the world, there were 2,015 years.” He insists instead on the authority of Scripture: > “My subject, therefore, requires a brief mention of at least a few facts from those books which, in their account of the origin of the world, have gained credence by the accuracy with which their prophecies were later fulfilled. > > I used these books not because I purpose to press their authority upon anyone, but because it is worthwhile to repeat the common opinions that we ourselves all share.” ![Pauli Orosii Historiae Adversus Paganos](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Pauli-Orosii-Historiae-Adversus-Paganos.jpg) Pauli Orosii Historiae Adversus Paganos. Public domain Brevity is a constant concern in the *Historiae*. Orosius repeatedly apologizes for omissions—“for the sake of brevity, I have passed over” —and admits to the “knotty problem” (*sollicitudo nodosior)* of reconciling universality with conciseness. He concludes that “brevity is always obscure” (*obscura brevitas*), but tries to strike a balance by presenting “the essence of things” while omitting detail. This balancing act shapes the narrative voice. At times Orosius writes in the style of a neutral *breviarium*, offering facts in chronological order, often *ab urbe condita* (from the founding of the City i.e., [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/)). Yet the narrative regularly shifts into emotional commentary. After describing Alexander’s conquests, he exclaims: > “O callous soul of man, and heart ever inhuman! > > Did not my eyes fill with tears as I reviewed the past in order to prove that calamities have recurred in cycles throughout all ages; did I not weep as I spoke of evils so great that the entire world trembled from death itself or from fear of death? > > Was not my heart torn with grief? > > As I pondered over all this, did I not make the terrible experiences of my ancestors my own, seeing in them the common lot of man?” Similar passages appear after the history of [Athens](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrian-gate-in-downtown-athens-below-acropolis-a-gateway-to-history/) and the First Punic War. These rhetorical intrusions direct the reader to view the past not as glorious but as tragic, reinforcing the apologetic aim. ![World map of Aulus Orosius](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/World-map-of-Aulus-Orosius.jpg) World map of Aulus Orosius. Public domain Orosius also competes with his models. He borrows from Eutropius’s Breviarium, dating events ab urbe condita, but extends the system backwards to Creation and forwards to his own time. Where Eutropius gave 850 years from Rome’s founding to Nerva, Orosius corrects him: > “In the eight hundred and forty-sixth year of the City - although Eutropius { 8.1.1 } says that it was the eight hundred and fiftieth - Nerva was proclaimed emperor {96 A.D.}” This reveals Orosius’ independence, his insistence on chronological precision, and his determination to align universal history with Rome as the chosen empire. The question of audience remains contested. The narrator often addresses nonbelievers: > “These arguments, though advanced with great force and truth, do require, after all, a devout and willing listener. > > My present audience, however, whether or not they may come to believe at some future time, are certainly unbelievers now. > > Therefore I shall bring forward rather quickly arguments which, though my opponents may not approve, they certainly cannot disprove. > > Now, within the limits of our human comprehension, we and our opponents both revere religion and acknowledge and worship a higher power. > > The difference lies only in the nature of our belief; whereas we acknowledge that all things are from one God and through one God, they think there are as many gods as there are things.” Yet scholars argue that Orosius could not have intended real pagans as his readers, since such invective would alienate them. Rather, the *Historiae* was more likely aimed at Christians unsettled by Rome’s sack, giving them arguments against pagan critics and reassurance of divine providence. ![Paulus Orosius, a woodcut by Michel Wolgemut](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/10/Paulus-Orosius--a-woodcut-by-Michel-Wolgemut.jpg) Paulus Orosius, a woodcut by Michel Wolgemut. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times The narrative voice complicates matters further, sometimes appearing autobiographical. In Book 5 Orosius describes fleeing his homeland: > "No matter where I flee, I find my native land, my law, and my religion. > > Just now Africa has welcomed me with a warmth of spirit that matched the confidence I felt when I came here. > > At the present time, I say, this Africa has welcomed me to her state of absolute peace, to her own bosom, and to her common law - Africa...." Yet this too serves the apologetic aim of portraying Christianity as a universal refuge. The result is a text marked by multiplicity—part history, part apologia, part breviarium—whose contradictions and shifting registers have long unsettled its reception. (*In defiance of history. Orosius and the unimproved past, by Victoria Leonard*) --- Orosius gave his age a universal history shaped by Christian conviction, a narrative that turned calamity into proof of providence. However flawed by haste or partiality, the *Historiae* survived where many works of greater polish did not, carried by its usefulness, its association with Augustine, and its resonance with a world seeking meaning after Rome’s fall. In its pages, the past became **a stage for divine judgment**, and history itself **a witness to faith**. ### Titus and Domitian: Brotherhood on Rome’s Imperial Stage URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-titus-and-domitian-brotherhood-on-rome-imperial-stage/ Last updated: 2025-10-15T10:11:14.000Z The new Peacock series *Those About to Die* featuring on [Amazon Prime](https://amzn.to/4gLD8jM?ref=romanempiretimes.com), paints [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/) as a schemer, lurking in the shadows of his brother [Titus,](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-titus-darling-of-mankind/) ever eager to seize the purple. Jealousy, ambition, and betrayal drive the on-screen drama—but how much of this reflects reality? Ancient writers often portrayed rivalry between the Flavian brothers, even hinting that Domitian plotted against Titus. Yet modern historians caution that such stories owe as much to senatorial hostility toward Domitian as to the uncertain truth of their relationship. ![Emperor Titus and his brother Domitian, in the series Those About to Die](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Emperor-Titus-and-his-brother-Domitian--in-the-series-Those-About-to-Die.jpg) Emperor Titus and his brother Domitian, in the series Those About to Die. Credits: Peacock ### The Children of Vespasian The long-standing negative image of [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/dining-with-domitian-and-the-enigma-of-domitian-black-dinner/), shaped by both senatorial and [Christian](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/) traditions, has been undergoing vigorous reconsideration in recent decades. Scholars have increasingly questioned the reliability of post-Domitian accounts such as those of Pliny, [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/), and [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/), though doubts remain about how far one can go in attempting to “rehabilitate” the last Flavian ruler through selective reinterpretation of literary anecdotes. A more fruitful approach, recent studies suggest, is to read these literary sources alongside newly examined epigraphic and archaeological evidence. The debate over Domitian is ongoing, which is hardly surprising given the volume and diversity of surviving sources. Contemporary writers such as Statius, [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/), [Frontinus](https://romanempiretimes.com/frontinus-rome-master-of-strategy-and-water/), and Quintilian often presented him in a favorable light, while later works written after his assassination in 96 CE—[Pliny’s Letters](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/) and [*Panegyric*](https://amzn.to/3VJ0L2Q?ref=romanempiretimes.com), Suetonius’s [*Lives of the Caesars*](https://amzn.to/3VJUQuu?ref=romanempiretimes.com), and Tacitus’s [*Agricola*](https://amzn.to/46xufad?ref=romanempiretimes.com) and [*Histories*](https://amzn.to/3KrVKcE?ref=romanempiretimes.com)—are consistently hostile. Earlier generations of scholars tended to echo this hostile tradition, which consistently darkened Domitian’s principate in order to celebrate the “golden age” of [Nerva](https://romanempiretimes.com/nerva-the-first-of-the-good-roman-emperors/) and [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/). Pliny himself declared: > “the first duty of good citizens towards a perfect emperor is to attack those who are not like him. Indeed no one can love good emperors who does not hate the bad ones enough” *Panegyric* 53.2–3 Modern scholars, however, caution against both extremes. Some note that rhetorical tropes and exaggerations are natural to certain genres, but that does not make the ancient sources either wholly unreliable or wholly accurate. More recently, scholars have warned that anti-Domitian sources should not be dismissed simply as products of [Antonine](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-antonine-plague-devastation-reshaped-roman-empire/) propaganda, and that very different works like Pliny’s *Panegyric*, Tacitus’s *Histories*, and Suetonius’s *Lives* should not be read as if they shared a uniform agenda. In light of these issues, new attention has turned to the material evidence of Domitian’s reign, which has grown significantly in both quantity and understanding. While fragmentary and often official in character, inscriptions and archaeological remains can shed light on Domitian’s rule and the narrative strategies used by Nervan and Trajanic authors to cast it as a “*reign of terror*.” ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Emperor-Domitian-painting--by-Abraham-Bloemaert-1.jpeg) ## The Suetonian Life of Domitian in particular helped embed a hostile image of the emperor, but the extent to which this aligns with reality is questionable. **Emperor Domitian painting, by Abraham Bloemaert. Public domain* Key accusations—such as his alleged desire to be called “*Master and God*” and his supposed incestuous affair with his niece Julia—require closer scrutiny when set against the available evidence. Ultimately, a more holistic reading that brings together literary and material sources offers a cautious but clearer picture of Domitian’s principate and the processes that shaped its memory. ### Suetonius and the Shaping of a Tyrant Written about thirty years after Domitian’s death, Suetonius’s [*Life of Domitian*](https://amzn.to/4pKnnhf?ref=romanempiretimes.com) is one of the most influential accounts of the Flavian age. With Tacitus’s *Histories* and [Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/)’s [*Roman History*](https://amzn.to/46M8T7A?ref=romanempiretimes.com) surviving only in fragments for this period, Suetonius provides the fullest surviving narrative of Domitian’s reign and the only continuous treatment of the Flavian dynasty. For a long time, his version was regarded as more trustworthy than the openly hostile writings of Pliny and Tacitus. Modern scholarship has increasingly shown that Suetonius too shaped his material to portray Domitian as a tyrant. Many of his characterizations rely on commonplaces drawn from Aristotle’s descriptions of tyranny, the same motifs applied to emperors such as [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/), [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-caligula-really-declare-war-on-neptune/), and [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/). His narrative, composed under [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-emperor-hadrian-vengeance-modern-palestine-israel/), develops around three major themes: Domitian’s enmity with his brother Titus, reckless financial policies, and cruelty. These were not new inventions but refinements of accusations already suggested, though more indirectly, by Pliny and Tacitus. Suetonius organized them into coherent, morally charged stories that became the standard framework for later depictions of Domitian. On the fraternal theme, Suetonius casts Domitian in sharp contrast to his elder brother. He writes that Domitian strove: > “to match his brother’s power and fame” and that he: > “did not cease plotting against his brother, either secretly or openly” Later, after Titus’s death, Domitian is said to have honored him with deification alone, while in practice he: > “accorded him no honor except that of deification, and often attacked him with indirect speeches and edicts” By contrast, Titus appears as the generous sibling who used his wealth for the public good. Yet, inscriptions complicate this picture. Suetonius presents Domitian’s building program as motivated by vanity and greed, in contrast to Titus’s generosity. But epigraphic evidence shows that Domitian too used his own funds to rebuild after the fire of 80 CE, continuing Flavian family policy rather than erasing predecessors for his own glory. In Suetonius’s hands, Domitian becomes a “*new Nero*,” his supposed cruelty rationalized and his memory darkened through contrast with Titus’s positive model. The result is a carefully crafted narrative that reinforced the hostile tradition, even as material evidence offers a more complex view. ![Roman Emperor Vespasian’s Triumph with his son and future Emperor, Titus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Roman-Emperor-Vespasian---s-Triumph-with-his-son-and-future-Emperor--Titus.jpeg) Roman Emperor Vespasian’s Triumph with his son and future Emperor, Titus. Credits: Pierre-Yves Beaudouin, Public domain ### Domitian and Titus: Rivalry, Rumor, and the Evidence of Memory A recurring theme in ancient accounts is the supposed hostility between Domitian and his elder brother Titus. Tacitus in the *Histories* already hints at tension, noting Domitian’s exclusion from power and alluding to suspicions of conspiracy against his brother. Pliny speaks as though this rivalry was accepted fact, remarking that someone: > “as a friend of Domitian he feared Titus” [*Letters*](https://amzn.to/4pNK97T?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 4.9.2 Material and epigraphic evidence, however, complicates this story. Suetonius claims that Domitian received only one ordinary consulship in 73 CE thanks to Titus stepping aside, presented as an act of brotherly kindness that emphasized Titus’s love and Domitian’s ingratitude. Yet the *fasti consulares*, confirmed by an inscription from that year (CIL V 7239), show a pattern: the Flavians rotated the consulship on a two-year cycle to share honors within the family and their allies. In 71, Vespasian and Nerva gave way to Domitian and Cascus; in 72, Titus was consul with Vespasian; in 73, Domitian and Messalinus held the office; in 74, Titus resumed it with Vespasian. Far from being a special concession by Titus, Domitian’s full consulship appears part of an established system of Flavian power-sharing. Despite this, Suetonius’s portrayal became influential. Later writers exaggerated the narrative of fraternal enmity, culminating in Cassius Dio’s dramatic account that Domitian placed the dying Titus in a basket of snow to hasten his end. According to Dio, Titus regretted only that he had: > “loved too much his ungrateful brother” Suetonius also downplayed Domitian’s commemoration of Titus. He suggests Domitian’s honors were tokenistic, comparable to Nero’s neglect of the cult of Claudius. He says Domitian pretended grief: > “pretending to love his brother and mourned him and uttered his eulogy in tears and wanted him divinised, pretending precisely the opposite of what he really desired” Cassius Dio 67.2.6, paraphrasing Suetonius ![A painting depicting the Triumph of Titus, by Lawrence Alma Tadema](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-painting-depicting-the-Triumph-of-Titus--by-Lawrence-Alma-Tadema.jpeg) A painting depicting the Triumph of Titus, by Lawrence Alma Tadema. His father, Emperor Vespasian, clad in a white toga, leads the procession. Titus comes next, holding the hand of his daughter, Julia, who turns to address her father's younger brother and successor, Domitian. Public domain In this comparison, Domitian is implicitly likened to Nero, contrasted with the positive model of Titus. Yet the material record tells another story. Unlike [Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/)’s neglected cult, Titus’s deification under Domitian was substantial. Monuments such as the Temple of the Flavian Family (*Templum Gentis Flaviae*), the Arch of Titus, the Temple of Vespasian and Titus, and the *Porticus Divorum* all honored him. Inscriptions from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) and the provinces attest to the cult of *Divus Titus*. The [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) itself dedicated an inscription, while another from 81 CE, commemorates him as a divine figure. Domitian’s [coinage](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) also celebrated Titus, issuing multiple types with his portrait between 81 and 83 CE. While Suetonius and Pliny cast Domitian as begrudging and insincere, the archaeological and numismatic evidence suggests that at least at the level of official representation, Domitian honored his brother and fostered his cult. The literary tradition shaped Domitian into a “new Nero,” but the monuments and inscriptions show a dynasty presenting unity and reverence, even if the private relationship between the two brothers can never be fully known. (*Un-damning Subplots: The Principate of Domitian Between Literary Sources and Fresh Material Evidence, by Tommaso Spinelli and Gian Luca Gregori*) ![Emperor Domitian on Horseback, an engraving from Abraham de Bruyn](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Emperor-Domitian-on-Horseback--an-engraving-from-Abraham-de-Bruyn.jpg) Emperor Domitian on Horseback, an engraving from Abraham de Bruyn. Credits: The MET, Public domain ### Was Domitian Truly Sidelined? Later tradition often described Domitian as a frustrated younger son, kept in the shadows by his father and brother. Yet the evidence points in another direction. During Vespasian’s reign he held several consulships, along with priesthoods and public honors that marked him as a recognized part of the dynasty. Far from being excluded, he was woven into the Flavian succession plan, even if Titus was always the heir-apparent. Some tales of tension do not withstand scrutiny. Tacitus claimed that Titus once begged Vespasian to spare his younger brother, but this story has all the signs of invention. The familiar theme of brothers locked in enmity—so often applied to later imperial pairs such as [Caracalla and Geta](https://romanempiretimes.com/brothers-divided-the-tragic-tale-of-emperors-caracalla-and-geta/)—colored Domitian’s image in the same way. The reality seems more measured. Coinage and official honors repeatedly linked Domitian with his brother, suggesting association rather than exclusion. What survives from the Flavian program does not reveal a prince frozen out of power, but one included in the dynasty’s public face. (*The character of Domitian, by K.H Waters*) ![Rare gold Roman aureus coin of Emperor Titus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Rare-gold-Roman-aureus-coin-of-Emperor-Titus.jpeg) Rare gold Roman aureus coin of Emperor Titus. Credits: Classical Numismatic Group, Roman Empire Times ### Was Domitian Responsible for the Death of Titus? The two Flavian brothers were divided from the start. Titus was eleven years older, raised in the imperial court beside Britannicus, and later absent on military campaigns, especially in Judaea until 71 CE. Domitian, left in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/), grew up largely without him. They “hardly knew each other,” and this early distance helps explain why no strong bond was ever forged. Later gossip claimed Titus sought to slight Domitian through office appointments. One story had Titus granting a consulship to Aelius Lamia, the former husband of Domitian’s wife, as if to humiliate him. Another claimed he promoted Sabinus IV as consul for 82 to keep Domitian in check. Both collapse under scrutiny. In truth, Titus had planned to share the consulship of 82 with his brother — a sign of unity at the very height of power. Only Titus’s sudden death in September prevented it, and Sabinus filled the vacancy afterwards. At the moment of transition, Domitian acted decisively. He hurried to the [praetorian](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/) camp, promised a donative, and was acclaimed [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/). The Senate, however, first gathered to honor Titus, delaying Domitian’s formal recognition until the following day. That hesitation fed the rumors of intrigue and suspicion that colored his accession, although there was no proof he was responsible for the death of his brother. ([*The Emperor Domitian*](https://amzn.to/473YKEI?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Brian W. Jones*) --- The relationship between Titus and Domitian remains elusive, glimpsed only through hostile traditions and fragmentary evidence. Ancient authors loved the story of jealous brothers, turning Domitian into a schemer against the generous Titus. Yet coins, inscriptions, and monuments show a dynasty projecting unity, and modern scholarship has exposed the literary patterns that shaped the darker image. Whether their private bond was strained or not, what survives is a tale of how rivalry was written into history, and how **the truth still lies somewhere between suspicion and ceremony**. ### Pompeii’s Taverns and Wine Bars: The Hospitality Business of an Ancient City URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-tavern-inn-wine-bar-the-hospitality-business-of-an-ancient-roman-city/ Last updated: 2025-09-29T22:23:05.000Z In the shadow of [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/)’s grand banquets and [imperial feasts](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-unknown-lucullus-far-more-than-just-lucullan-meals/) thrived a very different world of eating and drinking. Along busy streets and in smoky alleys, counters simmered with hot stews, jars brimmed with cheap wine, and dice rattled across worn wooden tables. These were the *cauponae*, *popinae*, *tabernae*, and *thermopolia*—the beating heart of Rome’s “fast food” culture. Far from the marble dining halls of senators, they catered to workers, travelers, and [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/), offering quick meals, rough company, and sometimes more than food. To step into one was to glimpse the everyday Pompeii rarely shown in marble or verse. ![A fresco depicting Dionysiac symbols (panther, tambourine, cista with a rhython, cup of wine), from Pompeii](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-fresco-depicting-Dionysiac-symbols--panther--tambourine--cista-with-a-rhython--cup-of-wine---from-Pompeii.jpg) A fresco depicting Dionysiac symbols (panther, tambourine, cista with a rhython, cup of wine), from Pompeii. Credits: BeakheadIntrados, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### The Problem of Labels: What Did ‘Taberna’ Really Mean? Modern scholarship has shown that labeling Pompeian remains with Latin terms is not as straightforward as once believed. Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century archaeologists applied words like *taberna*, *caupona, hospitium, stabulum, popina*, and *thermopolium* to structures in Pompeii almost indiscriminately, creating categories that may not match ancient realities. ### Ancient Authors on Roman Taverns (Tabernae) Even the Latin authors themselves used taberna in shifting ways. Ulpian defined it broadly as “all buildings fit for habitation” (Digest 50.16.183), an almost meaningless generalization. In [funerary](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) inscriptions, however, tabernae were distinguished from aedificia and habitationes, hinting at a more specific type of structure. [Vitruvius](https://romanempiretimes.com/vitruvius-the-roman-who-shaped-modern-architecture/) recommended tabernae and stabula in country forecourts to store produce and animals, again pointing to a functional role rather than a fixed form. > “Those whose estates are near a town ought to have in the forecourt both *tabernae* and *stabula*, so that the produce may be stored under cover, and the cattle also may be kept safe in stalls.” Vitruvius, [*De Architectura*](https://amzn.to/42h1pID?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Etymologists traced the word back to *tabula* (plank) or *trabs* (beam), recalling its origin as the poor man’s hut. [Juvenal](https://romanempiretimes.com/juvenal-the-poet-who-held-a-mirror-to-rome/) describes shutters chained in place at night, reinforcing the image of modest wooden frontages. > “Everywhere the public sings, the drunkard quarrels, and the crowd of brawlers goes on fighting till dawn. One man tires out the chained shutters of his tavern with blows.” Juvenal, [*Satires*](https://amzn.to/46IZkGJ?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Reconstructed-tavern-scene-from-VI-14--36--Caupona-of-Salvius--by-Geremia-Discanno.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Reconstructed-tavern-scene-from-VI-14--35--Caupona-of-Salvius--by-Geremia-Discanno.jpg) Reconstructed tavern scenes from Pompei (Caupona of Salvius), by Geremia Discanno. Public domain Literary scenes suggest how tabernae worked in daily life. [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/) praised [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/)’s edict compelling shopkeepers to keep within their thresholds, since their wares often spilled into the street. > “Now, thanks to your edict, Caesar, all the shops keep within their thresholds. Before, they had encroached upon the streets and porticoes, and their wares blocked the passers-by.” Martial, [*Epigrams*](https://amzn.to/46LtxF5?ref=romanempiretimes.com) [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) described the openness of Tusculum’s shops, doors wide and goods on display to passers-by. > “As he entered the city he found all the shops (*tabernae*) open, and saw that artisans were busy at their trades, while boys were being taken to school and teachers were in attendance; the whole city wore the aspect of peace.” Livy, [*Ab Urbe Condita*](https://amzn.to/4pUog71?ref=romanempiretimes.com) The term was flexible. Some tabernae were little more than booths or stalls, others substantial two-storey shops. > “He brought me into a small shop (*tabernula*), humble though it was, yet with an upper story. There he lived with his wife, and there was even enough room to conceal both me and my ass.” Apuleius, [*Metamorphoses*](https://amzn.to/4nvO3Rl?ref=romanempiretimes.com) They might host moneylenders, doctors, [barbers](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-ancient-romans-shave-barber-grooming-rituals-in-the-roman-empire/), [bakers](https://romanempiretimes.com/panis-quadratus-the-ancient-bread-that-fed-an-empire/), butchers, and sellers of cheese, fish, or [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/). While later tradition equates taberna with a tavern or wineshop, ancient evidence points to a multifunctional commercial space, often fronting the street with a wide doorway. Modern analogy also colors interpretation. Roman tabernae resemble the street-front shops still seen in Naples or [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/), with broad openings inviting contact with customers. Yet, drawing too direct a line between ancient and modern shops risks anachronism. Function and use could shift, and the label taberna in antiquity was applied far more loosely than modern categories imply. (*Finding commerce: the taberna and the identification ot Roman commercial space, by Claire Holleran*) ![Fresco from Pompeii depicting the wine god Bacchus and Mount Vesuvius laden with vines](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Fresco-from-Pompeii-depicting-the-wine-god-Bacchus-and-Mount-Vesuvius-laden-with-vines.jpg) Fresco from Pompeii depicting the wine god Bacchus and Mount Vesuvius laden with vines. Credits: Tyler Bell, CC BY 2.0 ### Hospitia, Cauponae, Tabernae, and Popinae: The Four Faces of Roman Hospitality In Pompeii and [Herculaneum](https://romanempiretimes.com/ancient-roman-beach-herculaneum-reopened/), as in many smaller [Roman cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), eating and drinking establishments were part of daily life. Pompeii in particular preserves some of the best examples, where taverns, inns, and small restaurants dotted the [insulae](https://romanempiretimes.com/insulae-apartment-buildings-ancient-rome-romans/) and clustered near the city gates. These venues welcomed travelers but also served the city’s own lower classes, offering [food,](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-did-the-ancient-romans-eat-the-rich-tapestry-of-ancient-roman-gastronomy/) wine, companionship, and sometimes shelter. They were woven deeply into the fabric of Pompeii’s economy and society. Roman hospitality businesses fell into four main categories*: hospitia, stabula, tabernae,* and *popinae*. A *hospitium* was originally a place that embodied the bond between host and guest, but in practice it came to mean an inn offering overnight accommodation, meals, and drink. Some were purpose-built, while others were converted from private homes. The *caupona* was similar but generally more modest, catering to less affluent patrons. While some were comfortable, the word gradually acquired unsavory associations, and innkeepers eventually preferred not to use it. If the hospitium was akin to a hotel, the caupona might be compared to a roadside inn or bar with [food](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/) and lodging. *Stabula* were inns that also stabled animals. Recognizable by their broad sloping entrances that allowed carts to pass inside, they combined rooms for travelers with stalls for beasts of burden. These were especially common just outside or inside city gates, where space was often at a premium. Their layouts typically included an open courtyard ringed with kitchens, latrines, and sleeping quarters, with the stables at the rear. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-fresco-from-the-Via-dell----Abbodanza--Abundance-Street---in-the-Tavern-of-the-Four-Deities--depicting-the-God-Apollo.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-fresco-from-the-Via-dell----Abbodanza--Abundance-Street---in-the-Tavern-of-the-Four-Deities--depicting-the-God-Jupiter.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-fresco-from-the-Via-dell----Abbodanza--Abundance-Street---in-the-Tavern-of-the-Four-Deities--depicting-the-Goddess-Diana.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-fresco-from-the-Via-dell----Abbodanza--Abundance-Street---in-the-Tavern-of-the-Four-Deities--depicting-the-God-Mercury.jpg) A series of frescoes from the Via dell’ Abbodanza (Abundance Street), in the Tavern of the Four Deities, depicting the Gods Apollo, Jupiter, Diana and Mercury. Credits: Sailko, CC BY-SA 4.0 The *taberna* began as a term for a shop, but by the first century CE it was often used for taverns. These establishments varied in size and quality. Sometimes they were combined with inns (*caupona taberna*), selling food and wine while providing rooms upstairs. The term could cause confusion, however, since many scholars use it to describe all kinds of shops. Both tabernae and popinae served simple meals and drink, often from counters lined with sunken storage jars (*dolia*). The counters were usually L-shaped, with heating systems that allowed food and wine to be served warm. Some establishments, such as the Taberna of Fortunata in Pompeii, had multiple storage jars, stoves, niches, and even latrines tucked behind the counter. Others offered small eating areas either indoors or in adjoining gardens. Popinae were the Roman equivalent of a casual sit-down restaurant, quick and affordable, but frowned upon by the [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). Upper-class Romans preferred to recline in triclinia and eat at leisure, so the bustle of the popina was considered coarse. Nevertheless, they provided an essential service to ordinary Pompeians. In practice, the line between caupona and hospitium was blurry. Some inns offered gardens with triclinia, multiple bedrooms, kitchens, and even atria or reception rooms. After the earthquake of 62 CE, many private houses seem to have been adapted for this purpose, their atria converted for storage or service. Inns at Pompeii reveal this blending of domestic and commercial space, where hospitality businesses were carved into the city’s very fabric. ![Frescoed wall from a tavern on the Strada di Mercurio in Pompeii](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/-Frescoed-wall-from-a-tavern-on-the-Strada-di-Mercurio-in-Pompeii.jpg) Frescoed wall from a tavern on the Strada di Mercurio in Pompeii. Credits: Wilhelm Zahn, Public domain ### At the Gates: Inns, Guests, and Graffiti in Pompeii At Pompeii, many hospitality businesses clustered near the city gates, strategically placed for travelers — merchants, sailors, and those breaking their journey overnight on the way to other destinations. Not every visitor needed such services, however. Wealthier Romans often stayed with friends or relied on networks of *hospitae* (“hosts”) in different cities, while some households rented out private rooms. The inns near the gates quickly developed a reputation as haunts of less prestigious travelers. They were notorious for bedbugs, discomfort, violence, and danger. Apuleius and Petronius painted them as sordid places filled with poverty-stricken guests. Staff quality also varied, as a piece of graffiti from an inn in Pompeii humorously admits: > “We peed in the bed. I admit we did wrong, innkeeper. If you should ask why—well, there was no chamber-pot!” Longer-term guests tended to lodge in *hospitia* within the city itself. This practice may have contributed to their reputation, as such establishments housed both transient travelers and poorer residents unable to rent homes. Petronius in the Satyricon even depicts an inn blending permanent tenants with short-stay customers. The graffiti left behind gives a vivid glimpse into tavern life. At one inn, a disgruntled patron scrawled: > “Curses on you, innkeeper! What you sell us is water, and you keep the wine for yourself!” In another tavern, a soldier was painted holding out his cup to a servant, above which a witty request was written: > “Just one drop of water to dilute my wine.” ![An election poster found in Asellina's Tavern in Pompeii, saying "Asellina's girls, including Zmyrina, ask for the election of Caio Lollius Fuscus as duumvir"](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/An-election-poster-found-in-Asellina-s-Tavern-in-Pompeii--saying--22Asellina-s-girls--including-Zmyrina--ask-for-the-election-of-Caio-Lollius-Fuscus-as-duumvir-22.jpg) An election graffiti found in Asellina's Tavern in Pompeii, saying "Asellina's girls, including Zmyrina, ask for the election of Caio Lollius Fuscus as duumvir". Credits: Marco Ebreo, CC BY-SA 4.0 Not all taverns bore a bad name. At one, the hostess Hedone advertised her menu openly: good wine for one as, better wine for two, and fine falernum for four. This same tavern was also the gathering place of the *seribibi universi* (“the late-night drinkers”), who even issued a political endorsement under their collective name. Amorous graffiti also covered the walls. At a tavern, a visitor blended lines from Ovid and Propertius to declare: > “A fair skinned beauty taught me to despise dusky women. I will spurn them, if I can; if not … I will love them reluctantly.” Such playful verses remind us that inns and taverns were not only places of wine and lodging, but also of humor, frustration, politics, and desire etched in everyday words. ### From Samnite Houses to Mixed Businesses One of the most famous examples of a Pompeian hospitium is the so-called House of Sallust, originally a grand Samnite residence later converted into a large hotel. Its layout was carefully adapted for commercial use. At entrance no. 5, the service counter could be reached from both the street and the atrium, maximizing custom. Several bedrooms clustered around the atrium, while larger rooms off the northeast corner and the peristyle may have hosted indoor dining. Outside, a masonry triclinium, shaded by a pergola supported by two pilasters, provided a pleasant garden setting for meals. A nearby hearth prepared food for al fresco service. ![A fresco from the thermopolium of Lucius Vetutius Placidus in the city of Pompeii, depicting the spirit (genius) of the house central, flanked by Lares and Penates with Mercury on far left, Bacchus far right](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-fresco-from-the-thermopolium-of-Lucius-Vetutius-Placidus-in-the-city-of-Pompeii--depicting-the-spirit--genius--of-the-house-central--flanked-by-Lares-and-Penates-with-Mercury-on-far-left--Bacchus-far-right.jpg) A fresco from the thermopolium of Lucius Vetutius Placidus in the city of Pompeii, depicting the spirit (genius) of the house central, flanked by Lares and Penates with Mercury on far left, Bacchus far right. Credits: Daniele Florio, CC BY 2.0, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times Scholarship has noted that remodeling preserved the elegance of the house. Archaeologists described how guests could look through a broad picture window in the *tablinum*, raised three steps above the rest of the floor, to view the garden. On the back wall a painting extended the vista, showing columns, garlands, fountains, and birds as if continuing the real greenery outside. Elsewhere in the city, establishments varied from modest to elaborate. Across from a larger hospitium, a small inn nonetheless boasted of its triclinium and displayed a striking wall painting of an elephant caught in the coils of a serpent and rescued by a pygmy. Just inside the *Porta Ercolano*, a compact caupona offered a garden triclinium and rented rooms upstairs, though it lacked a counter with dolia and so either served cold meals or sourced food from elsewhere. A more humble example was the stabulum of Hermes, its entrance once decorated with a painting of the innkeeper himself pouring wine from an amphora into a dolium. The courtyard plan included stalls along the rear wall, three upstairs rooms for lodgers, and even latrines on both floors—an unusual feature for such a modest business. Adjoining was a tavern with a separate dining room. ![This Roman Thermopolium, in a prime position near the Forum, sold hot food and drinks, in the centre is the bar counter](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/This-Roman-Thermopolium--in-a-prime-position-near-the-Forum--sold-hot-food-and-drinks--in-the-centre-is-the-bar-counter.jpg) This Roman Thermopolium, in a prime position near the Forum, sold hot food and drinks, in the centre is the bar counter. Credits: Dennis G. Jarvis, CC BY-SA 2.0 Tabernae and popinae were everywhere in Pompeii. Over a dozen lined the busy *Strada Stabiana* and *Via dell’Abbondanza*, with more along the *Strada Consolare*, *Via di Nola*, and near the amphitheater, forum, and [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/). Around fifty stood on corners of major intersections. Some were simple: the single-room taberna, once linked to the House of the Menander, had a red-painted masonry counter with two dolia, a small hearth, and an upstairs apartment. Larger ones,had an L-shaped counter with three dolia, a stove, and a back room perhaps used for dining, connected by doorways to the adjoining House of the Matron. Many establishments combined functions. One business seems to have been at once a hospitium, caupona, stabulum, and popina. A counter, stove, and display shelves fronted the entrance, while passages connected to latrines and neighboring inns. Guest rooms, a triclinium, watering troughs, cart sheds, and animal stalls were all included, forming a hub for wagon drivers (*statio mulionum*) near the Porta Ercolano. This multifunctional design was typical of Pompeian ingenuity in squeezing as much as possible from limited space. The fare in such establishments was simple. Diners sat at tables rather than reclining in triclinia, and paintings from an inn, show travelers seated around wooden tables, served by a *puer cauponis* (“serving boy”). ![The Caupona (Roman Bar) of Salvius, in Pompeii](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/The-Caupona--Roman-Bar--of-Salvius--in-Pompeii.jpg) The Caupona (Roman Bar) of Salvius, in Pompeii. Credits: Mentnafunangann, CC BY-SA 3.0 Both masonry dining tables and benches survive at sites like the Praedia of Julia Felix. Food quality must have varied. Horace once dismissed such eateries as *uncta popina* (“greasy taverns”). Items on offer may have included eggs, goose liver paté, sow’s womb, poultry, game, pork, cheese, chickpeas, beans, cabbage in various forms, raw vegetables with vinegar, and beets, often strongly seasoned with garlic, pepper, and sauces. To entice customers, some foods were displayed outside in glass bowls filled with water, magnifying their size. The authorities took notice of these venues. Emperors [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/), [Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/), [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/), and [Vespasian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/) all issued laws restricting the sale or display of certain prepared foods, especially meat and wine. Some believed these regulations were aimed at improving “public morality,” while others saw them as attempts to stifle political agitation in places where people gathered freely. Yet these measures seem to have had little real effect: Pompeii’s taverns remained lively centers of social life. Even in later centuries, as Ammianus Marcellinus noted, Rome’s poor still spent their nights drinking and feasting in tabernae. Inns and taverns, however much maligned, were never silenced for long. ([*The world of Pompeii*](https://amzn.to/3KMKHuv?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, edited by John J. Dobbins and Pedar W. Foss*) ![An ancient Roman drinking scene](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/An-ancient-Roman-drinking-scene.jpg) An ancient Roman drinking scene. Public domain ### Wine Bars and Marble Counters as Silent Witnesses The bars of Pompeii and Herculaneum are not only known from literature and graffiti, but also from the stone counters that survive in astonishing numbers. A detailed study by J.C. Fant, B. Russell, and S.J. Barker documented 49 bars in Pompeii and 8 in Herculaneum, recording more than 8,000 pieces of marble and stone used to face their counters. The authors observed that “the marble-clad surfaces of the numerous bars or shops (*thermopolia*) of Pompeii and Herculaneum are a vast and hitherto untapped source of information about marble use beyond the confines of public building and élite houses.” These counters were not hidden away but placed prominently, often facing the street, so that decoration itself served as an advertisement. At Pompeii, nearly half of all bars identified had marble cladding, and many employed colorful stones such as *cipollino*, *giallo antico*, *portasanta*, and *africano*. Even rare materials from Egypt and the eastern Mediterranean were found, reused on these counters and displayed where customers could see them. Much of this marble was second-hand, salvaged from the renovation or demolition of public buildings and houses, particularly after the earthquake of AD 62\. The reuse of these stones shows that tavern owners were resourceful: marble cladding was not cheap, yet even modest establishments invested in it to project style and attract patrons. As the authors note, the counters testify both to the “pervasiveness of the wider pan-Mediterranean marble trade” and to the practical economics of recycling architectural materials. ![A memento mori mosaic from the floor of the triclinium (dining room) of the House of the Faun in Pompeii, this skeleton holding two askoi (wine jugs) was a reminder to the diners of 'carpe diem', to 'seize the day' and enjoy the food and wine](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-memento-mori-mosaic-from-the-floor-of-the-triclinium--dining-room--of-the-House-of-the-Faun-in-Pompeii--this-skeleton-holding-two-askoi--wine-jugs--was-a-reminder-to-the-diners-of--carpe-diem---to--seize-the-day--and-enjoy-the-food-and-wine.jpg) A [memento mori](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) mosaic from the floor of the triclinium (dining room) of the House of the Faun in Pompeii, this skeleton holding two askoi (wine jugs) was a reminder to the diners of 'carpe diem', to 'seize the day' and enjoy the food and wine. Credits: Chappsnet, CC BY-SA 4.0 Rather than being makeshift shops of ill-repute, Pompeii’s bars emerge from the archaeological record as established businesses integrated into the city’s economy, their marble counters standing as enduring proof of their role in urban life. (*Marble use and reuse at Pompeii and Herculaneum: the evidence from the bars, by J.C. Fant, B. Russell and S.J. Barker*) --- From modest wooden booths to marble-clad counters, from graffiti-laden walls to imperial edicts, the inns and taverns of Pompeii and Rome reveal a society sustained as much by its street food and drinking houses as by its banquets and palaces. These spaces, often dismissed by elite writers, were in fact the lifeblood of urban life—places where travelers rested, locals gathered, and the empire’s commerce and camaraderie unfolded; **one cup of wine at a time**. ### The Amazons in Roman Thought: From Fierce Foes to Fascinating Myths URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-amazons-in-roman-thought-from-fierce-foes-to-fascinating-myths/ Last updated: 2025-09-28T23:04:59.000Z Clad in armor and bearing bows, the Amazons stood at the edge of Rome’s imagination—women who fought like men, ruled without them, and defied the natural order as Romans understood it. To Roman writers, artists, and statesmen, these warrior queens were both a source of awe and a warning, embodying the allure and the peril of a world turned upside down. Whether carved on sarcophagi, minted on coins, or woven into poetry, the Amazons became mirrors through which Romans examined conquest, gender, and the boundaries of their own civilization. ### Rome and the Amazons: Myth, Power, and Identity in the Imperial Age Modern scholarship has long examined how the [Greeks](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) used the Amazon myth to reflect their society and values. In contrast, the Romans’ engagement with Amazons—especially in literature and art—has received far less attention. Yet from the reign of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) in 27 BCE to that of [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/10-things-you-did-not-know-about-marcus-aurelius/) in 180 CE, Amazons appeared frequently in Roman works, serving as symbols in the creation of imperial identity after the upheavals of civil war. The surviving material falls into two main groups. On the one hand, literary texts—by authors such as Virgil, [Strabo](https://romanempiretimes.com/strabo-mapping-the-world-of-rome/), [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/), Curtius, [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/), Arrian, and Pausanias—present Amazons in ways that celebrate the greatness of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) and reinforce the emperor’s image. On the other hand, visual culture—statues, reliefs, sarcophagi, [mosaics](https://romanempiretimes.com/asarotos-oikos-mosaic-unswept-floor-roman-elite/), pottery, and jewelry—adapts the Amazon figure for both public and private display. ![Battle of Greeks and Amazons, from a marble Roman sarcophagus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Battle-of-Greeks-and-Amazons--from-a-marble-Roman-sarcophagus.jpg) Battle of Greeks and Amazons, from a marble Roman sarcophagus. Credits: Colin, CC BY-SA 3.0 Within these works, the Amazons could be portrayed in many guises: Trojan allies, warrior goddesses, native Latins, fiery Celts, proud Sarmatians, passionate Thracian queens, subdued Asian cities, or formidable Roman foes. Their imagery changed with the shifting concerns of the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), blending political achievement, social identity, public memory, and imperial ideology. A closer look at these sources reveals recurring themes and strategies: the adoption of earlier traditions, responses to contemporary events, and stylistic choices shaped by place and purpose. Amazons were not chosen at random—they embodied specific ideas that resonated with Roman audiences, reflecting the needs and anxieties of the age. Before [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s own foundation legends, the Amazons were already established in Greek myth as an autonomous, warlike nation of [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)—figures created to be confronted and ultimately defeated by male heroes. Early narratives (the lost Aethiopis on Penthesilea at Troy; references in Homer; early iconography from Tiryns) portray them as formidable yet marked as “barbarian” and female, hence exceptional opponents. By the sixth century BCE the Amazons occupy a liminal position between matriarchy and patriarchy, blending traits of both. Greek sources repeatedly stress their divergence from Greek gender norms: they fight, ride, hunt, and govern; they restrict [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/) or childbearing to those who have proven valor. > “From that time the women of the Sauromatae kept their ancient way of life: they ride out to the hunt on horseback, with the men or without them; they go to war, and they wear the same clothing as the men.” > “As for marriage, their rule is this: no maiden is married until she has slain a man of the enemy; and some even grow old and die unwed, unable to fulfill the law.” Herodotus, [*Histories*](https://amzn.to/481A40J?ref=romanempiretimes.com) They privilege daughters and, in some accounts, maim or expose male infants. Writers such as Apollodorus and Hellanicus emphasize customs that invert Greek expectations of women and household order, reinforcing the Amazons as anti-polis outsiders. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Dying-Amazon-on-horseback--a-hand-woodcut--xylography--by-Richard-Brend-amour--based-on-the-Roman-copy-of-a-Greek-marble-statue.jpg) ## Geographically, the Amazons are pushed to the edges of the known world. **Dying Amazon on horseback, a hand woodcut (xylography) by Richard Brend'amour, based on the Roman copy of a Greek marble statue. Public domain* Different authors place them by the Thermodon, in the Black Sea region, Asia Minor, Libya, the Crimea, even as far east as Central Asia. Their remoteness mirrors their cultural otherness. Greek xenophobia—shaped by inter-Hellenic conflicts and Persian invasions—feeds this portrayal. In myth, heroes go out to meet them; the Amazons’ defeat validates Greek order and male authority. Canonical episodes—Heracles’ ninth labor (the girdle of Hippolyte) and Theseus’ encounters—encode sexualized violence and abduction as mechanisms that reassert patriarchal control and assimilate the “deviant” female warrior into a normative framework. Fear (*Phobos*) is thematized: Amazon raids on Attica invert civic space and gender roles, dramatizing threats to Athenian hegemony until heroic counter-action restores it. Athenian visual culture integrates this ideology. *Amazonomachy* imagery rises around the Persian Wars; its placement alongside Athena and on major monuments underscores how defeating Amazons becomes a civic emblem. Across centuries the core traits remain stable: equestrian skill, double axes, distant homelands, and relentless warfare. Later receptions keep the motif alive; early modern travelers still speculate on real warrior women, and recent burials from southern Russia have been read by some as potential contexts for such traditions (while the historicity question remains complex). Modern scholarship has parsed these myths through many lenses. Nineteenth-century readings (Bachofen) framed Amazons as residues of imagined matriarchies; iconographic studies tied Amazon battles to Persian-Greek conflict and personified “the other”; structuralists stressed binary oppositions and patriarchal anxiety; feminist and post-modern approaches variously emphasized either patriarchal suppression or the amplification of Amazon valor to magnify Greek victory. Across these debates, one constant remains: Amazon stories offered Greeks a flexible way to think about identity, gender, and outsiders. ![Greek lekythos, attributed to the Haimon painter, depicting the combat of Heracles (Hercules) and Amazons](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Greek-lekythos--attributed-to-the-Haimon-painter--depicting-the-combat-of-Heracles--Hercules--and-Amazons.jpg) Greek lekythos, attributed to the Haimon painter, depicting the combat of Heracles (Hercules) and Amazons. Public domain Against this extensive work on Greece, treatment of Amazons in a specifically Roman context has been comparatively limited. Yet in the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-roman-empire-a-brief-history/) the myth persists and is repurposed. From Augustus to Marcus Aurelius, literature and art mobilize Amazon figures within imperial ideology: to imagine foundations and frontiers, to articulate Roman identity, and to frame domination over “barbarians.” Romans borrow Greek forms but adapt meanings to imperial needs. Periodization matters. Under [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/), Amazon imagery interacts with projects of unity after civil war and with models of *pietas* and *virtus* associated with Aeneas; authors like Strabo fold geography into imperial horizons, mapping known/unknown as civic pedagogy for rulers of borders. Julio-Claudian eclecticism and Flavian recalibration see hybrid iconographies as Rome’s populations and religions mingle, complicating single political readings while confirming the motif’s popularity. Under the Adoptive Emperors, comparative uses of Greek and Roman Amazon encounters help stabilize and celebrate an established order, and the imagery broadens into more generic civic and personal commendation. The defeated Amazon serves narratives of Roman success, yet the figure’s elasticity also exposes anxieties about outsiders and self-definition in a changing empire. Methodologically, mapping these shifts benefits from comprehensive iconographic corpora, which allow themes and motifs to be tracked across media (statues, reliefs, sarcophagi, mosaics, gems) and settings (public and private). In short, the Amazon myth’s Roman afterlife mirrors Rome’s own negotiations of identity and power. The imagery changes with context, but its utility endures: a pliable symbol through which Romans could blend patriotism, civic memory, and imperial ideology—while retaining the essential, recognizable profile of the mythic Amazon. ![A dead Amazon warrior, Roman copy of a Greek marble statue](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-dead-Amazon-warrior--Roman-copy-of-a-Greek-marble-statue.jpg) A dead Amazon warrior, Roman copy of a Greek marble statue. Credits: Sailko, CC BY-SA 3.0 ### Amazons in the Augustan Age: Myth, Politics, and the Making of Empire After the civil wars and Actium (31 BCE), Octavian—soon Augustus—needed to stabilize [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) and forge a unified identity for an empire weary of conflict. He employed myth, art, and literature to create a shared consciousness rooted in victory, *pietas*, and Roman destiny. In this environment, the Amazons became a pliable symbol. Their liminal identity—female but martial, admirable yet dangerous, barbarian yet noble—allowed Augustus’ propagandists to recast them as foils and mirrors for Roman power, drawing on Greek precedent but tailoring the imagery to imperial needs . ### Virgil’s Aeneid and Camilla Virgil, living through the Republic’s collapse and Augustus’ rise, infused the Aeneid with themes of conquest, order, and destiny. Among its characters stands Camilla, the Volscian maiden-warrior, explicitly likened to an Amazon. She embodies both rustic Italy and martial ferocity: armed with a myrtle spear tipped with metal, dressed in purple, adorned with golden ornaments, and devoted to Diana . > “Just as on the banks of Eurotas, or over the ridges of Cynthus, Diana trains her choirs… she carries a quiver on her shoulder, towering above all goddesses as she walks, and Latona’s silent joy thrills her heart: such was Camilla… One could outstrip the winds with her running; she might skim over the topmost blades of a field of grain without bruising the tender ears, or glide across the swelling sea without her swift feet touching the water.” Virgil, [*Aeneid*](https://amzn.to/4nX46ax?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 11.855–869 Camilla defies gender norms— > “her hands had never grown accustomed to distaffs or the baskets of Minerva” Virgil, [*Aeneid*](https://amzn.to/4nX46ax?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 7.1058–1060 —yet she is celebrated by her people and feared by enemies. Virgil stresses her virginity, her disdain for “women’s work,” and her liminal place between male and female roles . She achieves an *aristeia* in battle, slaying Trojans with Homeric ferocity, echoing Penthesilea’s doomed valor at Troy . Her eventual death, foretold by fate, foreshadows the downfall of Italian resistance and the destined triumph of Aeneas’ line. For Roman readers, Camilla’s contradictory qualities—valor, beauty, hubris—reflected anxieties about outsiders, women, and barbarian defiance. Her defeat reinforced the inevitability of Rome’s supremacy, while her honor and bravery allowed Virgil to both admire and contain the Amazonian archetype within Augustan ideology. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/House-of-the-Vettii-in-Pompeii--painted-panel-of-Amazon-armed-with-a-shield.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/House-of-the-Vettii-in-Pompeii--painting-of-Amazon-holding-ax-and-shield-from-plinth.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/House-of-the-Vettii-in-Pompeii--figure-of-an-Amazon-armed-with-a-shield.jpg) House of the Vettii in Pompeii, painted panels of three Amazons armed with a shield, holding ax and shield from plinth, and armed with a shield. Public domain ### Strabo’s Geography Strabo, a Greek intellectual writing under Augustus, crafted his Geography as a compendium for Roman elites, blending Greek ethnography with Roman imperial vision. He treated Amazons with skepticism yet fascination. He collected diverse traditions—placing their homelands around the Black Sea, Thermodon, or even Libya—and noted their customs of rejecting patriarchy and engaging in war . While Strabo doubted the literal existence of an all-female society, he recognized their symbolic value. Their supposed foundations of cities (Ephesus, Smyrna, Cyme, Themiscyra) and lingering cults of warrior goddesses fascinated Romans interested in antiquity and urban origins . Strabo’s reflections on the “barbarian” sharpened the divide between civilized Romans and dangerous outsiders: > “who could believe that an army of women, or a city, or a tribe, could ever be organized without men” Strabo, [*Geography*](https://amzn.to/4nsIN0M?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 12.8.7 Placed within Rome’s mapped horizons, these legends became part geography, part ideology. For Strabo, Rome’s conquest transformed savage peoples into civilized subjects; Amazons thus symbolized the inversion of order, against which Roman hegemony could define itself. His account reinforced Augustus’ message that Rome brought law, peace, and governance to the world. ![Mosaic emblema with Amazonomachy scene, from Daphne, a suburb of Antioch-on-the-Orontes](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Mosaic-emblema-with-Amazonomachy-scene--from-Daphne--a-suburb-of-Antioch-on-the-Orontes.jpg) Mosaic emblema with Amazonomachy scene, from Daphne, a suburb of Antioch-on-the-Orontes. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 ### Imperial Monuments and Civic Space Augustan public art drew heavily on Amazonomachy motifs inherited from Greece, adapting them to new imperial contexts. Reliefs, statuary, and monumental programs cast Amazons as barbarian foils, their defeat visual shorthand for Rome’s triumph. This visual language resonated with Augustan ideology: civilization conquering disorder, pietas overcoming hubris, and the restored Republic standing firm against threats. At the same time, public works after Actium incorporated nautical motifs—prows, tritons, and sea imagery—to commemorate Augustus’ naval victory. Amazon battles, like depictions of Parthians kneeling before Mars Ultor, reinforced Rome’s dominance while masking the brutality of recent wars. They became visual proclamations of unity, placing Rome in continuity with Greek tradition yet elevating it to new universality. ![Battle with Amazons, a painting by Hans Jordaens](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Battle-with-Amazons--a-painting-by-Hans-Jordaens.jpg) Battle with Amazons, a painting by Hans Jordaens. Public domain ### Domestic Display and Personal Identity Private commissions also embraced Amazon themes, reflecting both elite aspirations and broader cultural trends. Patrons like C. Sosius, once [Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/)’s supporter but reconciled to Augustus, employed Amazon imagery in monuments and domestic art to signal loyalty and Roman superiority . Jewelry, gems, and mosaics circulated Amazon motifs in more intimate settings. These pieces drew on Greek allegories but were infused with Roman readings: Amazons as markers of foreignness, barbarity, and gender inversion, conquered or assimilated by Rome. Even in private homes, such imagery reinforced the ideology of Roman supremacy, showing how deeply embedded the Amazon symbol was in both public and personal spheres . In Augustus’ forty-year reign, Amazon imagery became a tool for shaping Roman identity. Virgil’s Camilla dramatized the tension between admiration and suppression of outsiders; Strabo reinterpreted Amazon ethnography within a Roman imperial worldview; public art broadcast images of conquest and unity; and private art disseminated these themes into daily life. Together, these depictions exemplify the adaptability of Amazon mythology. Borrowed from Greek tradition but repurposed for Rome’s needs, Amazons provided Augustus with a malleable figure through which to articulate victory, gender order, and imperial destiny. They embodied the foreign, the dangerous, and the admirable all at once—ideal foils for defining what it meant to be Roman. ![Queen Hippolyte of the Amazons, in a Roman villa mosaic](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Queen-Hippolyte-of-the-Amazons--in-a-Roman-villa-mosaic.jpg) Queen Hippolyte of the Amazons, in a Roman villa mosaic. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### The Julio-Claudian and Flavian Imagination After Augustus’ long reign, the Julio-Claudian emperors inherited an empire that was vast, restless, and in constant contact with new frontiers. Campaigns in Britain, Mauretania, Armenia, and along the Rhine and Danube brought Rome face to face with peoples who, like the Amazons of old, seemed exotic and defiant. Unlike Augustus’ carefully controlled propaganda, the imagery of this age was less cohesive. The Amazons were now reimagined as personifications of nature and religion—symbols of lands, cults, and peoples Rome sought to dominate or absorb. ### Pliny the Elder: Natural History of the Amazons Pliny the Elder, in his Natural History, embedded Amazons within a catalogue of wonders from the empire’s edges. He approached them not only as mythic figures but as part of Rome’s broader ethnographic curiosity. To him, Amazons exemplified the strange and marvelous, positioned at the border between credible report and fabulous tale. > “They say that the Amazons dwell near the Caucasus, on the banks of the River Thermodon. They live without men, and only meet with them at certain times for the sake of children. The male offspring are either sent back to their fathers or destroyed, while the girls are reared and trained to war.” Pliny the Elder, [*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/4mER803?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 6.19 Pliny’s descriptions reveal the Roman effort to classify the “other” in naturalistic terms, as though Amazons were another curiosity like exotic animals or distant rivers. By placing them alongside real peoples and natural marvels, Pliny gave the myth ethnographic weight, reflecting Rome’s ambition to encompass the whole world in its knowledge. Yet the Amazons remained liminal, blurring the line between nature’s oddities and human society. ![The famous marble statue of a wounded Amazon (detail of the wound beside her right breast)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/The-famous-marble-statue-of-a-wounded-Amazon--detail-of-the-wound-beside-her-right-breast-.jpg) The famous marble statue of a wounded Amazon (detail of the wound beside her right breast). Credits: The MET, Public domain ### Quintus Curtius Rufus: Alexander and the Amazon Queen In the History of [Alexander](https://romanempiretimes.com/alexander-the-great-in-roman-thought-hero-rival-and-legend/), Quintus Curtius Rufus retold the legendary meeting of Alexander with the Amazon queen Thalestris. Whether the encounter was historical or fabricated mattered little; what counted was its meaning in a Roman context. > “Thalestris, queen of the Amazons, came to Alexander with three hundred women of her nation, declaring that she wished to bear children from him worthy of their father. She remained with him for thirteen days, and then departed with her companions.” Quintus Curtius Rufus, [*Histories of Alexander*](https://amzn.to/4pFruLj?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 6.5 The story allowed Curtius to explore themes of power, sexuality, and foreign allure. The queen’s attempt to mate with Alexander symbolized both admiration for his greatness and anxiety about female dominance. For Romans reading under the Julio-Claudians, the tale resonated with recent memories of [Cleopatra](https://romanempiretimes.com/cleopatra-daughter-selene-ii-the-last-echo-of-a-dynasty/), another foreign queen who unsettled Roman order. Curtius thus used the Amazon myth as a safe mirror: a way to engage with anxieties about empire, women, and submission without naming contemporary politics too directly. ![Departure of the Amazons, a painting by Claude Déruet](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Departure-of-the-Amazons--a-painting-by-Claude-D--ruet.jpg) Departure of the Amazons, a painting by Claude Déruet. Public domain ### Amazons and the Divine Amazons were deeply entangled with religion. Ancient tradition called them “daughters of Ares,” and their cult practices were linked with Artemis Tauropolos, Cybele, and other powerful female divinities. In Roman interpretation, this association deepened. Art and literature emphasized Amazons as priestesses or attendants of gods, a link that underscored their liminality: they were female, martial, and divine. Roman coinage under emperors like [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/) depicted Amazons in connection with cities such as [Ephesus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) or Smyrna, highlighting their role in civic religion. In these portrayals, Amazons stood for conquered cities or provinces, their martial traits softened into symbolic loyalty to Rome. ### Monuments and Civic Identity Monumental art under the Julio-Claudians and Flavians often deployed Amazons to personify captured peoples or subdued cities. Reliefs might show Roman soldiers overwhelming Amazonian figures, echoing earlier Greek Amazonomachies but now charged with imperial propaganda. In civic space, the Amazon motif signaled victory and order, a visual shorthand for Rome’s ability to tame rebellion and bring stability. Where Augustus’ monuments had stressed unity and destiny, the Flavian use of Amazons underlined conquest, suppression, and the power of Rome to redefine outsiders as subjects. ![The Amazonian Melanippe on horseback, from a Roman villa mosaic](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/The-Amazonian-Melanippe-on-horseback--from-a-Roman-villa-mosaic.jpg) The Amazonian Melanippe on horseback, from a Roman villa mosaic. Credits: Dosseman, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### Domestic Display and Cultural Blending In domestic art—sarcophagi, gems, jewelry, lamps—Amazons continued to appear, but in more ambiguous forms. Some works depicted tragic scenes, such as Penthesilea’s defeat by Achilles, resonating with themes of noble defeat and cultural contact. Others portrayed Amazons as allegories of foreign lands, suitable for elites who wanted to show both their cosmopolitan outlook and their loyalty to Rome. These private uses reveal a more hybrid cultural world. Roman identity was increasingly influenced by provincial traditions, and Amazon imagery absorbed this mixing. The figure of the Amazon could be both admired and pitied, feared and assimilated, reflecting the contradictions of a vast empire negotiating constant cultural exchange. In the Julio-Claudian and Flavian periods, Amazons evolved from being foils for heroic Rome into more complex figures embodying nature, religion, and cultural hybridity. Pliny treated them as natural marvels; Curtius Rufus used them to reflect anxieties about empire and gender; artists and coin-makers transformed them into personifications of cities and conquered peoples. The result was a more fluid Amazon—less a singular enemy, more a flexible symbol that could express conquest, assimilation, or religious devotion. This mirrored Rome’s own transitions: from Augustus’ unity after civil war to an empire marked by diversity, provincial encounters, and ongoing negotiations of identity. ![Relief Pentelic marble slab from a frieze found in Athens, depicting an Amazonomachy between two Amazons with full military equipment, and a nude Greek warrior](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Relief-Pentelic-marble-slab-from-a-frieze-found-in-Athens--depicting-an-Amazonomachy-between-two-Amazons-with-full-military-equipment--and-a-nude-Greek-warrior.jpg) Relief Pentelic marble slab from a frieze found in Athens, depicting an Amazonomachy between two Amazons with full military equipment, and a nude Greek warrior. Credits: George E. Koronaios, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### Amazonian Echoes in the Era of Trajan and Hadrian During the age of the Adoptive Emperors (96–180 CE), the Amazon myth did not disappear but gained new dimensions. With Rome secure under rulers like [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/), [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-four-journeys-of-hadrian-the-globetrotter-emperor-of-the-roman-empire/), and [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-stoic-emperor-how-marcus-aurelius-outwitted-death-in-the-germanic-wilds/), Amazons became symbols of cultural memory and moral reflection, less about raw conquest and more about identity and commemoration. Plutarch, writing in the [*Life of Theseus*](https://amzn.to/48CxDlh?ref=romanempiretimes.com), emphasized how mythic encounters with the Amazons tested the very limits of civilization: > “When the Amazons invaded Attica, Theseus fought them in a great battle in the very heart of the city. The war was long and perilous, and only ended when a truce was agreed. This was the first time the Amazons had marched into Greece, and they proved themselves formidable opponents.” For Plutarch, the Amazon episode was not frivolous legend but a serious meditation on governance, order, and the challenges posed by outsiders. ![Battle of the Amazons, a painting found in the Finnish National Gallery](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Battle-of-the-Amazons--a-painting-found-in-the-Finnish-National-Gallery.jpg) Battle of the Amazons, a painting found in the Finnish National Gallery. Public domain Arrian, in his [*Anabasis of Alexander*](https://amzn.to/42gE4H3?ref=romanempiretimes.com), addressed the famous tale of Alexander’s meeting with the Amazon queen Thalestris only to reject it: > “As for the story that the Amazon queen came to Alexander, it is not credible. Aristobulus and Ptolemy, who were with him, make no mention of it, and it seems to me impossible that such an event could have occurred. Yet some writers delight in marvelous tales, and this is one of them.” His skepticism shows both a historian’s concern for accuracy and a Roman unease with tales of female power on the imperial frontier. Pausanias, in his [*Description of Greece*](https://amzn.to/46K8Nh0?ref=romanempiretimes.com), embedded the Amazons firmly in local memory and sacred topography: > “In Athens there are tombs of the Amazons, for they are said to have fought a great battle there against Theseus. Even now the Athenians show where the invaders camped, and where they fell. The Amazons are remembered not as mere myths, but as part of the city’s story.” For Pausanias, Amazon legends lived on in shrines and monuments, tying myth to civic identity under Roman rule. ![Mosaic fragment depicting two amazons and their horses, protected by Artemis](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Mosaic-fragment-depicting-two-amazons-and-their-horses--protected-by-Artemis.jpg) Mosaic fragment depicting two amazons and their horses, protected by Artemis. Credits: Ad Meskens, CC BY-SA 3.0 As aforementioned, in art and iconography, the focus shifted. Public monuments now celebrated real imperial victories—[Trajan’s Column](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/) over the Dacians—so Amazons appeared more often in funerary and domestic contexts. Sarcophagi depicted tragic Amazonomachies, such as Penthesilea’s defeat by Achilles, not as simple triumphs but as meditations on the violence and sorrow of war. Gems, reliefs, and household objects also carried Amazon imagery, sustaining their symbolic power in everyday life. By this period, the Amazon was no longer just a barbarian foil. She had become a mirror of hybridity and moral questioning, embodying both noble opposition and tragic defeat. Her continued presence in literature, art, and civic memory reflected Rome’s evolving sense of itself: confident in power yet aware of the complexities of identity, culture, and the costs of war. (*The Empire's muse: Roman interpretations of the Amazons through literature and art, by Erin W. Leal*) ![Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Tischbein’s painting of the Amazons](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Johann-Heinrich-Wilhelm-Tischbein---s-painting-of-the-Amazons.jpg) Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Tischbein’s painting of the Amazons. Public domain In the end, the Amazons endured in Roman thought not because they were real, but because they were useful. They offered a canvas on which Romans projected fears and fascinations — of women who fought, of lands beyond their borders, of cultures unlike their own. To look at the Amazons through Roman eyes is to see how myth could be endlessly reshaped, carrying forward the weight of Greek tradition while serving the needs of an empire that was always defining itself against an “other.” Their lasting presence in poetry, history, and art reminds us that the boundaries between history and imagination were never fixed, and that the figures of legend could wield **as much power in shaping identity** as any emperor or general. ### Strabo: Mapping the World of Rome URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/strabo-mapping-the-world-of-rome/ Last updated: 2026-02-03T12:53:20.000Z In the quiet of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/)’ reign, a [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) scholar from distant Pontus set his stylus to wax tablets and began charting the edges of empire. Strabo had walked [Roman roads](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/), sailed Roman seas, and listened to stories carried by merchants and soldiers. From these fragments he built a world: the [*Geographica*](https://amzn.to/46D4F27?ref=romanempiretimes.com), seventeen books that stitched together mountains, rivers, and nations into a single vision of Rome’s dominion. ## Strabo Between Silence and Presence: The Geographer’s Voice in His *Geography* ### The Problem of Authorial Presence Ancient geography, like modern geography, wrestled with the issue of the author’s voice. Modern scholars debate whether the writer should erase himself for objectivity or acknowledge his partial standpoint, what some call “situated knowledge” — the idea that “*knowledge is always embedded in a particular time and space; it doesn’t see everything from nowhere but rather sees something from somewhere*.” Ancient writers faced similar questions. Ethnographers and historians like Thucydides or Dionysius of Halicarnassus traditionally began by naming themselves and their origins. By contrast, geographical texts were often anonymous, creating the impression of impersonal authority. Strabo’s [*Geography*](https://amzn.to/46D4F27?ref=romanempiretimes.com) falls within this tension. He never names himself, and often prefers the plural “we,” even when recounting personal experiences. Yet his work leaks traces of his identity. The *Geography* thus raises the question: is the author absent, or is his presence deliberately reshaped? ![The Ancient Greek Geographer Strabo](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/The-Ancient-Greek-Geographer-Strabo.jpg) The Ancient Greek Geographer Strabo. Public domain ### The Silence Around Strabo Almost nothing external survives about Strabo. His History, written before the *Geography*, is preserved only in nineteen fragments, cited by Josephus, [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/), and Tertullian. After that, it disappeared. The *Geography* also languished in obscurity, with almost no references in the first five centuries. Dionysios Periegetes, writing around 120 CE, may have drawn on it, but there are no named citations until much later. Its survival owes everything to the chance sixth-century transfer of papyrus texts to parchment, preserved in part in the Strabo palimpsest. This scarcity makes reconstructing Strabo’s life difficult. Contradictions in the text itself leave even his basic biography uncertain. For centuries, the *Geography* was mined as a reference work, stripping it of its authorial dimension. Yet the absence of outside testimony forces us to treat his authorial voice — however scattered — as the main path to understanding him. ### What Strabo Reveals of Himself Though rarely, Strabo does insert autobiographical notes. From these we learn that he was a native of Amaseia in Pontus. His mother’s family was closely connected with the Mithridatic dynasty, producing relatives who served in the royal court. These ties involved Cretan links through mercenary recruitment, later complicated by shifting allegiances when [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) subdued [Mithridates](https://romanempiretimes.com/mad-honey-warfare-how-king-mithridates-poisoned-pompeys-legions/). He was educated by Aristodemos of Nysa. He travelled widely: he saw the execution of the bandit Selurus in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/), the treasures looted from Corinth displayed in a Roman temple, and the narrowing of the Pyramos River in Cilicia. He crossed the Aegean in 29 BCE and accompanied Aelius Gallus up the Nile into Aethiopia in 25/24 BCE. He claimed to have travelled: > “from Armenia to Tyrrhenia, and from the Euxine to the borders of Aethiopia.” Despite these revelations, Strabo never offers a coherent self-portrait. Information appears only sporadically: details of his family not until Book 10, a fuller account in Book 12, and notes about intellectual friendships scattered throughout. Even when personal, the information serves a broader function — to claim autopsy, first-hand observation, the same authority used by historians like [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-and-the-architecture-of-roman-power/). Strabo presents himself as one who has seen more of the world than any other geographer. ![Pytheas of Massalia (Πυθέας ὁ Μασσαλιώτης) in the earliest manuscript of Strabo](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Pytheas-of-Massalia-------------------------------------------in-the-earliest-manuscript-of-Strabo.jpg) Pytheas of Massalia (Πυθέας ὁ Μασσαλιώτης) in the earliest manuscript of Strabo. Credits: Mellangoose, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### The Debate Over His Travels and Dates Modern attempts to reconstruct Strabo’s biography from these scraps lead to uncertainty. Did he visit [Athens](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrian-gate-in-downtown-athens-below-acropolis-a-gateway-to-history/), or only Corinth? Was he present in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) in 44 BCE when Servilius Isauricus died, as one ambiguous passage suggests? Some argue he must have lived extraordinarily long, into the reign of [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/), if he really saw the elder Isauricus; others prefer to think he met the younger Servilius. But even this is uncertain, as Strabo’s use of “we saw” may not mean literal personal sight, but rather collective knowledge. His references to “in my time” (*καθ’ ἡμᾶς*) or “recently” (*νεωστί*) prove equally elusive. These phrases can refer to spans of decades. Events from the 60s BCE to the 20s CE all qualify as “recent.” Such expressions frustrate biographers but serve another purpose: they place Strabo within an intellectual and historical continuum, rather than pin him to precise dates. Strabo’s self-positioning emerges most clearly in how he refers to contemporary intellectuals. He often notes that certain philosophers, orators, or historians flourished “in our time.” These remarks occur most often in Books 12–15, centered on Asia Minor and the Hellenized eastern Mediterranean. Here Strabo situates himself within [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) intellectual circles, not simply as a Pontic native or a Roman-connected observer, but as a member of a learned community stretching across the Greek East. Thus Strabo’s authorial persona has multiple facets: - A Pontic Greek, rooted in a family with Mithridatic ties. - A Roman-connected intellectual, friend of Aelius Gallus and visitor of Rome. - A participant in the Greek scholarly world of Asia Minor. ![Statue of Strabo in his hometown, the Ancient Greek city of Amasia (modern Turkey), Amaseia was the legendary Queen of the Amazons](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Statue-of-Strabo-in-his-hometown--the-Ancient-Greek-city-of-Amasia--modern-Turkey---Amaseia-was-the-legendary-Queen-of-the-Amazons.jpg) Statue of Strabo in his hometown, the Ancient Greek city of Amasia (modern Turkey), Amaseia was the legendary Queen of the Amazons. Credits: Erturac, CC BY-SA 3.0 ### Geography as Universal History The choice of style also links Strabo to writers of universal histories such as Polybius and Diodorus. These authors avoided personal self-introductions, often using plural voice, to present a work that encompassed the world. Strabo modeled himself on this tradition. The *Geography* is thus the spatial counterpart to universal history: a geography of the inhabited world as shaped by [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/). This framework explains his emphasis on [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/), [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/), and [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/). Pompey especially embodied the Roman idea of world dominion, reaching all three continents. Inscriptions in his triumphal procession listed the nations he had subdued, symbolizing universal conquest. [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/) too had dreamed of encircling the known world with Roman rule. Strabo’s *Geography* reflects these ambitions, portraying a world in transformation under Roman power. ## Strabo’s Relationship to the Roman Empire Strabo’s tone toward Roman expansion is generally descriptive rather than celebratory. He records Pompey’s reorganization of Asia Minor, the defeat of pirates, and the settlement of colonies, but without the praise found in other sources. Even when recounting the Battle of Actium and the rise of Augustus, his focus lies on how these events altered the shape of the world. His concern is less with Roman politics than with the geographical consequences of Roman victory. By the time of Tiberius, Strabo still writes in the present tense of Rome’s order, noting campaigns in Germany and the assistance given to earthquake-stricken cities of Asia Minor. His *Geography* thus spans the Republic’s last decades and the establishment of the Principate, reflecting a world unified, at least conceptually, under Rome. ![19th century reconstruction of World map according to Strabo](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/19th-century-reconstruction-of-World-map-according-to-Strabo.jpg) 19th century reconstruction of World map according to Strabo. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### A Deliberate Impersonality The absence of a formal preface introducing himself signals Strabo’s deliberate stance. Like the historian Theophylact Simocatta centuries later, he replaces himself with the subject of his work. The opening declares geography to be a theme of philosophy, shifting attention from author to project. > “Geography is in substance an acquaintance with the existing state of the inhabited world, and of the phenomena therein; and of the differences due to countries, nations, and cities, and their peculiarities. It is also the business of a philosopher.” Yet he is not invisible. Katz (**Cindi Katz**, a cultural geographer-her full line was: “*although it was traditional for the ethnographer to erase himself from the text or to report with omniscient authority, there, of course, could be no ethnography without the ethnographer.*”) once remarked, “*there could be no ethnography without the ethnographer*.” Likewise, there is no geography without the geographer. Strabo’s scattered self-references — to his travels, his connections, his contemporaries — reveal a presence woven into the very fabric of his universal project. His voice affirms that geography is not impersonal description, but a literary enterprise reflecting the horizons and intellectual affiliations of its author. (*In Search of the Author of Strabo’s Geography, by Katherine Clarke, in Journal of Roman Studies*) ### A Geographer of the Principate The *Geography* belongs to the reign of Tiberius. Its references show that the work was written and revised when Augustus’ order had passed into the hands of his successor. Strabo presents the empire as requiring a single leader, a system stabilized by Augustus and perpetuated by Tiberius. The description of Tiberius as the one man at the helm of Rome’s dominion, aided by Germanicus and [Drusus](https://romanempiretimes.com/drusus-the-elder-rome-most-successful-germanic-commander/), reflects a political reality in which the Principate was not a temporary solution but the definitive form of government. ### Augustus the Architect, Tiberius the Heir Throughout the *Geography*, Augustus appears as the founder of [cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), the organizer of provinces, and the builder of victory monuments. His triumph at Actium and the foundation of Nikopolis stand as milestones. The empire described by Strabo is shaped by Augustus’ settlements, particularly in Greece and Asia Minor. Tiberius enters as the custodian of this legacy. He is portrayed not as an innovator but as the ruler who continues Augustus’ structures. The elevation of Cappadocia to a province after the death of King Archelaus in 17 CE is noted as a joint act of Tiberius and the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/). Earthquake-stricken cities in Asia Minor are shown receiving his aid. In these passages, Tiberius is presented as the guarantor of stability, ensuring that the order Augustus established remained intact. ![Portrait of Strabo by Hartmann Schedel, 1493](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Portrait-of-Strabo-by-Hartmann-Schedel--1493.jpg) Portrait of Strabo by Hartmann Schedel, 1493\. Credits: [Meisterdrucke](https://www.meisterdrucke.us/fine-art-prints/Hartmann-Schedel/148178/Portrait-of-Strabo,-1493.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ### The Geography of Silence Strabo’s omissions are as significant as his statements. The Varus disaster of AD 9, which annihilated three Roman legions in Germania, is mentioned, but the details of catastrophe are muted. Instead, the account moves quickly to the later campaigns of Germanicus and the triumphs that followed. Elsewhere, disturbances and wars are acknowledged only briefly, if at all. By smoothing over defeat and emphasizing eventual success, the Geography aligns with the political tone of the Principate. The text avoids undermining the image of Rome as the master of the inhabited world. This silence does not suggest ignorance but a deliberate shaping of narrative. The inhabited world is mapped within the framework of Rome’s supremacy. All roads and seas lead back to Rome; every province and people is oriented toward the center of power. Rome becomes both the axis of geography and the guarantor of security. This is not a neutral ordering of space. The presentation of the *oikoumene* rests on the assumption that the empire binds it together. Trade routes, military campaigns, and cultural exchanges are described as elements of a world united under Roman rule. Geography itself becomes a reflection of imperial ideology, showing Rome not only as conqueror but as the structure that holds the known world in place. The *Geography* is therefore marked by its Tiberian context. It is written during a time when Augustus’ vision had been realized and institutionalized. The [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) is presented as stable, continuous, and oriented around one ruler. The silences concerning unrest and the emphasis on order reveal that the work was composed not merely as a compilation of facts, but as a text that embodies the worldview of the Principate. (*Strabo, the Tiberian Author: Past, Present and Silence in the Geography, by Sarah Pothecary*) ![Map of Alexandria taken from the publication Selections from Strabo](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Map-of-Alexandria-taken-from-the-publication-Selections-from-Strabo.jpg) Map of Alexandria taken from the publication Selections from Strabo. Public domain ## Strabo and the Construction of Ethnicity ### Geography as Order For Strabo, geography was never a neutral description of seas and mountains. It was a representation of the inhabited world, creating order by classifying what belonged together and what stood apart. His *Geography* was explicitly human geography, where the interaction of peoples, their histories, and their environments carried meaning. The final aim of such knowledge was political: geography supported the establishment, extension, and preservation of orderly society. By arranging lands and peoples in this way, Strabo also provided the building-blocks of identity. Strabo’s system of ethnicity rested on dichotomies. He drew lines between civilised and uncivilised, Greeks and barbarians, Romans and non-Romans. These boundaries were not fixed; they depended on situation and context. Ethnicity, in this sense, both included and excluded: it defined the in-group and the out-group. For Strabo, distinctions could be based on kinship, language, dress, behavior, and above all political organisation. His descriptions, though often derived from written sources, were shaped by his own hand, and the judgements expressed were his own. ![Bust of the Greek geographer Strabo, in Spain](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Bust-of-the-Greek-geographer-Strabo--in-Spain.jpg) Bust of the Greek geographer Strabo, in Spain. Credits: Vardulia, CC BY-SA 4.0, Editing by Roman Empire Times ### The Measure of Culture Strabo’s anthropology revolved around control and domination. The positive side was self-control, moderation, and political intelligence, revealed in stable governments and a wise use of natural resources. The negative side was [extravagance, luxury](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/), lack of communal spirit, and instability. Successful rule and the ability to maintain power demonstrated *aretē*, virtue. By these standards, some peoples lived in an ordered and civilised fashion, others remained in disarray. ### Greeks and Barbarians The traditional Greek contrast with barbarians permeates the *Geography*. The word *barbaroi* appears in contexts tied to the Persian Wars, to [Alexander](https://romanempiretimes.com/alexander-the-great-in-roman-thought-hero-rival-and-legend/)’s campaigns, and to nomadic Scythians. It could also be applied more loosely to Iberians, Gauls, Thracians, or Tyrrhenians. Barbarism signified misery, poverty, instability, and savagery — peoples without discipline, often robbers or nomads, unable to form lasting political order. Strabo sometimes chose the stronger word *agrioi*, “savages.” Yet his usage often carried the tone of a literary topos, inherited from Greek tradition, rather than a rigid system. ![Tauris, Caucasus and Armenia according to Strabo](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Tauris--Caucasus-and-Armenia-according-to-Strabo.jpg) Tauris, Caucasus and Armenia according to Strabo. Public domain ### From Mountains to Coasts: Stages of Evolution Civilisation and barbarism were not only opposites but also stages in an evolutionary sequence. After the great flood, survivors first lived in mountains, then moved to lower ground, then to plains, and finally to coasts and islands. Forms of subsistence marked levels of culture: farming, pastoralism, hunting, robbery, fishing, and trade. Civilisation grew through lawgivers, founders, and conquerors who turned scattered groups into communities. [Festivals](https://romanempiretimes.com/saturnalia-the-roman-festival-that-inspired-the-spirit-of-christmas/), religious feasts, and shared meals fostered social bonds. Good government could transform robbers into citizens. Strabo stressed that humans were by nature communal, and civilisation depended on forethought, law, and tradition. Yet progress was not guaranteed. Luxury and decadence destroyed strength, and cities could fall into ruin. Greece itself offered examples of decline. Ethnic entities changed with migrations, mixing, and shifting borders. ### Cities as the Core of Identity Strabo’s world was a world of cities more than of peoples. The identity of a city lay in both its present and its past: its mention in Homer, its role in famous events, its constitution, monuments, harbours, and artworks, and above all the notable men it produced. A city that was *eunomoumenē*, well-governed, embodied civic excellence. Founders and genealogies mattered less to Strabo than historical achievements and civic order. Pride in cities was shaped as much by poetry and memory as by buildings and institutions. ![Rare engraved map of the Old World after Strabo, showing Europe, Asia, and North Africa divided into seven climatic zones, framed by wind heads, with an allegorical vignette of Aiolos chaining the North Wind as a winged dog at the pole.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Rare-engraved-map-of-the-Old-World-after-Strabo--showing-Europe--Asia--and-North-Africa-divided-into-seven-climatic-zones--framed-by-wind-heads--with-an-allegorical-vignette-of-Aiolos-chaining-the-North-Wind-as-a-winged-dog-at-the-pole..jpg) Rare engraved map of the Old World after Strabo, showing Europe, Asia, and North Africa divided into seven climatic zones, framed by wind heads, with an allegorical vignette of Aiolos chaining the North Wind as a winged dog at the pole. Public domain ### Rome and the Roman Way Rome itself stood apart. Its size, fora (plural for forums), [temples](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/), and roads surpassed all other cities. The Romans, Strabo noted, had first secured necessities before adorning their city, a sign of their wisdom. > “The Romans, after having provided for the necessities of life in a manner befitting the city, adorned it with fora, temples, porticoes, baths, and other works of the kind, so numerous and so costly that the city might justly be called the greatest of all.” [*Geography*](https://amzn.to/46D4F27?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 5.3.7–9 Although Rome’s site was not naturally favored, alliances, expansion, and institutions had transformed it into the capital of a world empire. Roman conquests spread civilisation to the edges of the known world, building roads and opening routes. Yet ambiguity remained: while Rome encompassed nearly the entire *oikoumene*, Strabo acknowledged Parthians and Indians beyond its reach. Rome was supreme, but not alone. Roman identity, too, was layered. One could become Roman by adopting the language, the way of life, and political forms, not only through citizenship. Inside Rome, distinctions of status — senators, equestrians, citizens — defined belonging. ![Allegory of history and geography, in the title page for Strabo’s Geography, a gravure by Abraham de Blois after a painting by Cornelia Huyberts](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Allegory-of-history-and-geography--in-the-title-page-for-Strabo---s-Geography--a-gravure-by-Abraham-de-Blois-after-a-painting-by-Cornelia-Huyberts.jpg) Allegory of history and geography, in the title page for Strabo’s Geography, a gravure by Abraham de Blois after a painting by Cornelia Huyberts. Public domain ### Concentric Circles of Belonging Strabo’s view of identity resembled concentric circles: - The widest circle separated civilisation from barbarism. - Next came provinces, defined by name, history, and administration. - Within these stood individual cities, proud of their past and achievements. - Inside this framework, the line ran between Romans and non-Romans. - Finally, within Rome itself, status distinctions set apart emperor, administrators, knights, and common citizens. These circles overlapped, showing that identities in the Roman world were multiple and situational. Strabo himself stood at the intersection of identities: a Greek from Amaseia in Pontus, a participant in Rome’s empire under Augustus and Tiberius, and a scholar of the Hellenistic tradition. His *Geography* presents a civilised world framed by cities, culture, and Roman order, with uncivilised tribes scattered within and savages confined to the margins. Geography, in his hands, became a means of defining both empire and the peoples who lived within it. ### The Elderly in Ancient Rome: Voices of Respect and Fear URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-elderly-in-ancient-rome-voices-of-respect-and-fear/ Last updated: 2025-09-26T23:05:39.000Z To live long could mean reaching a place of honor, wisdom, and influence; but it also brought frailty, dependence, and, at times, ridicule. Roman literature and law reveal a society that grappled with aging as both a natural stage of life and a social problem, where the elderly could be revered in the Senate or dismissed as useless in the household. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) wrote in [*De Senectute*](https://amzn.to/48B6Zt6?ref=romanempiretimes.com), > “Old age, cannot be held against me, for I have loved it and embraced it.” Yet for many Romans, growing old was a condition both respected and feared. ### How the Ancient World Saw Its Elders Old age in antiquity has long remained in the shadows compared to the study of childhood or youth. Ancient sources mostly celebrated men in their prime, while the elderly appeared only at the margins—as curiosities, moral examples, or objects of satire. Lists of the long-lived, such as those promised by Pseudo-Lucian or cited by Cicero, focused more on wonder than reality, and even these contained few Romans. The neglect of old age is striking given that Romans did live long lives, though their experiences often remain invisible in the surviving evidence. Modern scholarship has begun to challenge this silence, drawing attention to demographic, social, and cultural realities. Yet the literary record is problematic: old age is usually mentioned through stereotypes, rhetorical topos, or for didactic purposes rather than as lived experience. Cicero might defend aging as a season of dignity, while Juvenal mocked it as weakness—neither reflecting the full complexity of real lives. > “Old age is the final act of life’s drama, full of dignity, if only it be well played.” Cicero, [*De Senectute*](https://amzn.to/48B6Zt6?ref=romanempiretimes.com) > “Old age is the most dreadful of all evils; it deprives us of everything, even of the power of enduring itself.” Juvenal, [*Satires*](https://amzn.to/48AKynO?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-fresco-of-a-theatre-mask-of-an-old-Satyr--in-Pompeii-1.jpg) ## Older people must not be seen as isolated, but as integral to Roman society. **A fresco of a theatre mask of an old Satyr, in Pompeii. Public domain* The challenge for historians lies in piecing together scattered literary references with legal texts, inscriptions, and papyri to form a more nuanced picture. Their roles, whether as dependents, active participants in public and private life, or marginalized individuals, reflect broader cultural attitudes. Questions arise about how the state responded to their needs, how families treated aging parents, and how gender shaped the experience of growing old. [Women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/), though less visible in the sources, played essential roles within the household as they aged. The reality of old age varied greatly—by time, place, and individual circumstance—and cannot be captured by any single definition. Evidence is uneven and shaped by authors’ intentions, political contexts, and cultural expectations. Anecdotes highlight unusual or remarkable cases, not typical patterns. Epigraphic sources, like tombstones recording age at death, offer some clues, though they too are shaped by convention and selective memory. Ultimately, studying old age in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) is not only about reconstructing the physical and social reality of *senectus* but also about understanding attitudes toward the elderly and how society at large perceived and positioned them. The subject remains important both for what it reveals about Roman society and for the reflections it provokes about our own treatment of aging. ![Charles-André van Loo’s painting of a Roman River God, possibly Tiber who is usually pictured as an old man](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Charles-Andr---van-Loo---s-painting-of-a-Roman-River-God--possibly-Tiber-who-is-usually-pictured-as-an-old-man.jpg) Charles-André van Loo’s painting of a Roman River God, possibly Tiber who is usually pictured as an old man. Public domain ### The Elusive Boundaries of Roman Old Age When did the Romans consider someone “old”? Two millennia later, the answer remains elusive. The [Greeks](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) and Romans had plenty of words to describe aging: in Latin, *senex* meant “old person,” while *senectus* denoted “old age.” In Greek, the equivalents were *γέρων* and *γῆρας*, both derived from the Indo-European root ger-, meaning “to grow old.” These words also gave rise to familiar Roman terms, from *senatus* (the [senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/), literally “the council of elders”) to the philosopher [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/)’s very name. Yet while the vocabulary is clear, defining its limits in terms of years is far more complicated. Even today, chronological age and biological age rarely align. Someone may appear young or vigorous well into advanced years, while another person might be frail before middle age. The same held true for the Romans. Institutions like retirement or social welfare, which help modern societies anchor concepts of old age, had no direct equivalent in Rome. A figure of sixty or seventy might serve as a convenient dividing line for us, but no universal definition applied in antiquity. Some scholars have suggested that Romans grew old unusually early. One ancient comment held that “the average life was short—it was a young man’s world,” and that senex could be used for anyone over forty. By modern standards, this seems remarkably young. Others, more convincingly, place the beginning of *senectus* at sixty. The tension between forty and sixty is significant, for it reveals how flexible and situational the label of “old” could be. ![Cesare Maccari’s painting of Appius Claudius Caecus in the Roman Senate](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Cesare-Maccari---s-painting-of-Appius-Claudius-Caecus-in-the-Roman-Senate.jpg) Cesare Maccari’s painting of Appius Claudius Caecus in the Roman Senate. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times The literary topos of the “ages of man” provided some guidance. From Solon through Shakespeare, writers divided life into three, seven, or even ten stages. Hippocratic texts, for example, counted life in seven-year blocks, beginning old age variously at forty-two, fifty-six, or sixty-three. Claudius Ptolemaeus, writing in the second century CE, described the ages of man according to planetary influences, with old age commencing at sixty-nine. Censorinus, in the third century CE, preserved a Roman scheme of five ages, aligning [Varro](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-terentius-varro-the-polymath-who-catalogued-the-roman-civilization/)’s fourfold division of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s history with the onset of senectus at sixty. Saint Augustine even commented that: > “old age may be said to begin from the sixtieth year.” These overlapping systems show how Romans inherited and adapted Greek traditions, especially the Hippocratic scheme. Yet no single arrangement prevailed. Senectus could begin as early as forty-two or as late as seventy-seven. Aulus Gellius observed wryly that: > “the world itself seems to be aging” (*quasi iam mundo senescente*) Horace labeled the satirist Lucilius a senex at forty-five. [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/) prayed for eighteen more years of life at age fifty-seven, hoping to reach seventy-five “*not yet slowed down by excessive old age*.” Such examples reveal not a fixed standard but a range of personal and cultural expectations. > “So that, not yet slowed down by excessive old age, but with three circuits of life’s course completed, I may seek the groves of the Elysian girl. Beyond this ‘Nestor’ of an age, I shall not ask for even another day.” Martial, [*Epigrams*](https://amzn.to/4pJkyNe?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Statements of age appear constantly in Roman sources, but their reliability is uneven. Tombstone inscriptions, for example, often rounded ages up or down to the nearest multiple of five. In Noricum, Celtic epitaphs regularly listed deaths at exactly 50, 60, 70, or 80 years. In Roman Africa, exaggerations of extreme longevity were frequent, with supposed centenarians far more common than statistical reality allows. Historian A. R. Burn, analyzing 2,675 inscriptions, found that almost two-thirds of the ages ended in either X or V, suggesting conventional rounding rather than precise reporting. ![Tomb relief of the Publius Gessius family](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Tomb-relief-of-the-Publius-Gessius-family.jpg) Tomb relief of the Publius Gessius family. Photo courtesy of Museum of Fine Arts, Boston This imprecision extended even to the [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/)’s birth year remains debated: Appian claimed he died in his fifty-sixth year, while[ Plutarch ](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/)wrote he was fifty-six, when by our reckoning he was fifty-five. [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), too, was sometimes said to have turned sixty-three when in fact he was sixty-four. [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) gave contradictory reports for [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/)’s birth year. Even Cicero’s age at death appears inconsistently, though he himself often described others as *senes* or *adulescentes* without rigid calculation. The Roman legal system occasionally imposed fixed age thresholds, but even here ambiguity lurked. Ulpian stated that a man was twenty years old on the last day of his twentieth year—effectively an official reckoning method that could differ from ordinary understanding. He also held that boys under seventeen (*pueri*) were excluded from legal petitions, while those over seventy were exempt from certain civic duties. But such boundaries were rare exceptions. For most Romans, age was fluid, judged more by appearance, vigor, or social role than by the calendar. A further complication lies in ancient reckoning systems. In Egypt, ages could be calculated inclusively, so that a child in his fourth year might only be three by modern count. Inconsistencies multiplied across provinces: papyri from Antonine Egypt record children as four when by strict arithmetic they should be three. Tombstone formulas like *sexaginta annos natus* (“sixty years old”) might in practice mean fifty-nine completed years. Bureaucratic needs, especially in taxation or military service, forced officials to assign ages, but the methods varied. Underlying all this was a Roman indifference to precise age. Most people did not know their exact year of birth, and few felt the need to. Knowledge of one’s *dies natalis* (the day of birth) mattered less than the associated cult of one’s *genius* or *Iuno*. 🔎 ****Genius** was the ****male protective spirit**, the vital force that accompanied each man from birth and was honored especially on his birthday. It represented his procreative power, fortune, and identity. Families, communities, and even the Roman state had their own **genius*. ****Juno (Iūnō)** was the ****female counterpart**. Every woman was believed to possess her own Juno, just as every man had his Genius. While the man’s genius expressed his generative and protective essence, the woman’s Juno embodied her capacity for fertility, marriage, and protection. So in Roman thought: **Genius* \= a man’s guiding/life spirit. **Juno* \= a woman’s guiding/life spirit. This is why dedications sometimes read **Genius of So-and-so* (for men) and **Juno of So-and-so* (for women). For the majority, it was enough to be broadly identified as young, middle-aged, or old. The exception was in legal or administrative contexts, where rules of age for [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/), manumission, or military service required calculation. Even then, results could be inconsistent or open to doubt. [Pliny the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/) once described a case where Regulus, a notorious legacy-hunter, tried to calculate a widow’s age for inheritance purposes, and even there the estimates varied wildly between forty and sixty. ![Statuette of a protective Roman God (Genius) from the Macon treasure](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Statuette-of-a-protective-Roman-God--Genius--from-the-Macon-treasure.jpg) Statuette of a protective Roman God (Genius) from the Macon treasure. Credits: TimeTravelRome, CC BY 2.0 ### The Marginality of Old Age In Roman thought, old age hovered uneasily between reverence and rejection. Cicero defended it in [*De Senectute*](https://amzn.to/46phaQ5?ref=romanempiretimes.com), insisting it could be a time of dignity, yet his very arguments reveal how deeply negative perceptions ran. To many, the old stood apart from the civic core of adult male life. Literary tradition often cast them as excluded: > “The young men go out to fight while the women, children, and elderly are left behind at home,” noted one writer. Quintilian observed that in court: > “old men, women, and children” were displayed to stir pity, > “even in a rectus iudex.” [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) recorded the plight of a [veteran](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/), > “covered in scars, now impoverished, dragged to prison, and beaten,” whose suffering sparked revolt. Ovid, blunt as ever, declared: > “An old soldier is a disgusting thing.” Mockery was never far away. One description of an elder in public life ran: > “If the old man has the audacity to enter the agora, he provokes the laughter of those who see him, for he cannot see properly and cannot hear when people shout. Trying to make his way forward he trips and falls. He is accused of getting in the way and of spoiling the common air of the city.” Aesop’s fable of the lion, > “worn out through years and bereft of strength,” who is beaten by smaller beasts, carried the same moral. ![Jacques-Louis David’s painting of Roman General Belisarius Begging for Alms, after he was allegedly blinded as a punishment by Emperor Justinian I](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Jacques-Louis-David---s-painting-of-Roman-General-Belisarius-Begging-for-Alms--after-he-was-allegedly-blinded-as-a-punishment-by-Emperor-Justinian-I.jpg) Jacques-Louis David’s painting of Roman General Belisarius Begging for Alms, after he was allegedly blinded as a punishment by Emperor Justinian I. Public domain Philosophers and satirists amplified this image. Aristotle placed the old alongside minors, exiles, and the disenfranchised as lesser citizens. Horace labeled Lucilius a senex at forty-five. The elegist Maximianus poured out the most bitter lament: > “Insults, contempt, and violent losses follow… The very boys and girls themselves think it disgusting to call me now their master. They snigger at my gait, they even snigger at my face, and my trembling head, which once they feared.” [Women](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) fared worse. Past childbearing, their social role evaporated. Literature painted them as grotesque, lustful, or cruel. [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/)’s curse captures the disdain: > “May the gods grant you no home and a needy old age and long winters and everlasting thirst.” Catullus lashed at an old woman as “a toothless crone.” Juvenal conjured them as witches brewing potions, while Varro spoke of the “old hag” as a stock figure of ridicule. Medicine mirrored these anxieties. Hippocrates declared: > “In the prime of life everything is lovely, in the decline it is the opposite.” Some physicians flatly described old age as a disease. [Galen](https://romanempiretimes.com/galen-of-pergamon-rome-most-famous-physician-galenus/) resisted, insisting: > “Old age is not a disease; it is a natural process.” Still, he conceded it was: > “no state of health,” only the gradual waning of powers. Religious life offered limited compensation. Plato and Aristotle both judged old men particularly suited to ritual. In [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/), the paterfamilias presided over household rites, while priesthoods could be held for life. Yet here too the old were measured by usefulness: only if they could perform their duties were they allowed to continue. The darkest themes appear in stories of senicide. Ancient writers relished tales of distant peoples who killed their elderly. > “The Hyperboreans sent the old away at sixty.” > > “The Ligurians hurled parents from cliffs.” > > “The Caspians starved them to death.” > > “The Massagetae slaughtered them like cattle.” Lactantius repeated such reports, while Procopius told of tribes who exposed their old to dogs. These were labeled barbaric, yet Roman fascination with them betrayed deep unease. ![Jupiter and Juno, a painting by Annibale Carracci](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Jupiter-and-Juno--a-painting-by-Annibale-Carracci.jpg) Jupiter and Juno, a painting by Annibale Carracci. Public domain Closer to home stood the proverb *sexagenarios de ponte* — “sixty-year-olds from the bridge.” Some took it literally, imagining that at sixty men were hurled into the [Tiber](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/). Ovid objected: > “He who believes that after sixty years men were put to death, accuses our forefathers of a heinous crime.” Others thought it meant political exclusion — that after sixty, men lost their vote and were symbolically “cast from the bridge” of the assembly. Either way, the saying marked sixty as the threshold of decline. Cicero admitted the danger of disdain: > “Old men risk being shunned, treated with scorn and contempt.” Maximianus echoed the same centuries later: > “Though I can see nothing, yet this I may behold — so it makes that penalty itself harder for me, poor wretch, to bear.” Thus old age in Rome was marked by contradiction. It could confer memory, counsel, and religious authority, yet it also carried the stigma of weakness and decline. Elders might be praised for wisdom, but just as often they were mocked for frailty, standing always on the threshold between honor and neglect. ### Inside Roman Society: How Ordinary Life Shaped an Extraordinary Empire (Part 2) URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/inside-roman-society-how-ordinary-life-shaped-an-extraordinary-empire-part-2/ Last updated: 2025-10-15T10:17:06.000Z [Slavery](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) was a cornerstone of Roman society, present in households, agriculture, industry, and the imperial administration. Estimates suggest that in Italy [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) may have made up as much as a third of the population. Their presence was so common that Romans sometimes described them as “living tools.” ### Chains, Collars, and Freedom: Slavery in Roman Society Columella, writing on agriculture, recommended the *ergastulum*, a barracks-prison for farm slaves, and emphasized saving costs on heating: > “It is better to have one kitchen and to keep them warm from that, than to set up separate hearths for each” [*On Agriculture*](https://amzn.to/3VAXSRG?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Runaways were a constant problem. Papyrus notices from [*Oxyrhynchus*](https://amzn.to/3VDiNU7?ref=romanempiretimes.com) mock fugitives in humiliating detail, such as one describing a thin, bald-headed weaver with a high-pitched voice, urging capture and reward. [Recaptured fugitives might wear collars](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-zoninus-collar-the-iron-collar-that-spoke-for-the-silenced/) inscribed: > “I have run away. Seize me. When you return me to my master Zoninus, you will receive a reward.” Fear of revolt bred severity. [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) described the collective punishment after the prefect Pedanius Secundus was murdered in 61 CE: > “When a slave murdered the city prefect … four hundred slaves, men and women alike, who lived under the same roof, were all executed” [*Annals*](https://amzn.to/4npLyQq?ref=romanempiretimes.com) The [*senatus consultum Silanianum*](https://amzn.to/4pVu3cu?ref=romanempiretimes.com) reinforced such measures, requiring household slaves to be interrogated or executed if their master was killed. [Roman law](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/) also allowed slaves limited hope through the peculium, personal savings that might one day buy freedom. Ulpian admitted the fiction: > “A slave cannot have money of his own; but, with a nod and a wink, it is believed that he was bought with his own money” *Digest* Manumission was common, producing freedmen who retained obligations to former masters. Gaius explained their categories: > “Those who are manumitted become either Roman citizens, or Latins, or in the class of ‘surrendered foreigners’” [*Institutes*](https://amzn.to/3IunuwC?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Some slaves rose to prominence in elite households. Tiro, [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)’s freedman, not only managed his master’s affairs but preserved his writings for posterity. [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) recounts similar cases, such as Remmius Palaemon, a former slave who became a wealthy and famous grammarian. Slavery in Rome thus encompassed extremes: forced labor in mines and *ergastula*, collars branding runaways, but also opportunities for education, wealth, and eventual freedom. It was an institution of both terror and mobility, essential to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s economy and its daily life. ![A Roman slave’s collar, similar to the Zoninus Collar](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-Zoninus-Collar--a-Roman-slave---s-collar.jpg) A Roman slave’s collar, similar to the Zoninus Collar. Credits: Caroline Léna Becker, CC BY 4.0 ### The Many Faces of Poverty in Rome Roman society was starkly divided between rich and poor, though “poverty” could mean very different things. It stretched from artisans and vendors (*pauperes*) to the utterly destitute (*egeni*), mocked by [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/) as too poor even to be considered poor: > “You have no cloak, nor hearth, nor a bed chewed by bed-bugs … Still, Nestor, you make a pretence of being called and appearing to be a poor man … That’s not the definition of being poor: ‘having nothing at all’” [*Epigrams*](https://amzn.to/3W6XKt8?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Philosophers often praised poverty as freedom from the corruption of wealth. Dio Chrysostom argued that rural poverty could be honorable: > “Poverty isn’t a problem but provides a livelihood and a lifestyle that befits free men who want to live independently … more natural than those in which wealth usually encourages most people to engage” [*Orations*](https://amzn.to/4h0WiT7?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Yet urban poverty was harsher: underemployment, despised manual work, and prostitution sustained countless lives. Dream interpreters even saw fate differently for rich and poor. Artemidorus explained that lightning in a dream meant ruin for the wealthy but fame for the poor: > “The poor are like bare and humble places, where dung is thrown … lightning makes ignoble places renowned … so the dream is of advantage to the poor, but hurts the rich” [*Interpretation of Dreams*](https://amzn.to/3Kex07F?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Support came not from state welfare but from networks of family and patrons. [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/)’s *alimenta* scheme and the grain dole at [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) selected beneficiaries by “worth” rather than need. Occasional windfalls came from sacrifices or [funerary banquets,](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) while beggars scoured markets, graveyards, and crossroads. John Chrysostom later condemned the rich who ignored the needy while feeding flatterers and informers: > “You, who have your bellies full and are well fattened … don’t you deserve to be punished for so criminally using God’s gifts?” [*Homilies on First Corinthians*](https://amzn.to/48vO8Qc?ref=romanempiretimes.com) For most Romans, poverty meant insecurity. Some endured it with resignation, some with pride, others with shame or resentment. The poor were ever-present in the streets of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/) and its provinces—a reminder that the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/)’s grandeur rested on fragile lives at the bottom of society. ![Rudolf Lehmann’s painting of Roman Beggars at a Church Entrance](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Rudolf-Lehmann---s-painting-of-Roman-Beggars-at-a-Church-Entrance.jpg) Rudolf Lehmann’s painting of Roman Beggars at a Church Entrance. Public domain ### Bread, Wine, and Coin: The Roman Economy At its heart, the Roman economy was agricultural. Cereals, [vines](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/), and [olives](https://romanempiretimes.com/olive-oil-in-the-roman-empire-how-the-romans-discovered-the-liquid-gold/) dominated Italy’s farmland, though Rome depended heavily on imports of grain from Sicily, Africa, and Egypt. Columella lamented that farming had lost its dignity: > “We let contracts so that grain may be carried to us from provinces across the sea … common opinion is now publicly conceived and confirmed that farming is a lowly task” [*On Agriculture*](https://amzn.to/3VAXSRG?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Large estates (*latifundia*) existed but were less common than moralists suggested. [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) remarked bitterly: > “Latifundia have ruined Italy and are in the process of doing the same to the provinces too – six masters used to own half of Africa, until the emperor Nero executed them” [*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/4gELb1I?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Most landholdings were small to medium, leased to tenants or worked by slaves, with profits dependent on weather, markets, and social pressures against excessive gain. Transportation shaped commerce. Land carriage was costly, while river and sea routes allowed cheaper grain shipments to the capital. [Pliny the Younger’s letters ](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/)show how landlords petitioned the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) to establish markets on their estates, while emperors like [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/) regulated storage and trade to stabilize supply. Beyond farming, mining, manufacturing, and trade connected Rome to the wider Mediterranean and even India. Pliny the Elder calculated the scale of eastern luxury imports: > “By the lowest reckoning, India and China and the Arabian peninsula take from our empire 100 million sesterces every year: that is how much our luxuries and our women cost us” [*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/4gELb1I?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Strabo confirmed the traffic, noting that: > “120 ships were sailing from Myos Hormos to India, whereas formerly in the time of the Ptolemies very few ships dared such a voyage” [*Geography*](https://amzn.to/4871QJj?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Economic life was always precarious. Grain shortages sparked riots, peasants lived off barley or wild foods in lean years, and [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/the-year-of-the-four-emperors/) intervened to prevent famine. Yet the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/)’s scale encouraged investment, specialization, and trade networks that made [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/niche-perfumes-in-ancient-rome-how-did-emperors-smell-like/) both vulnerable to crisis and capable of unprecedented consumption. ![Roman wall painting, still life with bread and figs, in Herculaneum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Roman-wall-painting--still-life-with-bread-and-figs--in-Herculaneum.jpg) Roman wall painting, still life with bread and figs, in Herculaneum. Credits: ArchaiOptix, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### Justice, Patronage, and Punishment: Law and Courts in Roman Society Roman law was a unifying but uneven system. Before 212 CE, it applied only to citizens; after the Antonine Constitution extended citizenship, local laws still operated, as seen in Egypt: > “If someone lodges a complaint … that the guttering of the house of the defendant is soaking his house with the run-off water, the judges should examine … If the water soaks the house of the plaintiff, they should cut off enough of the guttering until it no longer soaks the house” [*Oxyrhynchus Papyrus*](https://amzn.to/3VDiNU7?ref=romanempiretimes.com) [Emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) could intervene directly in civic disputes. Hadrian instructed the people of Aphrodisias in 119 CE: > “If a Greek of Aphrodisian birth … is prosecuted by an Aphrodisian Greek, the trial should take place under your laws at Aphrodisias. If, however, a Greek \[who is not an Aphrodisian is prosecuted\], the trial should occur under Roman law and in the province” [*Letter of Hadrian to Aphrodisias*](https://amzn.to/48AgU26?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Patronage was central to legal practice. Dionysius of Halicarnassus explained its origins: > “Patrons were obliged to explain the laws to their clients, to plead their cases in court, and to defend them if they were accused” [*Roman Antiquities*](https://amzn.to/46Kcnrt?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Judges considered character as well as evidence. Aulus Gellius recalled a case where the moral standing of the parties shaped perceptions: > “It was agreed that \[the plaintiff\] was a truly decent man … utterly without reproach … The fellow … was barely solvent, with a disreputable low-class lifestyle … Still he repeatedly demanded … that it ought to be proven … by receipts or witnesses” [*Attic Nights*](https://amzn.to/46ndJtb?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Litigation was seen as corrupt or futile. Petronius, in his satirical novel, has Ascyltos reject legal recourse: > “Who knows us here and who will put any trust in our word? I’d really prefer to buy it, even if what we’ve recognised is ours … rather than descend to the uncertainties of law” [*Satyricon*](https://amzn.to/3Kiw3Lz?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Wills and inheritance occupied jurists, while blackmailers (*delatores*) plagued the system. Class also determined penalties. [Constantine](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-truly-great-was-emperor-constantine-the-great/) decreed: > “If \[a kidnapper\] is a slave or a freed man, he is to be thrown to the beasts … if he is a free man, however, he is to be put into the gladiatorial games, with this provision, that he should perish by the sword before he can do anything to defend himself” [*Codex Theodosianus*](https://amzn.to/46zQ9s0?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Philosophers also debated punishment. Aulus Gellius summarized the rationales: > “One reason … is correction … Another reason … is retribution … The third reason … is example, so others through the fear of the punishment … will be deterred” [*Attic Nights*](https://amzn.to/46ndJtb?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Prisons were harsh, mainly used before sentencing; debtors were often confined illegally. Apuleius satirized abuses by soldiers requisitioning property ([*Metamorphoses*](https://amzn.to/46WzuQM?ref=romanempiretimes.com)), while Libanius confirmed that landlords summoned military backing in disputes. [Roman justice](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/), then, balanced law, morality, and hierarchy: a system where rights existed, but outcomes often depended on patronage, status, and power. ![Part of the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, in the British Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Part-of-the-Oxyrhynchus-Papyrus--in-the-British-Museum.jpg) Part of the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, in the British Museum. Public domain ### Blood and Spectacle: Leisure and Games in Roman Society Public entertainments—races, theatre, hunts, executions, and [gladiatorial combats](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/)—were central to Roman civic and political life. They filled amphitheatres and [circuses](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-circus-maximus-and-why-there-is-nothing-left-of-it/) across the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/), binding communities together in celebration, rivalry, and violence. [Juvenal](https://romanempiretimes.com/juvenal-the-poet-who-held-a-mirror-to-rome/) captured the popular appetite for shows with biting irony: > “The people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddle no more and long eagerly for just two things: bread and circuses” [*Satires*](https://amzn.to/4nU54Vc?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Fronto explained [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/)’s wisdom in indulging these appetites: > “The Roman people is captivated by two things in particular, the grain supply and the shows” [*Principia Historiae*](https://amzn.to/3Ivas1S?ref=romanempiretimes.com) The games were also political theatre. Cicero admitted their electoral power: > “Murena’s shows helped him considerably. For these displays of gladiators, though they are given to the people, yet win the favour of the populace for those men by whom and in whose name they are given” [*Speech in Defence of Murena*](https://amzn.to/4nrnKeY?ref=romanempiretimes.com) For some, the spectacle was crude or empty. Pliny the Younger dismissed the circus: > “I am disgusted at the childish passion of men for an absurdity—if those engaged in the race were only charioteers, or if it were the horses they favoured, there might be some sense in it; but as it is, it is the colour they support … So they are all as interested in a bit of cloth” [*Letters*](https://amzn.to/4mDk9cB?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Yet in his [*Panegyric*](https://amzn.to/4mDkdcl?ref=romanempiretimes.com), he praised [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/trajan-bridge-ancient-world-first-to-surpass-1km-kilometer-2000-years-ago/)’s shows: > “You present them with shows to inspire them to face fine wounds and show scorn for death” ![Giovanni Lanfranco’s painting of Gladiators at a Banquet](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Giovanni-Lanfranco---s-painting-of-Gladiators-at-a-Banquet.jpg) Giovanni Lanfranco’s painting of Gladiators at a Banquet. Public domain Reactions could be visceral. Augustine recalled how his friend Alypius, dragged unwillingly to the arena, vowed to keep his eyes shut—yet: > “He opened his eyes. At once he was stabbed in his soul, and with a far more deadly wound than that which the gladiator had received in his body … he gazed and shouted and was inflamed, and carried away with him the madness that goads to follow and imitate” [*Confessions*](https://amzn.to/3IgSErj?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Philosophers and moralists weighed the shows against Roman values. Cicero reflected: > “Gladiatorial shows are apt to seem cruel and inhuman to some, and I tend to agree, as they are now conducted. But in the days when it was criminals who crossed swords, there could be no better schooling against pain and death – at least for the eye; for the ear perhaps there might be many” [*Tusculan Disputations*](https://amzn.to/4pFGkBD?ref=romanempiretimes.com) [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/) condemned them as ruinous bribery: > “Those falsely named and falsely attested honours that come from giving theatrical shows, handouts, or gladiatorial games, are like the flatteries of a harlot… So you must try to drive out of the state all those ambitious displays that excite and nourish the murderous and savage or the obscene and debauched” (Precepts of Statecraft 821f–822c). Seneca warned: “…insensitivity and cruelty towards people follow savage spectacles” [*On Clemency*](https://amzn.to/4myWgTi?ref=romanempiretimes.com) [Christian](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/) voices were harsher still. Tertullian declared: > “The amphitheatre is the temple of all demons. As many unclean spirits reside there as it contains people” [*On the Spectacles*](https://amzn.to/4nq3wlU?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Constantine eventually echoed such views in law: > “Bloody spectacles do not please Us amid civil peace and domestic tranquillity” [*Codex Theodosianus*](https://amzn.to/46zQ9s0?ref=romanempiretimes.com) The games, then, were never just entertainment. They were instruments of politics, stages of imperial propaganda, schools of virtue and vice, and mirrors of Rome’s moral anxieties. They reveal both the magnificence and the brutality of a society that celebrated itself in blood. ([*Roman social history. A sourcebook*](https://amzn.to/4mApK3h?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Tim G. Parkin and Arhur J. Pomeroy*) --- Everyday life in Rome was lived between harsh necessity and dazzling display. Slaves bore collars, the poor scraped by, farmers and merchants labored under constant risk, and crowds flocked to spectacles both brutal and sublime. These **ordinary rhythms** sustained the empire’s **extraordinary power**. ### From Circus Maximus to Amazon: The Real Story of Scorpus URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/from-circus-maximus-to-amazon-the-real-story-of-scorpus/ Last updated: 2025-09-24T22:36:09.000Z Peacock’s new historical drama *Those About to Die* streaming now to [Amazon Prime](https://amzn.to/4nJcrOR?ref=romanempiretimes.com), casts its gaze on the roaring [Circus Maximus](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-circus-maximus-and-why-there-is-nothing-left-of-it/) and the men who risked everything in the chariot races. Among them stands Scorpus, the Green faction’s greatest star, whose victories and tragic death made him a legend in imperial [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/). Celebrated in [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/)’s epigrams and remembered for more than two thousand wins, Scorpus was the darling of the Roman crowd — a champion whose life blurred the line between spectacle and mortality. ![Dimitri Leonidas as the Roman charioteer Scorpus, in the series Those About to Die](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Dimitri-Leonidas-as-the-Roman-charioteer-Scorpus--in-the-series-Those-About-to-Die.jpg) Dimitri Leonidas as the Roman charioteer Scorpus, in Peacock’s series **Those About to Die*. Credits: Reiner Bajo/Peacock ### The Circus Maximus: Rome’s Grand Stage and the World of Scorpus Roman culture was, above all, a culture of performance, and no venue embodied this better than the Circus Maximus. No larger man-made structure existed in the empire, and none could accommodate such vast audiences—about 150,000 at its peak. In its fully developed form, the Circus Maximus became a showpiece of Roman tradition, urban splendor, and imperial ambition, described by [Pliny the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/) as: > “a fitting place for a nation that has conquered the world” [*Panegyric*](https://amzn.to/46SqImN?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 51 Unlike any other spectacle building, it was also intertwined with Rome’s legendary origins: here, tradition placed the rape of the [Sabines](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-truly-happened-with-the-sabine-women/). The circus hosted more than races. State religious festivals (ludi publici) such as the *ludi Romani, Apollinares, Ceriales, Megalenses*, and *Florales* returned annually; *ludi votivi* marked great state moments—triumphs, [temple](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/) dedications, imperial birthdays and [funerals](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/), jubilees. Alongside the [chariot races](https://romanempiretimes.com/fury-on-wheels-the-legendary-chariot-races-of-ancient-rome/) came [gladiatorial combats](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/), animal hunts, public executions, mock battles, and paramilitary parades. Chariot racing, however, was the oldest and most beloved spectacle. The earliest races were said to take place in the Vallis Murcia (between Palatine and Aventine) in a ritual setting ([Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/), [*Republic*](https://amzn.to/46lQ5gD?ref=romanempiretimes.com)). Religion saturated the event: the *pompa circensis* ushered gilded statues of the [gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) into the arena; shrines and altars lined the *euripus* (spina); writers could imagine the track as temple and cosmos (Tertullian, [*On Spectacles*](https://amzn.to/3VA3DPA?ref=romanempiretimes.com); Cassiodorus, [*Variae*](https://amzn.to/3VyTu5C?ref=romanempiretimes.com)). Astrologers and diviners sold hopes of bending fate—and race outcomes (Cicero, [*On Divination*](https://amzn.to/46oIsGs?ref=romanempiretimes.com); Horace, [*Satires*](https://amzn.to/3IAA1OU?ref=romanempiretimes.com)). By the imperial age, the circus became an arena of ideology and negotiation. The crowd petitioned [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/the-year-of-the-four-emperors/) from the stands (Josephus, [*Jewish Antiquities*](https://amzn.to/4nkAeVJ?ref=romanempiretimes.com)); dress codes and seating hierarchies socialized the public ([Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/), [*Augustus*](https://amzn.to/4nRDd84?ref=romanempiretimes.com); Calpurnius Siculus, [*Eclogues*](https://amzn.to/4nf53uV?ref=romanempiretimes.com)). ![A Roman mosaic of a chariot race winner from the Green faction, like Scorpus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-Roman-mosaic-of-a-chariot-race-winner-from-the-Green-faction---like-Scorpus.jpg) A Roman mosaic of a chariot race winner from the Green faction, like Scorpus. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times Dedicatory inscriptions thanked [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) for expanding seating. Exotic captives and an Egyptian obelisk on the spina broadcast [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s global power. As gladiatorial games waned in the fourth century, races grew even more prominent, especially in the East. The day began with the sacred procession described by Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his [*Roman Antiquities*](https://amzn.to/42decMa?ref=romanempiretimes.com): the gods were placed in the pulvinar to preside with the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/); behind them came magistrates, young nobles, charioteers, athletes, dancers, musicians, incense-bearers, and attendants. At the *carceres* (twelve starting gates) the editor spectaculorum dropped the mappa, (a white cloth or handkerchief) the gates sprang, and teams surged toward the *alba linea*. Laps were counted by eggs and dolphins on either end of the spina; attendants spread *selenite* (transparent gypsum) so the track glittered in the sun. Racing strategy was brutal precision. Drivers hugged the *metae (*turning post) to shorten distance, guided by hortatores (the mounted assistants who rode alongside the chariots during the race) on horseback. Seven laps—about 5 km—could finish in 8–9 minutes, with straightaway bursts up to \~75 km/h. *Naufragia* (crashes) were common, especially at the turns, and Roman art reveled in the pile-ups. A trumpet marked the finish; the victor took palm, wreath, prize money, and a victory lap. By the fourth century, Rome hosted 66 days of games annually, typically 24 races per day. Supplying this machine fell to the four *factiones*—Reds, Whites, Blues, Greens—whose stabula factionum (the stables of the racing factions) in the Campus Martius stood 1–2 km from the circus. Early on, *domini* (often equestrians) managed these professional stables; by the later third century, veteran drivers themselves could rise as dominus et agitator factionis. Within the hierarchy, the two-horse driver was an *auriga*; the premier four-horse driver an *agitator*. Talented boys were recruited across the empire; elite horses came from stud farms in Spain, Sicily, Thessaly, Cappadocia, and North Africa. Horses could become celebrities in their own right. Martial joked: > “Martial is known to the nations and to the people. Why do you envy me? I’m no more famous than Andraemo the horse.” [*Epigrams*](https://amzn.to/4nR0xTf?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 10.9.50 ![A fresco from the Roman House of the Charioteers in Ostia Antica](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-fresco-from-the-Roman-House-of-the-Charioteers-in-Ostia-Antica.jpg) A fresco from the Roman House of the Charioteers in Ostia Antica. Credits: Dennis G. Jarvis, CC BY-SA 2.0 ### Fame and Infamy: The Social World of Rome’s Charioteers Honorific and funerary inscriptions name 200+ charioteers. Where legal status is clear, the majority were slaves or freedmen; only one is securely freeborn. Like gladiators and actors, charioteers were classed as *infames*, legally dishonored and barred from civic office. Freeborn Romans were discouraged from the track; when an emperor pursued racing, moralists bristled—[Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) called [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/)’s passion a *foedum studium* (“disgraceful desire,” *Annals*), a symptom of flawed character. His choice of chariot, less shameful than stage or [arena](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/), and his largely private performances only slightly muted the scandal. Elite disdain sharpened as earnings and influence grew. [Juvenal](https://romanempiretimes.com/juvenal-the-poet-who-held-a-mirror-to-rome/) sneered at the money ([*Satires*](https://amzn.to/3Kor7EJ?ref=romanempiretimes.com)); [Galen](https://romanempiretimes.com/galen-of-pergamon-rome-most-famous-physician-galenus/) complained of honorary statues ([*De praenotione ad Posthumum*](https://amzn.to/4pTQpeq?ref=romanempiretimes.com)); [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) mocked their entourages ([*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/4niBwjQ?ref=romanempiretimes.com)); and Dio Chrysostom raged that mere slaves could wield such sway ([*Orations*](https://amzn.to/3W6PWYp?ref=romanempiretimes.com)). Yet popular adoration was undeniable. Martial lampooned their riches but immortalized one of them, **Flavius Scorpus**, as: > “the darling of the noisy circus, the talk of the town and your short-lived darling, Rome”. [*Epigrams*](https://amzn.to/4nR0xTf?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Funerary monuments confirm that boys entered stables early. The inscription of Sextus Vistilius Helenus, dead at thirteen, shows he trained first with the Greens and then the Blues under rival coaches. Talent moved between factions like free agents, and managers scouted rising stars with the eye of modern recruiters. The risks were constant. Drivers tied reins around their waists, increasing control but risking fatal dragging. *Naufragia* near the *metae* were routine, and inscriptions commemorate lives abruptly ended. The mixture of skill and sheer luck gave drivers a reputation for supernatural fortune: curse tablets were buried to undo them, while amulets and rings bore their names and race-day chants — “Go!” “Win!” — to harness their success. A select few reached the premier class of *miliarii*, those with over a thousand victories: P. Aelius Gutta Calpurnianus, [C. Appuleius Diocles](https://romanempiretimes.com/gaius-appuleius-diocles-a-billionaire-on-wheels-the-richest-athlete-ever/), Flavius Scorpus, and Pompeius Musclosus. Their careers were recorded with obsessive precision — wins, purses, race categories, horses’ names — echoing the pride found in gladiators’ epitaphs. Scorpus’ place among them shows how performance, statistics, and fame intertwined. (*Roman Chariot Racing. Charioteers, Factions, Spectators, by Sinclair Bell*) ![Mosaic depicting a charioteer and horse from the Prasina faction (Green)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Mosaic-depicting-a-charioteer-and-horse-from-the-Prasina-faction--Green-.jpg) Mosaic depicting a charioteer and horse from the Prasina faction (Green). Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 ### Scorpus: Rome’s Fallen Charioteer Among the miliarii, Scorpus shone brightest for the Greens. **His tally of 2,048 victories** made him second only to Pompeius Musclosus, far ahead of most rivals. What defined him was speed: by his late twenties, he had amassed a record that others needed decades to achieve. His death, still in youth, sealed his fame. The Praeneste inscription of Diocles includes Scorpus’ total, listing him as a standard of comparison — proof that his brilliance was recognized beyond faction pride. But it is Martial who gives him voice. > “O Rome, you had but a short time to gaze on your Scorpus, the glory of the noisy Circus. The envious hand of fate snatched him away in his youth”. [*Epigrams*](https://amzn.to/4nR0xTf?ref=romanempiretimes.com) And again: > “I am Scorpus, the glory of the clamorous Circus, your applause, Rome, and your brief darling. Envious Lachesis snatched me away before my thirtieth year, but counting my victories, believed me an old man” [*Epigrams*](https://amzn.to/4nR0xTf?ref=romanempiretimes.com) These [poems](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/) capture a man both young and aged by his victories, mourned as a hero of the people. Scorpus’ fame spread through the city. His name was shouted by thousands, his horses celebrated, and statues raised — Martial hints at a gilded effigy with a “golden nose.” Amulets, rings, and gossip preserved him off the track. For the Greens, he was the embodiment of faction pride. Like most drivers, he was almost certainly of servile origin, branded infamis and denied civic honor. Elite writers scorned his kind, mocking their wealth and mocking the masses who adored them. Yet for Rome’s people, Scorpus was no outcast — he was the champion who mastered the Circus Maximus, whose victories outweighed his years. His story distills the essence of Roman spectacle: glory bought with peril, celebrity won from servitude, and life measured in laps around the spina. To die young was the fate of many drivers; to die famous, the privilege of a few. Scorpus achieved both, leaving behind a record and a name that ensured he would be remembered as long as the roar of the circus was recalled. ([*Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium*](https://amzn.to/4pK3RkY?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Alan Cameron*) --- Scorpus’ story is not only the tale of a charioteer but of the empire’s appetite for spectacle. In the Circus Maximus, where gods and emperors presided, a slave or freedman could become the voice of a faction and the idol of a city. His victories — 2,048 in all — and his untimely death before thirty made him both a caution and a legend. In Scorpus, Rome revealed the **fragility of life**, the **hunger for glory**, and the **enduring power of the crowd’s applause**. ### Inside Roman Society: How Ordinary Life Shaped an Extraordinary Empire (Part 1) URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/inside-roman-society-how-ordinary-life-shaped-an-extraordinary-empire-part-1/ Last updated: 2025-09-23T20:53:01.000Z Beneath the marble monuments and imperial conquests that defined [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s grandeur lay a vibrant and complex social world. Families bound by tradition and law, merchants and bankers fueling the economy, soldiers marching across frontiers, and citizens gathering in [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/) or amphitheaters—all formed the daily fabric of an [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/) that stretched across continents. To understand [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) not only as a state but as a lived experience, we must look beyond [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) and wars to the patterns of ordinary life: how Romans loved, worked, worshiped, and played. ### The Legacy and Allure of Roman Social History Roman social history is inseparable from the broader history of the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/im-a-roman-empire-nerd-spartacus-back-to-netflix-is-a-historical-nightmare/) itself. To study it is to study human beings in the past—how they lived, worked, worshiped, and interacted within one of history’s most influential civilizations. Roman society fascinates not only because of its own richness but also because it sits at the crossroads of legacy and contrast: its ideas and institutions [helped shape the modern world,](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-toga-to-today-how-ancient-rome-still-echoes-through-modern-culture/) yet its values and structures remain strikingly different from ours. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/)’s expansion across the Mediterranean and into northwestern Europe made it the transmitter of [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) culture and the channel through which Graeco-Roman traditions were passed into medieval Europe and beyond. From Latin language and literature, which seeded later European literatures, to Roman law, which became the backbone of legal systems, to the institutions of the Western Church and enduring models in art and architecture—the Roman contribution is woven deeply into Western heritage. ![The Roman flower market, a painting by Lawrence Alma-Tadema](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/The-Roman-flower-market--a-painting-by-Lawrence-Alma-Tadema.jpg) The Roman flower market, a painting by Lawrence Alma-Tadema. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times At the same time, this inheritance must be seen within a broader web: Greek philosophy and culture, Jewish religious thought, and even the less-recorded contributions of Celts and other peoples, all left marks on Roman society. Crucially, Roman identity was not based on ethnicity but on legal status. Citizenship, conferred with a generosity unusual in antiquity, created a diverse and complex society where outsiders could become insiders. This inclusivity, coupled with the empire’s vast reach, gave Rome a social fabric unlike any other in antiquity. For modern readers, the Romans occupy a unique place: they are close enough in thought and expression to seem familiar, yet distant enough in customs and institutions to challenge us. Their world was pre-industrial, deeply reliant on [slavery](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/), and ordered by hierarchies alien to our values. Still, the voices of [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/), [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/), or the [anonymous Roman citizen](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/) ring with a clarity that can seem more accessible than those of medieval figures centuries closer to us in time. Roman social history thus allows us to recognize both the echoes of our own experience and the strangeness of a world long past—a dual perspective that makes it endlessly compelling. ![The Roman Forum in Pompeii, a photo taken around 1867](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/The-Roman-Forum-in-Pompeii--a-photo-taken-around-1867.jpg) The Roman Forum in Pompeii, a photo taken around 1867\. Public domain ### The Framework of Roman Society To understand Roman society, it is essential to set it against the backdrop of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s political and territorial expansion. From its beginnings as a cluster of villages in Latium, the *imperium populi Romani* grew into an empire that spanned the Mediterranean and northwestern Europe. The area in the power of the Roman People was a patchwork: provinces governed and taxed directly, client kingdoms serving as protectorates, and frontier zones that both repelled and absorbed outside influences. [Cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) (*urbes*) remained the focal point of civic life, exporting the model of the *polis* from Greece and later spreading it through Roman foundations across Spain, Gaul, Britain, and beyond. Yet most of the population lived not in cities but in villages and small towns, maintaining local languages, cultures, and tribal loyalties. Citizenship was never about ethnicity but about rights. By [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/)’ reign, only about 10 percent of the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/)’s population were citizens, but their backgrounds were diverse—descended from Italians, [Greeks](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/), Celts, freed [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/), or [soldiers ](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/)rewarded for service. What distinguished them was a bundle of rights: the right to vote, [marry](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/), make contracts, own property, and pass citizenship to their children or freed slaves. Roman law governed these lives, and demographic realities shaped them further: high infant mortality meant that almost one-third of all babies died before the age of one, about half by the age of ten. Those who survived childhood had roughly a fifty–fifty chance of reaching fifty, while only a small minority lived past seventy. Society was structured by orders and wealth. At the top stood the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/), followed by senators, equites, local notables, and then the vast mass of plebs, artisans, and day laborers. Soldiers could rise to prosperity, and slaves might accumulate resources and gain freedom, joining any level of society—even the [senatorial elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/). Social “fault-lines” were everywhere—male and female, slave and free, rich and poor, rural and urban—but cross-class ties such as patronage, manumission, and friendship bound people together in networks of obligation and exchange. As one Roman ideal put it, relationships involved fides, trust, whether between equals or in the unequal bond of patron and client. ![Marble bust of a Roman woman](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Marble-bust-of-a-Roman-woman.jpg) Marble bust of a Roman woman. Credits: The MET, Public domain [Women](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s lives were shaped by class and biology, yet in law they were citizens with rights to property, inheritance, and family participation, even if they could not vote or serve in office. The aristocrat Claudia Pulchra lived a world apart from a peasant or tavern-keeper, but all shared the same legal framework. [Religion](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/), meanwhile, permeated every level of life. Polytheists could recognize foreign gods as their own, and cults from Cybele to Isis were absorbed into Roman practice. Priests were not a separate caste: senators and magistrates led public sacrifices, while families, slaves, and freedmen participated in worship within the home and neighborhood. Roman social history thus emerges as a story of mixture and assimilation. From freedmen intermarrying with citizens, to soldiers rising through the ranks, to aristocrats tracing their mythical ancestry back to the Trojan War, Rome was built on connections that crossed boundaries of class, status, and culture. The result was a society at once rigid in hierarchy and astonishingly flexible in allowing new blood to climb the ladder of power. ([*Roman Social History*](https://amzn.to/46ivbiv?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Susan Treggiari*) ### Social Classes and Status in the Empire Roman society was built upon a steep hierarchy, where privilege and power concentrated in the hands of a [tiny elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/), while the vast majority occupied subordinate positions. As aforementioned, at the top stood the emperor, whose authority could be viewed both as mediator and as autocrat, bolstered by divinisation and a circle of advisers and imperial family members. Beneath him, the senate and equestrian orders dominated politics, law, and public display, with strict rules regulating their conduct, privileges, and social prestige. Local elites—town councilors (*decurions*) and Greek *bouleutai*—mirrored this dominance in provincial settings, while *apparitores* (public servants), secretaries, and even wealthy freedmen could achieve local influence through benefaction. ![The reconstructed lararium, the sacred religious place of the house, Roman Villa Borg, Germany](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/The-reconstructed-lararium--the-sacred-religious-place-of-the-house--Roman-Villa-Borg--Germany.jpg) The reconstructed lararium, the sacred religious place of the house, Roman Villa Borg, Germany. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 The free populace formed a vast, amorphous group, often despised by their superiors yet tied to them through patronage, manumission, and reciprocal obligations. Occupations shaped status: while some trades brought respect, others, as Cicero observed, carried stigma. > “First, those professions that meet with general hostility, such as those of customs collection and moneylending, fail to win approval. > > Next the trades of all men, who are available for hire and whose labour rather than skills are being paid for, are unworthy of a free man and are low-class. > > For in these trades the pay itself is a contract of enslavement. > > Also to be considered low-class are those who buy goods from retailers to sell immediately: they couldn’t make a profit unless they lied to some degree, and there is nothing more shameful than misleading others. > > All craftsfolk engage in low-class skills, since a workshop has nothing respectable about it. > > Those skills are least deserving of approval that serve our pleasures, ‘the fishmongers, butchers, cooks, poulterers, and fishermen’, as Terence says. > > Please add to this the perfumers, ballet dancers, and the whole cabaret set. > > However, skills that involve considerable intelligence or aim at some particularly useful outcome, such as medicine, architecture, and the teaching of the arts, are respectable. > > … For of all things from which one can profit, nothing is better, nothing more productive, nothing sweeter, nothing more worthy of a man who is free, than farming.” Cicero, [*On Duties*](https://amzn.to/42DnRM2?ref=romanempiretimes.com) For the lower classes, *collegia* offered social protection and [burial](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) rights, and tombstones reveal pride in trades from cobblers to muleteers. Yet economic insecurity was constant, and many labored in fixed-term contracts in state monopolies such as mines. Despite rigid divisions, mobility was possible: freed slaves might rise into local notability, soldiers could advance to centurions, and even humble harvesters or traders sometimes achieved remarkable success. This complex system produced both fault-lines—male/female, free/slave, rich/poor, town/country—and cross-class ties of patronage and friendship. Ultimately, Roman social classes reveal a society both deeply stratified and surprisingly permeable, where wealth, connections, and service to the state could reshape one’s place in the hierarchy . ![Stone relief of a Roman cobbler](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Stone-relief-of-a-Roman-cobbler.jpg) Stone relief of a Roman cobbler. Credits: TimeTravelRome, CC BY 2.0 ### Counting Lives: Demography and Population in the Roman World The demographic realities of Rome shaped every aspect of its society. With no reliable censuses beyond Egypt and fragmentary evidence elsewhere, scholars must piece together population trends from inscriptions, papyri, and scattered references. The[ empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/)’s growth was marked by high mortality offset by high fertility, resulting in overall population stability rather than expansion. Infant mortality was severe-as already mentioned, and average life expectancy at birth was only in the mid-twenties, though survivors of childhood often reached fifty or more. Marriage came early, especially for women in their teens, and [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/)’ laws even sought to reward fertility among the elite. Migration, whether through colonization, military service, or the slave trade, added constant mobility within the empire. Urban centers like Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch reached populations in the hundreds of thousands, sustained by grain supplies and administrative oversight. Ancient observers recognized that most Romans lived not in cities but in the countryside. Dio Chrysostom, reflecting on the rural poor, described how they endured a hard but honest life: > “some of them work the land, others herd flocks, and others hunt; from these labors they live, wearing simple clothing, eating simple food, and lacking the vices of the city.” Such testimony underlines that the majority of the empire’s inhabitants were peasants, whose lives were precarious yet vital to sustaining [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/). Despite the scarcity of exact data, the demographic picture highlights a world of fragile lives, frequent deaths, and families constantly reshaped by mortality and mobility. The rhythms of life and death, fertility and migration, formed the backdrop against which Roman social and cultural history unfolded. ![Mosaic panel of a platter or loaf of bread, from a Roman house on Monte Rosario, Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Mosaic-panel-of-a-platter-or-loaf-of-bread--from-a-Roman-house-on-Monte-Rosario--Rome.jpg) Mosaic panel of a platter or loaf of bread, from a Roman house on Monte Rosario, Rome. Credits: The Chicago Art Institute, Public domain ### Duty, and Affection: Family Life in Ancient Rome Family lay at the heart of Roman society, a place where power, duty, and affection intersected. At its head stood the paterfamilias, whose authority in theory extended even to life and death over his children. Gaius the jurist — one of the most important Roman legal writers of the 2nd century CE emphasized this uniqueness: > “slaves are in the potestas of their masters … also in our potestas are the children whom we beget in legitimate marriage. This right is peculiar to Roman citizens; for scarcely any other people have over their sons a power such as we have” Institutes. Yet the Roman home was not simply a site of control but of sanctity. Cicero reminded his audience: > “What is more holy, what better defended by a sense of religious awe than the domus of each individual citizen? Here the altars, here the hearths, here the household gods … this is the sanctuary, so holy to everyone that it is considered sacrilege to tear anyone away from there”. Cicero, [*On His Own Home*](https://amzn.to/42MBXL4?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Households could be large and complex. [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/) tells of Aelius Tubero, whose family of sixteen shared a single hearth, embodying frugality and solidarity. More often, inscriptions reveal smaller units, but they also show the bonds of affection: grieving parents who mourned lost children, or husbands who praised wives as steadfast companions. Marriage, divorce, adoption, and the exposure of infants reveal both the harsh demographic pressures of the ancient world and the importance placed on heirs. The household was thus both legal framework and emotional community—at once a sacred refuge, a site of authority, and a space where Romans sought love, continuity, and remembrance. ![Marble funerary relief of a Roman family](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Marble-funerary-relief-of-a-Roman-family.jpg) Marble funerary relief of a Roman family. Credits: The MET, Public domain ### Lessons, Rods, and Rhetors: Education in the Roman World Education in Rome began at home. Parents, nurses, and especially pedagogues—slave guardians—instilled discipline and basic learning, though children often resented their authority. [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/) joked about an overbearing tutor: > “When your pedagogue, though long since freed, still clings to his charge, it’s time to say farewell” [*Epigrams*](https://amzn.to/3KiNUlt?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Most children learned reading, writing, and [arithmetic](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-ancient-romans-calculate/) from a magister in public places, where noise and beatings were part of the routine. Martial complained of the racket: > “The crested cocks have not yet broken the silence, but you are already thundering with savage roar and whips … We neighbours of yours plead for some sleep.” [*Epigrams*](https://amzn.to/3KiNUlt?ref=romanempiretimes.com) [Punishment](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/) could be brutal—[Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) noted that children of citizens were flogged with eel skins instead of fines (Natural History). Some educators, however, advised against excessive force. Quintilian argued: > “One should lead children to decent behaviour by encouragement and advice, and certainly not by blows and humiliations” [*Education of the Orator*](https://amzn.to/4nQ5rjA?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Higher learning in grammar and rhetoric often required travel to larger cities, sometimes financed by civic trusts or benefactions. A papyrus letter from Oxyrhynchus (c. 100 CE) shows a student anxiously reporting to his father about inadequate teachers, runaway slaves, and wasted fees, revealing the struggles of studying away from home. Wealthy patrons also funded schools, though [Antoninus Pius ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-quiet-power-of-antoninus-pius-stability-and-prosperity-2/)later restricted how many teachers cities could officially employ. ![Fresco showing a woman so-called Sappho holding writing implements, from Pompeii](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Fresco-showing-a-woman-so-called-Sappho-holding-writing-implements--from-Pompeii.jpg) Fresco showing a woman so-called Sappho holding writing implements, from Pompeii. Public domain Teachers usually lived precariously, many being freedmen. Yet some thrived spectacularly. [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) tells of Remmius Palaemon, once a slave, who rose to become Rome’s leading grammarian, boasting extravagantly of his genius and wealth—though emperors [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/) and[ Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/) distrusted his morals (On Teachers of Grammar and Rhetoric ). Greek intellectuals like Epaphroditus likewise prospered, amassing large libraries and estates. Literacy levels remained uneven. Artemidorus observed that many of his clients could not read at all (Interpretation of Dreams). Soldiers with literacy were valued, but most relied on scribes for documents. Even civic inscriptions often served more as decoration than accessible records. Education brought prestige and opened doors to public service, but it was also mocked. Petronius has Hermeros, a freedman, defend practical skills over lofty rhetoric: > “We may not be learned, but we know enough to run our lives and our trades”. [*Satyricon*](https://amzn.to/4pCzuNd?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Such voices remind us that while elites prized rhetoric, for most Romans, basic literacy—or none at all—was sufficient for survival. ### Crowded Streets and Crumbling Walls: The Roman Urban Experience Roman cities were noisy, crowded, and dangerous places where housing reflected social inequality. A few elites lived in spacious *domus* or villas, but most inhabitants crowded into [insulae](https://romanempiretimes.com/insulae-apartment-buildings-ancient-rome-romans/), multi-storey apartment blocks notorious for fire, collapse, and squalor. Owners often prioritized rent over safety, as Cicero wryly admitted after the collapse of two of his shops: > “Not only the tenants, but even the mice have moved out”. Cicero, Letters to Atticus Writers emphasized both the fragility of construction and the risks of urban speculation. [Vitruvius](https://romanempiretimes.com/vitruvius-the-roman-who-shaped-modern-architecture/) described how ancient builders first used mud and branches, then improved with tiles and stone, while in his own time shoddy methods—wattle walls, timber upper floors, wooden balconies—made insulae especially flammable. Fires recurred with terrifying frequency. [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/), recalling Nero’s rebuilding after the [Great Fire](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/), noted how regulations now required stone walls, courtyards, and access to water: > “The height of buildings was to be restricted, and there were to be open courtyards and porticos … so that the water supply might be available to all”. Tacitus, [*Annals*](https://amzn.to/46BxUCu?ref=romanempiretimes.com) The spectacle of blazes became almost routine. Aulus Gellius described walking with friends when they saw: > “an apartment building alight … constructed to a great height out of many tall storeys,” proof that: > “the returns on urban property are great, but the risks are far greater”. Aulus Gellius, [*Attic Nights*](https://amzn.to/4nKWKH6?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ![Roman Insula in Ostia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Roman-Insula-in-Ostia.jpg) Roman Insula in Ostia. Credits: Dennis G. Jarvis, CC BY-SA 2.0 Plutarch, in his Life of [Crassus](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/), accused the magnate of profiting from disaster, buying burning buildings and ruined properties until: > “most of Rome came into his possession.” Not all dwellings were urban. Apuleius, in his Metamorphoses, gives a vivid picture of life in a poor gardener’s hut through the voice of Lucius, transformed into a donkey. He laments how both man and beast endured cold winters with little shelter or food: > “Shut in an unroofed stable, I was tortured by the unceasing cold … our meals were meagre: old and bitter greens”. The contrasts were stark: the poor huddled in flammable shacks or crumbling insulae, while the wealthy enjoyed airy houses with gardens. Yet even the rich faced the risks of Rome’s crowded sprawl—noise, fire, flood, and collapse were constant companions of urban life. ([*Roman social history. A sourcebook*](https://amzn.to/4pE4xrM?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Tim G. Parkin and Arhur J. Pomeroy*) --- Roman social history reveals a world both familiar and foreign. It was a society built on hierarchy yet bound by networks of trust and duty, harsh in its inequalities yet rich in cultural life. From the hum of the city streets to the silence of family hearths, from the discipline of the schoolroom to the blood of the arena, ordinary Romans shaped the rhythms of an extraordinary empire. Their legacy survives not only in monuments and laws but also in **the traces of daily lives that still speak across the centuries**. ### How did Emperor Hadrian’s vengeance led to modern Palestine URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-emperor-hadrian-vengeance-modern-palestine-israel/ Last updated: 2025-09-21T22:35:07.000Z In the second century CE, [Emperor Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-four-journeys-of-hadrian-the-globetrotter-emperor-of-the-roman-empire/) reshaped the map of the eastern Mediterranean with decisions that still echo today. In the wake of the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135 CE), Judaea was devastated, its cities leveled, and its people scattered. Out of the ruins rose *Aelia Capitolina*, a Roman colony built upon Jerusalem, and the province itself was rechristened *Syria Palaestina*. These acts were not just punitive measures against rebellion—they were statements of power, identity, and memory. To understand how “Palestine” emerged from [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrians-wall-the-roman-empires-enigmatic-frontier/)’s vengeance, we must trace the intersection of Roman imperial strategy, Jewish resistance, and the politics of renaming. 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in March 2024\. It was updated in September 2025.* ### Hadrian’s Journey Through Palestine In 129/130 CE Hadrian toured Palestine as part of his eastern travels, leaving behind a trail of dedications and [coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/). He visited Jerusalem, where he resolved to refound it as *Aelia Capitolina*, and passed through Gaza, which marked the year as the beginning of a new civic era in his honor. Petra adopted the title “*Hadriana Petra*,” while Gerasa commemorated his presence with a triumphal arch and hosted his imperial guard for the winter — firm evidence that Hadrian himself likely spent time there. From these cities, richly adorned with Roman-style streets, [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), and [temples](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/), the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) drew inspiration for his plan to impose a Roman identity on Jerusalem. By mid-130, he continued southward into Egypt, leaving behind both monuments of favor and the seeds of unrest that would soon ignite the Bar Kokhba revolt. (*Hadrian in Palestine, 129/130 A. D., by William F. Stinespring)* Yet the goodwill Hadrian encountered in places like Gaza, Petra, and Gerasa did not extend to Jerusalem. His decision to remake the city as Aelia Capitolina and impose new laws on its people would soon transform admiration into resistance, leading directly into the crisis that shook Judaea. ![The Pagan Temple Built by Hadrian on the Site of Calvary, a painting by James Tissot](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/The-Pagan-Temple-Built-by-Hadrian-on-the-Site-of-Calvary--a-painting-by-James-Tissot.jpg) The Pagan Temple Built by Hadrian on the Site of Calvary (Golgotha), a painting by James Tissot. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### Crisis in Judaea: The Roman View of the Bar Kokhba Revolt When Hadrian visited Judaea in 130 CE on his way to Egypt, the province appeared calm. Imperial coinage even celebrated his *adventus* as a joyful event. No one in his entourage could have predicted that within a few years, this seemingly quiet province would erupt into the devastating Bar Kokhba revolt, proclaimed by coins bearing slogans such as “Freedom of Israel” and “For the Freedom of Jerusalem.” The conflict turned into one of the bloodiest and most consequential wars of Hadrian’s reign. Scholars still debate its causes, scope, and consequences, but we will emphasize how Rome itself viewed the revolt. To the imperial government, this was not a minor local disturbance but a major crisis that threatened Roman prestige and demanded unprecedented measures. [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/), the only Roman historian to describe the conflict (albeit preserved in a later epitome by Xiphilinus), stressed its magnitude: > “At first the Romans took no account of them… > > Soon, however, all Judaea had been stirred up, and the Jews everywhere … were gathering together … the whole earth, one might almost say, was being stirred up over the matter. > > Then, indeed, Hadrian sent against them his best generals. > > Foremost among these was Julius Severus, who was dispatched from Britain, where he was governor, against the Jews.” According to Dio, fifty strongholds and 985 villages were destroyed, and **some 580,000 Jews were killed**—though Roman losses were also immense. [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrians-arch-of-triumph-in-ancient-jerash-a-gateway-to-the-past/) himself, in a letter to the Senate, broke with the traditional opening formula: > “If you and your children are in good health, it is well; I and the legions are in good health”, reflecting the severe strain on his forces. ![Bronze statue of Hadrian, found at the Camp of the Sixth Roman Legion (Legio VI Ferrata) in Tel Shalem](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Bronze-statue-of-Hadrian--found-at-the-Camp-of-the-Sixth-Roman-Legion--Legio-VI-Ferrata--in-Tel-Shalem.jpg) Bronze statue of Hadrian, found at the Camp of the Sixth Roman Legion (Legio VI Ferrata) in Tel Shalem. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 The appointment of Sextus Julius Severus was a telling sign. At the time he was governor of Britain, one of the empire’s top military posts with three [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/) under his command. To transfer him from such a prestigious role to Judaea, a province normally of lesser importance, could only mean an emergency of the highest order. After the war, Severus was restored to his rank by being sent to govern Syria, confirming that his deployment to Judaea was extraordinary. Other measures further illustrate the crisis. Marines from the fleet at Misenum were transferred into the legions—a move requiring them to be granted Roman citizenship, something rarely done except in dire circumstances. Conscription, highly unpopular in Italy and increasingly rare in the [High Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), was reintroduced to fill losses. Epigraphic evidence records recruitment drives in Central Italy and even the Alpine provinces. The disappearance of *Legio XXII Deiotariana* from records may also be tied to its annihilation during the revolt. Hadrian mobilized not only the Judaean legions (X Fretensis and likely either II Traiana or XXII Deiotariana) but also *vexillationes* from across the empire. Up to twelve or thirteen legions were involved at some stage—a massive deployment given Judaea’s small size. The revolt was not confined to Judaea proper; evidence of its spread includes the arch erected for Hadrian at Tel Shalem, near Scythopolis, and the involvement of the governors of Arabia and Syria. Rome regarded this as a war comparable to the great crises of the past, such as the Pannonian revolt of 6 CE or the [Teutoburg](https://romanempiretimes.com/arminius-from-friend-of-rome-to-german-leader-at-the-teutoburg-forest-battle/) disaster of 9 CE. The Bar Kokhba war, like those earlier catastrophes, revealed the vulnerabilities of imperial power. Even if [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) overestimated the threat, its reaction—the scale of mobilization, the heavy casualties, the extraordinary military transfers—underscores that the revolt left a deep scar on Hadrian’s reign and Roman self-confidence. ![Arthur Szyk’s miniature medallion illustrating Simon Bar Kochba heading to battle against the Romans, Bar Kochba and four of his men are holding swords and shields with the Star of David](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Arthur-Szyk---s-miniature-medallion-illustrating-Simon-Bar-Kochba-heading-to-battle-against-the-Romans--Bar-Kochba-and-four-of-his-men-are-holding-swords-and-shields-with-the-Star-of-David.jpg) Arthur Szyk’s miniature medallion illustrating Simon Bar Kochba heading to battle against the Romans, Bar Kochba and four of his men are holding swords and shields with the Star of David. Public domain ### Roman Generals, Triumphs, and the Wider War The early triumphs of Bar Kokhba’s forces and their grip over Judaea proper forced Hadrian to act decisively. Cassius Dio notes that the emperor dispatched “*his best generals*” against the Jews—**plural**, not singular. For centuries, this was overlooked, with focus placed almost exclusively on Sextus Julius Severus, transferred from Britain in a rare move signaling crisis. Yet inscriptions make clear that Severus was not alone. The honors tell the story. In the early Principate, the *ornamenta triumphalia* had replaced Republican triumphs as the highest recognition of victory. Hadrian was notably sparing in bestowing them; campaigns in Britain, Mauretania, and Dacia had ended without generals so rewarded. That restraint makes the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt striking. Julius Severus was decorated “*ob res in Iudaea prospere gestas*,” but he shared this honor with others. C. Quinctius Certus Publicius Marcellus, governor of Syria, left his province to fight across the border, bringing part of the Syrian army into the campaign. Inscriptions from Aquileia confirm he too received the *ornamenta triumphalia*, suggesting his role in securing victory was decisive. Even more telling is the case of T. Haterius Nepos, governor of Arabia. Documents and decorations alike show his direct involvement: the legion III Cyrenaica fought in the war, and evidence from the Babatha archive indicates that fighting spilled into Arabia, forcing Jewish families there either to join the rebels or to flee as refugees. Nepos also received the *ornamenta*, marking him as one of Hadrian’s “*best generals*.” With Syria and Arabia drawn in, the war clearly exceeded Judaea’s borders. From [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s perspective, this was no localized revolt but a regional upheaval echoing the great crises of the early empire. Hadrian himself, usually indifferent to military display, now broke with habit: he accepted the acclamation *Imperator II*, embedding it in his *titulature*. Only then could his generals’ victories be recognized with the highest military distinction. This was the first time since [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/)’s Dacian Wars that multiple commanders were simultaneously honored. The message was unmistakable. By bestowing the *ornamenta triumphalia* on Severus, Marcellus, and Nepos, Hadrian acknowledged that the Bar Kokhba revolt demanded extraordinary measures, vast manpower, and the cooperation of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s leading provincial armies. What had begun as a Jewish bid for “*the freedom of Israel*” became, in Roman eyes, one of the most dangerous challenges their empire had faced in the second century. After Hadrian’s forces crushed the Bar Kokhba revolt, a monumental arch was erected near Tel Shalem — likely by decree of the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) and [People of Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/) — to commemorate the victory. The sheer size of the inscription underlines how seriously the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/) regarded the conflict. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Israel--Jordan--Lebanon--Syria-and-Palestine---s-West-Bank--from-NASA--International-Space-Station-1.jpg) ## In its aftermath, Hadrian also took the unprecedented step of erasing “Judaea” from the map, renaming the province **Syria Palaestina* — a punishment aimed at stripping the Jewish people of their ancestral identity. **Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine’s West Bank, from NASA, International Space Station, CC BY-NC 2.0* The crushing of the Bar Kokhba revolt marked one of the darkest episodes of Hadrian’s reign. His measures went far beyond military victory: Jerusalem was rebuilt as Aelia Capitolina, its Jewish inhabitants expelled and banned on pain of death, and the province itself was stripped of its ancient name. By renaming Judaea as Syria Palaestina, Hadrian sought not only to erase the memory of rebellion but to sever the bond between a people and their land. ("The Bar Kokhba revolt: the Roman point of view" by Werner Eck) --- The renaming was unique in Roman history. Provinces had been divided, reorganized, and occasionally renamed after geographical features, but never before had the identity of a province been deliberately rewritten as punishment. In doing so, Hadrian transformed a local revolt into a lasting chapter of imperial memory. The very word *Palestina*, first imposed as an instrument of domination, would endure through centuries of history, long after the empire itself had faded. Hadrian’s actions in Palestine reveal the double edge of Roman power. Through monuments, laws, and names, Rome could reshape landscapes and identities—but only at immense human cost. The arch at Tel Shalem, the ruins of Aelia Capitolina, and the echo of a lost Judaea all stand as reminders that **empires rule not only by armies, but by memory**. 📜 For those that want to learn more about the Bar Kokhba revolt, we hope you’ll enjoy [this video](https://youtu.be/4SIqbQoen8E?ref=romanempiretimes.com): ### Niche Perfumes in Ancient Rome: How Did Emperors Smell Like? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/niche-perfumes-in-ancient-rome-how-did-emperors-smell-like/ Last updated: 2025-09-21T21:00:07.000Z [Perfume in Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-aroma-of-rome-perfumes-of-power-pleasure-and-prestige/) was not an afterthought but a social code. Bodies were anointed after the baths, hair and garments touched with unguenta, dining rooms and porticoes lightly misted. [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/) warns bluntly in [*Ars Amatoria*](https://amzn.to/4mraNQS?ref=romanempiretimes.com) that beauty fails if the smell offends—“*your lover will flee if an evil odor repels him.*” Smell belonged to etiquette as much as to allure. ### The Roman Scentscape By the first century CE the trade was mature enough to attract moral criticism. [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-the-author-of-the-worlds-first-encyclopaedia-was-roman/) devotes long passages of [*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/3VsJPxm?ref=romanempiretimes.com) to perfumes, naming celebrated blends—*Mendesian*, *metopion*, *susinum*, *cyprinum*—and lamenting their extravagance: > “Of all luxuries, perfumes are the most superfluous, for they vanish into air as soon as they are used” Yet his catalog itself betrays how embedded perfume had become. He even recalls an earlier edict, issued in the censorship of P. Licinius Crassus and L. Julius Caesar, forbidding the sale of “exotics,” then a term used for *unguents*. The policy reads as sumptuary, but practice clearly outran law. At court and among the [aristocracy](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/), perfume worked as visible (and breathable) rank. To move through an elite domus was to pass from the street’s odors into curated air; to approach the emperor could mean encountering fragrance as part of ceremonial presence. In this setting “niche perfumes” mattered—named recipes with reputations, origins, and price points legible to connoisseurs. (*Smell and the Ancient Senses, by Mark Bradley*; *Cosmetics in Roman Antiquity: Substance, Remedy, Poison, by Kelly Olson*) ![John William Godward’s painting, The New Perfume](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/John-William-Godward---s-painting--The-New-Perfume.jpg) John William Godward’s painting, The New Perfume. Public domain ### What Was in the Bottle? Roman perfumes were oil-based, not alcohol-based: unguents thickened and stabilized in carriers such as *balanos* (desert date) oil or carefully prepared [olive oil](https://romanempiretimes.com/olive-oil-in-the-roman-empire-how-the-romans-discovered-the-liquid-gold/). Dioscorides in his [*De materia medica*](https://amzn.to/4ngJ0nH?ref=romanempiretimes.com) explains the process—ingredients ground, steeped, filtered, sometimes aged in metal vessels to fix scent and texture. [Galen](https://romanempiretimes.com/galen-of-pergamon-rome-most-famous-physician-galenus/) later in his [*De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos*](https://amzn.to/4gzNnaU?ref=romanempiretimes.com) discusses compounding by place and the role of bases and resins in preserving odor. These were crafts, not casual mixtures. A handful of formulas formed the luxury canon—what we would call “ancient niche perfumes,” understood by origin as much as by profile: - **Mendesian** (Egypt, Nile Delta). Pliny notes that after Delos, “later the most highly praised was the Mendesian”, while Dio­scorides and others list it among the premier blends. The base was *balanos* oil; the accord balanced *myrrh*, *cassia*, and *resins*—warm, spicy, resinous, with excellent longevity. - **Metopion.** A punchier recipe using *myrrh*, *cinnamon*, *cardamom*, and *resin*—earthy and tenacious. - **Susinum.** *Lily*\-based, floral and luminous; often coded as feminine but worn across contexts. - **Cyprinum.** Built on *henna* from Cyprus, herbal-warm and slightly leathery. - **Nardinum.** *Spikenard* from India, musky-earthy; a quiet sign of [long-distance trade](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/). Theophrastus in [*On Odours*](https://amzn.to/4nbeVpp?ref=romanempiretimes.com) reflects on fixatives and maturation, noting how resins and wood bind volatile notes; Roman perfumers knew this empirically, aging oils to deepen body. Recipes circulated, but houses guarded methods; bottling and storage (narrow necks, stoppers, bitumen seals) were part of the product’s identity—details connoisseurs could read and truly appreciate, thus marking a perfume as truly unique, compared to others. (*Eau de Cleopatra: Mendesian Perfume and Tell Timai, by Robert J. Littman et al.; Archaeometric Identification of a Perfume from Roman Times, by Daniel Cosano et al.*) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Balanites-pedicellaris.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Resin.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Sweet-Myrrh-Opoponax.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Vibrant-Yellow-Cassia-Blossoms-in-Full-Bloom.jpg) The four main ingredients of ****Mendesian**: Balanos oil, Resin, Myrrh and Cassia flowers. Credits: Troos van der Merwe, CC BY-NC 4.0 | Nazar Prosovych, Getty Images Pro | pamela\_d\_mcadams, Getty Images | Jhonny' Mages, Pexels ### Luxury and Hierarchy Scent mapped status. A recent survey of material culture notes that inexpensive glass and wooden containers let non-elites access basic scents, yet quality and quantity marked the divide: rare aromatics, imported bases, complex accords at the top. Satirists made the point with cruelty. [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/) jokes that no matter the tricks, some wearers still “*smell of themselves*”, while elsewhere he praises kisses sweet as saffron, apples, and balsam, making fragrance a proxy for character. [Pliny](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) tells a darker anecdote: L. Plotius, hiding during the proscriptions, betrayed by the odor of his unguents. Scent as social signal could turn against its bearer. And when emperors hosted, smell scaled to architecture. [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) describes [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/)’s banquet halls fitted with devices that “*sprayed down flowers and perfumes*”. Fragrance became part of imperial scenography, a medium through which hierarchy was breathed as well as seen. In this system, “niche perfumes” functioned as brand plus terroir: Mendesian for Egyptian mastery, Cyprinum for Cypriot provenance, nardinum for routes to India. To wear them was to declare a network—suppliers, distances, costs—summed up in a name. (*Smell and the Ancient Senses, by Mark Bradley*; *Cosmetics in Roman Antiquity: Substance, Remedy, Poison, by Kelly Olson*) ### Famous Noses: Cleopatra and Nero No ancient figure is more tightly linked to perfume than Cleopatra VII. [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/)’s set-piece on the Cydnus makes scent part of statecraft: she reclines beneath a golden canopy: > “*and wondrous scents from incense offerings wafted along the riverbanks*” Plutarch, [*Life of Antony*](https://amzn.to/4my6UtD?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 26.2 Shortly after her death, a treatise circulated under her name—*Cleopatra’s Cosmetics*—with recipes for fragrant oils. Whether or not it preserves her hand, the cultural memory is consistent: mastery of scent as diplomacy and persona. Egyptian perfumery provided the prestige backbone. Modern researchers contextualize Mendes/Thmouis (Tell Timai) as a production hub; Pliny and Dioscorides treat Mendesian as the benchmark blend. Cleopatra’s world inherited temple techniques (kyphi and sacred oils) and repackaged them in consumer forms legible to [Greco-Roman](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) elites. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/gold-dust-background.jpg) ## In effect, Egypt marketed a canon that Rome craved. Nero pushed spectacle. Suetonius says in his work [*Nero*](https://amzn.to/46ghiS3?ref=romanempiretimes.com) that his dining rooms “*rained flowers and perfumes*” and that saffron mists were released over spectators. The point was not merely indulgence but control of atmosphere—power inhaled. In these hands, ancient niche perfumes ceased to be accessories and became environment: a curated, imperial air. (*Eau de Cleopatra: Mendesian Perfume and Tell Timai, by Robert J. Littman et al.*) ### Perfume Bottles We Can Still See The containers are eloquent. *Unguentaria*—slender flasks with constricted necks—were engineered to slow evaporation and meter drops. Rock crystal, alabaster, and colorless glass signaled luxury; blue-green free‑blown glass served the broader market. Double-chamber vessels stored two scents; long‑necked flasks nested in toiletry kits; aryballoi swung from wrist thongs at the baths. Form followed function: viscous oils needed small apertures; stoppers (cork, stone, gypsum) were sealed with pitch or bitumen to protect volatile notes. Shape also narrated status. A crystal unguentarium on a dressing table said as much as its contents; a simple blown‑glass vial tucked into a grave still testified to care in death as in life. The bottle taught handling: warm a drop between fingers; apply to pulse points and hair ends; scent garments lightly so thread holds the profile. (*Smell and the Ancient Senses, by Mark Bradley*) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Egyptian-perfume-bottle-in-the-shape-of-a-hes-vase-inlaid-with-the-figure-of-a-princess.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Roman-glass-perfume-bottle--unguentarium-.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Ancient-Greek-glass-mosaic-perfume-bottle--unguentarium-.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Ancient-Greek-glass-alabastron--perfume-bottle-.jpg) ****Image #1**: Egyptian perfume bottle in the shape of a hes-vase inlaid with the figure of a princess. ****Image #2**: Roman glass perfume bottle (unguentarium). ****Image #3**: Ancient Greek glass mosaic perfume bottle (unguentarium). ****Image #4**: Ancient Greek glass alabastron (perfume bottle). Credits: The MET, Public domain ### Science Corner: Rediscovering Ancient Niche Perfumes Because oils evaporate and oxidize, ancient perfumes seemed unrecoverable—until unusual survivals and new methods changed the picture. - **Tell Timai (Mendes/Thmouis).** Excavations mapped kilns and workshop areas associated with perfume production. Experimental teams reconstructed Mendesian by combining myrrh, cassia, and resins in balanos oil, producing a rich, spicy-resinous profile. While any reconstruction is heuristic, the exercise shows how base, spice, and resin interact to create longevity and depth in an oil carrier. - **Carmona, Baetica (2019 find).** A sealed rock‑crystal unguentarium from a Roman mausoleum preserved a solid mass. GC–MS identified markers consistent with *patchouli*; sterols and squalene indicated a vegetable-fat matrix. Even the stopper material (dolomite) and the bitumen seal were characterized. If patchouli is correct, this is a rare case in which a Roman perfume can be named chemically, and it implies long‑distance aromatic supply reaching Hispania. 🔎 GC—MS (Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry) is an analytical technique that combines two methods to separate and identify chemical compounds in a sample. Together, Mendesian’s historical prominence and Carmona’s residue offer a method: read texts for blends and techniques; read bottles and residues for materials; let each refine the other. The result is a sharper account of **what ancient niche perfumes actually were**. (*Eau de Cleopatra: Mendesian Perfume and Tell Timai, by Robert J. Littman et al.; Archaeometric Identification of a Perfume from Roman Times, by Daniel Cosano et al.*) ### Perfume, Gender, and Morality Roman discourse policed smell. Satire and moral prose linked strong scent with display and deception; too little with neglect. [Juvenal](https://romanempiretimes.com/juvenal-the-poet-who-held-a-mirror-to-rome/) distrusts heavy cosmetics and overpowering smells; Martial ridicules mismatched aromas; [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) once slurs a rival for reeking of unguents, implying softness. Early Christian writers sharpened the edge: Tertullian in his [*De cultu feminarum*](https://amzn.to/424GpVh?ref=romanempiretimes.com) attacked perfumery as indulgence of the flesh, while later Jerome urged women to seek the fragrance of virtue rather than balms. Yet the social record is more complex. Men perfumed after the [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), oiled hair and beards, and scented garments; women managed elaborate toilette cultures without necessarily courting scandal. Olson stresses that cosmetics and perfumes cut across class, with quality and context determining judgment. Bradley’s contributors show smell working across dining, urban life, and ritual, not only in boudoirs. “Ancient niche perfumes” were thus not inherently gendered; they were calibrated performances, evaluated by timing, place, and intensity—too faint, and one seemed careless; too strong, and one risked satire. (*Smell and the Ancient Senses, by Mark Bradley*; *Cosmetics in Roman Antiquity: Substance, Remedy, Poison, by Kelly Olson*) ### Trade, Craft, and Price Pliny’s aside that the prestige center shifted from Delos to Mendes already hints at economics. Where scents were made mattered because origins broadcast cost and craft. Mendesian’s fame rested on Egyptian balanos and complex spice networks; nardinum advertised routes reaching India. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-detailed-painted-panel-of-cupids-making-perfumed-oil--in-House-of-the-Vettii-in-Pompeii-1.jpg) ## Texts imply that high‑grade oils could be “worth their weight” in precious metal. **A detailed painted panel of cupids making perfumed oil, in House of the Vettii in Pompeii. Public domain* That fashion cycled through favored notes—the olfactory equivalent of seasonal color. Craft was distributed. Unguentarii operated shops near baths and markets; glassblowers supplied containers at many price points. The same street might sell modest oils to laborers and rare blends to patrons. Technique scaled: a perfumer could reuse a base for multiple accords; the richest could commission custom macerations or buy by the amphora. Storage mattered: cool rooms, dark glass, tight seals. Even without modern distillation, Romans achieved lasting profiles with resins, woods, and patient aging. For the elite, the economics of perfume was the economics of time and distance condensed into a bottle. To present oneself veiled in Mendesian or to mist a triclinium with saffron was to compress trade winds, caravans, and workshops into a few inhaled seconds—a luxury Romans knew and their critics named. (*Smell and the Ancient Senses, by Mark Bradley*; *Eau de Cleopatra: Mendesian Perfume and Tell Timai, by Robert J. Littman et al.*) --- Ask how emperors smelled, and the answer is not one scent but a system. Cleopatra’s entrances on the Cydnus, steeped in Egyptian mastery; Nero’s dining rooms that made fragrance a feature of architecture; the bottles—crystal, glass, alabaster—that turned recipes into status; and the craft that stabilized fleeting notes into lasting presence. In Rome, perfumes were never merely pleasant. They were signals in a hierarchy, proofs of reach and refinement, and sometimes instruments of theater. Thanks to archaeology and chemistry—from Mendes’ workshops to a sealed bottle in Carmona—we can sketch the accords behind the aura. In that light, “ancient niche perfumes” do not simply name luxury; they name **an art of making power legible to the nose**, one breath at a time. ### Gaius Caesar: The Lost Heir of Augustus URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/gaius-caesar-the-lost-heir-of-augustus/ Last updated: 2026-02-03T12:56:13.000Z Gaius Caesar, grandson and adopted son of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), was once the brightest hope of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s imperial future. Groomed from youth to inherit the mantle of the first [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), he was celebrated with honors, statues, and offices far beyond his years. Sent east to command legions and negotiate with kings, Gaius embodied the promise of dynastic continuity. Yet his dazzling rise ended in tragedy: wounded in Armenia and dead in Lycia at just twenty-three, he left Augustus’ careful plans in ruins and forced [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) to imagine a very different path for the empire. ![Stone head of a Julio-Claudian youth, traditionally identified as young Augustus, modern scholars believe it is possibly of Gaius Caesar](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Stone-head-of-a-Julio-Claudian-youth--traditionally-identified-as-young-Augustus--modern-scholars-believe-it-is-possibly-of-Gaius-Caesar.jpg) Stone head of a Julio-Claudian youth, traditionally identified as young Augustus, modern scholars believe it is possibly of Gaius Caesar. Credits: The MET, Public domain ### Gaius and Lucius Caesar: Heirs of Augustus in Life, Death, and Image In 23 BCE, only four years after establishing the Principate and ushering in a new era of peace following civil war, [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/) Caesar fell seriously ill and nearly died. Had he not recovered, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) might have faced another destructive struggle for power. To prevent such chaos, a suitable and widely accepted heir was needed, ideally from Augustus’ own bloodline. Yet Augustus had no sons of his own, and his nephew and son-in-law Marcellus—his closest male relative—died young soon after Augustus’ illness. Augustus’ only child, Julia, was then married to his trusted friend and lieutenant Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, and this marriage gave Augustus hope for heirs of his bloodline. Julia bore two sons: Gaius in 20 BCE and Lucius in 17 BCE. In 17 BCE Augustus formally adopted both boys, despite their parents still being alive, thereby elevating their dynastic status. Yet succession in the Principate was not hereditary by default. Augustus ruled as *Princeps*—First Citizen—not as monarch, and his position was grounded in a unique concentration of powers he himself had earned. For Gaius and Lucius to succeed him, they needed political offices, military commands, and personal prestige. Augustus ensured they were advanced early, granted extraordinary honors, and pushed into public life. Despite this preparation, both died tragically young—Lucius at about eighteen in 2 CE, and Gaius at about twenty-three in 4 CE—shattering Augustus’ dynastic hopes. ![Ara Pacis Augustae (Altar of Augustan Peace), Agrippa (hooded) and Livia with young Gaius Caesar](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Ara-Pacis-Augustae--Altar-of-Augustan-Peace---Agrippa--hooded--and-Livia-with-young-Gaius-Caesar.jpg) Ara Pacis Augustae (Altar of Augustan Peace), Agrippa (hooded) and Livia with young Gaius Caesar. Credits: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Their importance to Augustus’ political plans was mirrored in their imagery. In a largely illiterate empire, portraits were powerful tools of communication. Sculptural statues, busts, reliefs, [coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/), and gems depicting Gaius and Lucius circulated widely. Their images symbolized dynastic unity and political stability, reinforcing confidence in Augustus’ regime. Official portrait prototypes, likely distributed in terracotta or plaster, allowed their likenesses to be replicated across the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-roman-empire-a-brief-history/). Though dissemination was not strictly controlled by the state, local communities enthusiastically honored the imperial family, driven by competition and a desire to display loyalty. Literary, numismatic, epigraphic, and sculptural evidence demonstrates the success of Augustus’ program: Gaius and Lucius enjoyed immense popularity during their lives and even after their deaths, while Augustus was still alive. Portraits and inscriptions honoring them appear across the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/). Interest waned after Augustus’ death in 14 CE, though traces remain in the Tiberian period. Inscriptions from Spello, for instance, record annual celebrations of Gaius, Lucius, and [Drusus Maior](https://romanempiretimes.com/drusus-the-elder-rome-most-successful-germanic-commander/) on their burial anniversaries. One inscription from Iesi commemorates Lucius as patron of the town. These gestures may have been encouraged by [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/) to strengthen the notion of hereditary succession and validate his own position. Most coins bearing their images date to Augustus’ reign, but at least one bronze issue from Pergamon appears to belong to the Tiberian period, likely reflecting local loyalty. Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of portraits were produced under Augustus, with very few after. Some later depictions may have arisen from local affection or special benefactions granted by Gaius, who traveled extensively in the East between 2 BCE and 4 CE. Their premature deaths enhanced their aura; as with many figures cut down in youth, their memory lingered even after dynastic hopes shifted. ![A bust portrait destined for Octavian, but according to modern critics, actually belongs to Gaius Caesar, the beard could be recalling the mourning for the death of his brother Lucius](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-bust-portrait-destined-for-Octavian--but-according-to-modern-critics--actually-belongs-to-Gaius-Caesar--the-beard-could-be-recalling-the-mourning-for-the-death-of-his-brother-Lucius.jpg) A bust portrait destined for Octavian (hence the description Augustus), but according to modern critics actually belongs to Gaius Caesar, the beard could be recalling the mourning for the death of his brother Lucius. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Identifying their portraits, however, has long been one of the most vexing challenges in Roman art history. No inscribed statues of either youth survive, and coin portraits are of limited use for establishing their features. Ancient literary descriptions are scant: the late writer Macrobius claimed Agrippa’s children by Julia resembled their father, though this may have been intended to quell rumors about Julia’s behavior or the legitimacy of her sons. Portraits are further complicated by the tendency toward idealization, strong family resemblances, and deliberate assimilation of features across the Julio-Claudian line. Portraits of Gaius have often been confused with those of the young Octavian. Despite these difficulties, advances in the study of Augustan portraiture have allowed scholars to exclude other family members and to define several portrait “types” for Gaius and Lucius, each linked to stages in their lives. Yet caution is needed: over-identification based on superficial similarities remains a risk. Even so, the weight of evidence now makes it possible to identify and differentiate their portraits with greater confidence, while acknowledging the challenges posed by their idealized youthfulness, political assimilation, and the fragmentary nature of the surviving record. ([*The portraiture of Gaius and Lucius Caesar*](https://amzn.to/48qqioU?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by John Pollini*) ### Balancing Act: Augustus’ Succession Between Family and State For a long time, it’s been assumed Augustus always meant to found a dynasty and groom a blood heir from the start. Augustus had a problem to solve—how to keep his personal leadership continuous for stability without looking like he was creating a hereditary monarchy when there was no “office” to pass on. His answer, was to act as *princeps* (first citizen), not to proclaim *a principatus* (an explicit, heritable kingship). That’s only half the story. Like any Roman noble, Augustus also wanted to pass on a family made powerful enough that its next head would naturally dominate public life. The Julian household’s resources—money, clients, troops’ loyalty, and a cadre of top generals—were so vast that “family planning” inevitably had state consequences. In practice, the *familia Caesaris* and the machinery of government blurred: imperial slaves kept “state” records, paid contractors and soldiers, staged festivals, and the[ legions’](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-enigmatic-disappearance-of-the-9th-roman-legion/) allegiance to the House of Caesar underwrote the whole system. In that world, arranging inheritance inside the *domus* was already de facto state succession. Publicly, Augustus wrapped this reality in the language of law, tradition, and finite mandates. He highlighted *auctoritas* (moral influence) over *potestas* (formal powers) and accepted honors that looked “republican,” even as the effect was to normalize one-man predominance. Modern accounts often imagine him relentlessly encroaching on old liberties; but support for Julian leadership was broad and persistent—senators, equestrians, and ordinary Romans could see the bargain: external victories and internal peace instead of renewed civil war. Pressure did not flow only from Augustus onto society; it also came up from allies and stakeholders who wanted clear continuity at the top. ![The Maison Carrée, erected in Nemausus at the very end of the 1st Century BCE, remains the best preserved temple façade in the whole Roman Empire, originally dedicated to Lucius and Gaius Julius Caesar, grandsons of Augustus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/The-Maison-Carr--e--erected-in-Nemausus-at-the-very-end-of-the-1st-Century-BCE--remains-the-best-preserved-temple-fa--ade-in-the-whole-Roman-Empire--originally-dedicated-to-Lucius-and-Gaius-Julius-Caesar--grandsons-of-Augustus.jpg) The Maison Carrée, erected in Nemausus at the very end of the 1st Century BCE, remains the best preserved temple façade in the whole Roman Empire, originally dedicated to Lucius and Gaius Julius Caesar, grandsons of Augustus. Credits: Marc Barrot, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 From early on, dynasty and autocracy developed together. Augustus initially refused the charged title *Pater*/*Parens Patriae* in 27 BCE, but he steadily advanced his family as the state’s unifying symbol. Two tactics mattered most: endogamous marriages and bloodline priority. With no son by Livia, Augustus knit the leading branches together—first through Marcellus, then decisively through Agrippa and Julia—and, crucially, through adopting his grandsons Gaius and Lucius as infants. That unprecedented move both advertised blood descent and tightened the political unity of the house. Alongside *maius imperium*, Augustus showcased tribunician power—renewable, personal, and not tied to holding the tribunate itself. Granting versions of these powers to Agrippa (and later to Tiberius) marked out senior partners without declaring a monarchy. Religion and urban ritual were harnessed to the same end. After Lepidus’ death, Augustus became *pontifex maximus* amid a huge show of consensus; his household cult fused with Rome’s oldest *sacra* (Aeneas’ Palladium and penates), making the head of the Julian family the natural father of state worship. At the neighborhood shrines, Romans began honoring the *Lares Augusti* and *Genius Augusti*, effectively recasting local religion in familial terms: the city’s people related to the princeps as dependents to a household head. Architecture and ceremony made the message legible—the *Ara Pacis* processions balancing [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) and imperial family; the Forum of Augustus linking Aeneas, [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/), and Augustus as *Pater Patriae*; and the carefully staged [*toga*](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-toga-to-today-how-ancient-rome-still-echoes-through-modern-culture/)*\-virilis* rites that named Gaius and Lucius principes *iuventutis*, generational mirrors to Augustus’ *princeps senatus*. Tiberius’ role tracks these shifts. After Agrippa’s death, Augustus folded him into the succession strategy (marriage to Julia; later, tribunician power and *maius imperium*), broadly echoing Agrippa’s earlier position as senior guarantor until the princes came of age. His sudden withdrawal to Rhodes likely reflects the rising heat of overtly dynastic politics rather than surprise at Gaius’ and Lucius’ advancement. Meanwhile, the senate and provinces began swearing oaths that named the young Caesars alongside Augustus—public confirmation that continuity was expected from within the house. The culmination came in 2 BCE, when Augustus finally accepted *Pater Patriae*—not a random flourish, but the capstone of years of sacral, civic, and familial alignment. That settled the ideology: the state’s father would be followed, in Roman fashion, by a son. Then fate intervened. Lucius (2 CE) and Gaius (4 CE) died young, and the carefully staged plan collapsed. Augustus salvaged continuity by adopting Tiberius (and making him adopt Germanicus), renewed his tribunician power, and granted him imperium maius. Dedications like the Temple of *Concordia Augusta* advertised unity between domus and *res publica*; by 14 CE the transition was smooth enough to show how far attitudes had moved. The Principate—heritable in practice, if not by statute—had arrived. (*The Succession Planning of Augustus, by Tom Stevenson*) ![The outside remains of the cenotaph of Gaius Caesar in Limyra](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/The-outside-remains-of-the-cenotaph-of-Gaius-Caesar-in-Limyra.jpg) ![An impressive marble procession found in Gaius Caesar’s Cenotaph, in Limyra](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/An-impressive-marble-procession-found-in-Gaius-Caesar---s-Cenotaph--in-Limyra.jpg) ****Image #1**: The outside remains of the cenotaph of Gaius Caesar in Limyra. Credits: Das Robert, CC BY-SA 3.0\. ****Image #2**: An impressive marble procession found in Gaius Caesar’s Cenotaph, in Limyra. Credits: Troels Myrup, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 ### Gaius in the Historians: From Augustan Hope to Tiberian Foil The most detailed near-contemporary portrait of Gaius Caesar comes from Velleius Paterculus, writing in AD 30\. As a soldier who had served under Gaius in the East, Velleius was an eyewitness to parts of his career. Yet his account is shaped by loyalty to Tiberius, under whom he later thrived. His narrative paints Gaius as impulsive, vulnerable to bad advisers, and ultimately ineffective after being wounded. The result is what one scholar has called the image of an “ideal non-princeps”—a figure whose shortcomings served to cast Tiberius’ prudence in a brighter light. ### The Eastern Mission and Its Silences Between 1 BCE and 4 CE, Gaius held supreme command in the East, a role that climaxed with his celebrated meeting on the Euphrates with the Parthian king Phraataces. Velleius recalled the event as a moment of immense prestige for Rome, but he passed over Gaius’ concrete military achievements. Inscriptions, however, record victories in Arabia and Armenia, evidence of successes that Velleius deliberately suppressed. His silence was a rhetorical strategy: by minimizing Gaius’ accomplishments, he reinforced the idea that only Tiberius embodied the qualities of a true leader. Other ancient writers add further perspectives. [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) depicted Gaius as spoiled by luxury and insolence, suggesting Augustus dispatched him East to temper the reckless ambition of the young Caesars. Josephus, by contrast, stresses that Gaius was already seasoned in diplomacy at Rome before his mission, presenting him as less naive than Velleius allowed. And Augustus himself, in the *Res Gestae*, memorialized his grandsons with poignant words: > “my sons, whom Fortune tore from me while still young” —a sharp reminder of the central place Gaius and Lucius once held in dynastic hopes. ![An inscription found in Campo Santo in Pisa, on the south side, showing the decrees of Iulia Pisana for the funeral honours of the adopted children of Augustus, Caius and Lucius Ceasar](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/An-inscription-found-in-Campo-Santo-in-Pisa--on-the-south-side--showing-the-decrees-of-Iulia-Pisana-for-the-funeral-honours-of-the-adopted-children-of-Augustus--Caius-and-Lucius-Ceasar.jpg) An inscription found in Campo Santo in Pisa, on the south side, showing the decrees of Iulia Pisana for the funeral honours of the adopted children of Augustus, Caius and Lucius Ceasar. Credits: Sailko, CC BY-SA 3.0 ### Wound, Withdrawal, and Death Gaius’ decline began in Armenia in AD 3, when he was ambushed near Artagira and gravely wounded. Ancient sources agree that the injury broke him both physically and mentally. Rather than return to Rome, he lingered in the remote provinces, eventually dying in Lycia in 4 CE. This retreat fed the later narrative of a failed prince—once the brightest hope of Augustus, but ultimately unfit to shoulder the burdens of empire. The way Gaius was remembered reveals as much about Tiberian Rome as about the man himself. By the time Velleius wrote, Julia the Elder’s line—Gaius, Lucius, and Agrippa Postumus—had vanished or been disgraced. Livia’s line, embodied in Tiberius, stood ascendant. To support the legitimacy of the ruling emperor, Gaius’ memory was reshaped: monuments and inscriptions had once exalted him, but historiography turned him into a foil, a reminder of promise unfulfilled. His story thus reflects not only personal tragedy but also the political stakes of dynastic memory in the early empire. (*Gaius Caesar, or the ideal non-princeps: a Tiberian issue, by Antonio Pistellato*) --- In Gaius Caesar, Augustus glimpsed the future of his dynasty—only for [Fortune](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) to snatch it away, **leaving Rome to mourn its lost heir**. ### The Aroma of Rome: Perfumes of Power, Pleasure, and Prestige URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-aroma-of-rome-perfumes-of-power-pleasure-and-prestige/ Last updated: 2025-09-19T21:44:50.000Z In the Roman world, perfumes were invisible emblems of power. Exotic aromatics from Arabia, India, and Egypt poured into the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), filling temples, banquets, and [bathhouses](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/) with fragrance. [Emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) wrapped themselves in clouds of incense, [aristocrats](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) perfumed their clothes and halls, and even ordinary Romans could purchase modest unguents from bustling workshops. To trace perfume in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) is to follow a story of conquest, commerce, and the desire to transform both body and city through scent. ### Scent and Power in Rome: Perfume as Social Technology Rome’s smellscape was a hierarchy you could breathe. Elites signaled rank by mastering both personal scent and public air—oiling bodies after the bath, misting dining rooms, perfuming theaters and even bathhouse walls—while incense wrapped emperors, processions, and funerals in olfactory prestige. As one late–third-century Christian observed: > “The practice of cult stops without incense.” Arnobius, [*Against the Nations*](https://amzn.to/46sNeBd?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 7.26 In a world where streets could reek—[Pliny the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/) complained of a Pontic: > “pestilential and odoriferous sewer,” running past a lovely marketplace—fragrance became a tool of distinction and control. Moralists bristled at excess, but practice outran preaching. Perfume marked the extraordinary: emperors were greeted with: > “clouds of perfume and incense,” that: > “provided a sweet-smelling odor in the streets,” and private extravagance echoed public spectacle when hosts scented rooms, [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/), even walls. Incense and unguents thus bridged piety and display—burned for the [gods,](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) poured for the powerful, and deployed to transform raw urban air into curated ambiance. This politics of smell cut through gender and class. Aromatics were not inherently “feminine”; the fault lay in too much—in conspicuous consumption—rather than in scent itself. What mattered was calibration: quantities, contexts, and quality that announced rank without tipping into ridicule. Gardens thick with blossoms, theaters misted with saffron, and banquets ending in scented crowns mapped an olfactory border between the street and the salon, the ordinary and the imperial. Beneath it all lay a Roman ethic that measured propriety—and status—against “nature.” Admixture could be condemned as artifice or praised as improvement; both arguments circled the same axis of legitimacy. In the end, identity was inseparable from aroma. As David S. Potter puts it with stark economy: “*Your odor was you*”. (*Odor and Power in the Roman Empire, by David S. Potter. In Constructions of the Classical Body*) ![Ancient Roman fresco, depicting a woman (possibly a Donna) pouring perfume into a bottle](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Ancient-Roman-fresco--depicting-a-woman--possibly-a-Donna--pouring-perfume-into-a-bottle.jpg) Ancient Roman fresco, depicting a woman (possibly a Donna) pouring perfume into a bottle. Credits: Stephen Chappell, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ### Perfume in Antiquity Perfume’s story begins long before the word itself—*per fumum*, “through smoke”—entered Latin. In the earliest urban cultures of the Fertile Crescent, aromatics were first burned as incense to honor the gods; only later did people blend resins, petals, woods, and animal essences into oils that touched the body. Because written testimony from deep antiquity is scarce, much of what we know comes from archaeology and the scientific analysis of residues on vessels, along with scattered anecdotes in later texts. Human engagement with fragrance is ancient. Cave paintings at Lascaux (17,300 years ago) hint at early knowledge of plants and their powers for flavor and healing—even if they tell us nothing directly about perfumes. Biology helps explain why scent has always mattered: smell is mediated by receptor molecules in the body, which means odors are less like fixed colors and more like keys that fit specific biochemical locks. That variability makes fragrance intensely personal and culturally charged. Across the ancient Mediterranean and Near East, scent served ritual, medical, and social ends. Early on, myrrh and frankincense dominated sacred contexts in the Fertile Crescent; later, the [Greeks](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) and Romans elevated the rose as a prestige aroma. Anthropologists aptly call perfume “liquid memory”: a smell can summon a place, a feast, or a loved one in an instant—just as modern societies lace odorless natural gas with sulfurous notes so danger can be recognized at once. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/East-Greek-terracotta-perfume-bottle--aryballos--in-the-form-of-a-helmeted-head.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Ancient-Greek-glass-lentoid-aryballos--perfume-bottle-.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Ancient-Greek-glass-lentoid-perfume-bottle--aryballos-.jpg) ****Image #1**: East Greek terracotta perfume bottle (aryballos) in the form of a helmeted head. ****Images #2 & #3**: Ancient Greek glass lentoid aryballos (perfume bottle). Credits: The MET, Public domain Ancient peoples also noticed the bond between scent and desire. Long before the modern term “pheromone” was coined, Egyptians and Mesopotamians harvested animal musk (notably from the musk deer) and other potent substances to anoint bodies and gods, weaving sexuality, divinity, and identity together through smell. Perfumery itself was a technology. In antiquity it evolved from smoke to salve, from altar to skin: resins were distilled or infused into oils, sometimes layered with spices and flowers, then stored in stone, ceramic, or glass containers whose traces can still be tested today. Men and [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) alike used scented oils—to soothe, to heal, to enchant, to signal status. While our evidence is uneven, a clear picture emerges: fragrance was not a trivial luxury but a tool of ritual practice, medicine, memory, and social power. This broad backdrop frames the Roman story to come. When we turn to the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/)—its trade routes, workshops, baths, banquets, and moral debates—we will see how Romans bottled the ancient world’s sacred smoke into a daily language of prestige and pleasure. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Etruscan-bronze-perfume-dipper.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Detail-of-an-Etruscan-bronze-perfume-dipper-1.jpg) Etruscan bronze perfume dippers. Credits: The MET, Public domain ### Essential Oils and Ancient Scents: The Chemistry and Culture of Perfume At the heart of perfumery lie essential oils, aromatic substances derived mostly from plants. Their use in antiquity was deeply shaped by geography: the flowers, resins, and herbs available in a region defined the fragrances its people valued. Modern science classifies essential oils as top, middle, or base notes depending on their volatility—yet many of the classic bases, from frankincense and myrrh to sandalwood and jasmine, were already staples of ancient perfumery. Although today’s perfumes use ethyl alcohol as a carrier, ancient perfumers relied on wine and other alcohol-containing mixtures, since pure alcohol was not isolated until the twelfth century. By boiling ingredients in water, they produced scented oils—a method that foreshadowed later steam distillation. Archaeological residues confirm that many compounds with high boiling points, still familiar in perfumery, were robust enough to withstand such processes. Scents themselves can be grouped into broad families—floral, green, citrus, oriental, chypre, aldehydic, and animalic—with even antiquity recognizing descriptors like mossy, sulfurous, fruity, or resinous. Philosophers like Hans Henning would later attempt systematic models, such as his “smell prism” of 1916, but the ancients already understood the power of scent to carry cultural meaning. For Egyptians, the lily was prized above all, while the Greeks and Romans cherished the rose. These cultural preferences, confirmed by both texts and archaeological finds, show how perfume was not just chemistry but an expression of identity, memory, and prestige. (*Scented Oils and Perfumes, by Narayanaganesh Balasubramanian. In Chemical Technology in Antiquity, ACS SYMPOSIUM SERIES 1211*) ![A small Greco-Egyptian perfume bottle (aryballos) shaped like a hedgehog, standing on a rectangular base. Its prickly body is cross-hatched, with details in dark glaze showing eyes, snout, and upright ears](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-small-Greco-Egyptian-perfume-bottle--aryballos--shaped-like-a-hedgehog--standing-on-a-rectangular-base.-Its-prickly-body-is-cross-hatched--with-details-in-dark-glaze-showing-eyes--snout--and-upright-ears.jpg) A small Greco-Egyptian perfume bottle (aryballos) shaped like a hedgehog, standing on a rectangular base. Its prickly body is cross-hatched, with details in dark glaze showing eyes, snout, and upright ears. Credits: Walters Art Museum, Public domain ### The Roman Obsession with Perfume Among the Romans, passion for perfume knew few limits. After the conquest of Egypt, India, and Arabia, the empire gained vast new supplies of exotic scents, adding to those already obtained from Italy and [Gaul](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/). Perfumes filled every part of daily life—used liberally in baths, bedrooms, clothing, and even on beds. Men, women, and children anointed themselves upon waking, after bathing, and after meals. Clothes were soaked in essences, while spices and aromatics burned day and night. The trade of perfumers (*unguetarii*) flourished as plant, animal, and mineral resources were scoured to produce oils, balms, powders, pomades, and cosmetics. Pliny the Elder admitted uncertainty about when unguents first reached Rome: > “I can not exactly say at what period the use of unguents first found its way to Rome. > > It is a well-known fact, that when King Antiochus and Asia were subdued, an edict was published in the year of the City 565, in the censorship of P. Licinius Crassus and L. Julius Caesar, forbidding any one to sell exotics; for by that name unguents were then called. > > But, in the name of Hercules! at the present day, there are some persons who even go so far as to put them in their drink, and the bitterness produced is prized to a high degree, in order that by their lavishness on these odours they may thus gratify the senses of two parts of the body at the same moment.” He also recalled the infamous story of L. Plotius, betrayed in hiding by the smell of his unguents: > “…a disgrace which more than outweighed all the guilt attending his proscription.” Pliny further noted Roman preferences: > “...those unguents which smell of the earth are preferable to those which smell of saffron; being a proof, that even in a matter which most strikingly bespeaks our state of extreme corruptness, it is thought as well to temper the vice by a little show of austerity.” Some Romans even preferred thicker preparations, called *spissum*, that could be plastered on. Perfume reached extremes: > “We have known the very soles even of the feet to be sprinkled with perfumes; a refinement which was taught, it is said, by M. Otho to the Emperor Nero.” Others sprinkled unguents on walls and baths, a luxury practiced not only by emperors but also by private citizens. [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) himself famously spent four million sesterces (around **$20–30 million** in today’s terms) on roses and perfumes for one of his festivals, and for the funeral of Poppaea used more incense than Arabia could produce in a year. Efforts to conserve perfumes for religious uses led to restrictions under [Licinius Crassus](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/), though enforcement is unclear. [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/), in contrast, offered women practical recipes for beauty. In one surviving passage he instructed: > “Learn from me the art of imparting to your complexion a dazzling whiteness…” and gave a detailed recipe of barley, bean flour, eggs, narcissus bulbs, gum, Tuscan-seed, and honey. Elsewhere he advised: > “Rouge a pale cheek, a red one powder, / Each maiden knows that art’s allowed her,” while cautioning, > “But do not let your art be seen… Your lover must not even find / A powder-puff behind a screen / Or come upon you from behind / When the cold cream is oozing down / And moistening your dressing-gown.” Perfume was part of [Roman banquets](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/) as well. Arthur Weigall describes a dinner where [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) dined with Mucius Lentulus Niger: guests reclined on couches, flower crowns on their heads, cinnamon sprinkled on their hair, and perfumes thrown over their bodies and even mixed with their [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/). Entertainment ranged from dancers and musicians to dwarfs and [gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/), while [the menu](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-did-the-ancient-romans-eat-the-rich-tapestry-of-ancient-roman-gastronomy/) was extravagant: sea urchins, oysters, mussels, fieldfares with asparagus, hares, cranes, peacocks, and more. Perfume in Rome was therefore both everyday and excessive—woven into personal care, social display, and imperial luxury, a symbol of the wealth and decadence of the empire. (*The Diuturnal Use of Perfumes and Cosmetics, by Grace M. Ziegler. The Scientific Monthly*) ![Ancient Roman fresco with Cupids and Psyche making perfume](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Ancient-Roman-fresco-with-Cupids-and-Psyche-making-perfume.jpg) Ancient Roman fresco with Cupids and Psyche making perfume. Credits: Stephen Chappell, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ### Workshops of Fragrance: The Roman Perfume Industry Rome’s passion for perfume was fed not only by imports from Arabia, India, and Egypt but also by thriving local industries. Archaeology reveals that Italy itself became a production center, with cities like Capua earning renown for their workshops. Capua’s *unguentarii* supplied oils that circulated throughout the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/), confirming what texts only hinted at: perfumes were not just consumed in excess but also crafted with skill at home. The techniques were practical yet sophisticated. [Olive oil](https://romanempiretimes.com/olive-oil-in-the-roman-empire-how-the-romans-discovered-the-liquid-gold/) served as the base, into which flowers, resins, and spices were infused by boiling or cold maceration. This created *unguenta* that were thicker and longer-lasting than lighter oils. Containers for these perfumes—glass flasks, ceramic vessels, and delicate *aryballoi*—turn up in [Roman graves](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/), households, and especially in [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/), where whole shops dedicated to the trade have been identified. The finds include perfume presses, amphorae with traces of scented substances, and frescoes that may have depicted the trade itself. Perfume shops were part of the urban fabric, clustered in marketplaces and near baths. Their presence underlines how scent was democratized: while emperors like Nero poured fortunes into roses and incense, ordinary Romans could still purchase modest unguents. The difference was quality rather than kind. The same archaeological residues show that luxury perfumes sat alongside cheaper blends, catering to a broad clientele. The evidence from Pompeii and Capua also reveals the integration of the perfume trade into Roman economic life. The *unguentarii* were organized craftsmen, and their products were part of a larger luxury economy linked to textiles, cosmetics, and the spice trade. The sheer quantity of vessels and residues indicates a demand so great that entire neighborhoods smelled of oil, resin, and flowers long before the final product reached aristocratic banquets or bathhouse walls. Perfume in Rome, then, was not only a sign of excess but also a craft and commerce, rooted in local workshops that transformed raw materials into the unguents that scented every level of Roman society. (*Perfumes in Mediterranean antiquity, by Cécilia Castela, Xavier Fernandez, Jean-Jacques Filippia and Jean-Pierre Brun*) ![Praenestine - Cista Depicting Helen of Troy and Paris (Cistae were containers used to safeguard precious objects, including mirrors, perfume flasks, and cosmetics)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Praenestine---Cista-Depicting-Helen-of-Troy-and-Paris--Cistae-were-containers-used-to-safeguard-precious-objects--including-mirrors--perfume-flasks--and-cosmetics-.jpg) Praenestine - Cista Depicting Helen of Troy and Paris (Cistae were containers used to safeguard precious objects, including mirrors, perfume flasks, and cosmetics). Credits: The MET, Public domain ### Perfumed Rituals and Roman Practices Romans inherited and amplified the Mediterranean tradition of perfumery, adapting it to their own cultural and social needs. Perfume was not just cosmetic—it was ritual, medicinal, and symbolic. Variations of the perfume cones once popular in Egypt were also adopted by [Roman women](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/), who concealed unguents in their hair to preserve a lasting fragrance throughout the day, ensuring that their presence left an olfactory impression. Archaeological and literary evidence confirms that perfume use in Rome extended far beyond simple personal adornment. Perfumed oils were part of religious rites, applied to statues, sacred stones, and even ashes after cremation. Roman funerary practices relied heavily on the burning of incense, not only to honor the dead but also to frame death itself within a fragrant aura of dignity and divine favor. Perfume also entered the realm of medicine. Dioscorides’ [*De Materia Medica*](https://amzn.to/3IwEIJw?ref=romanempiretimes.com)—written in the first century CE—lists a wide variety of perfume recipes with therapeutic purposes, from soothing ailments to purifying the air. Later, [Galen](https://romanempiretimes.com/galen-of-pergamon-rome-most-famous-physician-galenus/) and Graeco-Roman papyri from Egypt confirm the overlap between pharmacology and perfumery, showing how scent was viewed as both a cure and a luxury. Above all, perfumes expressed status. Imported aromatics were costly, their origins tied to Arabia, India, and beyond. The ability to anoint oneself, to perfume one’s home, or to burn incense at feasts marked a Roman out as wealthy, worldly, and powerful. In Rome, scent was never neutral—**it was a statement**. (*Perfumery from Myth to Antiquity, by Dimitra Voudouri & Christine Tesseromatis*) --- Perfumes in Rome were more than indulgence; they were instruments of culture, commerce, and ceremony. They marked divine favor in temples, softened the harshness of urban life, elevated banquets into theater, and offered a language of prestige that everyone understood. From the smoke of incense to the unguent on the skin, Rome’s perfumes carried not only fragrance but also the weight of empire—distilling identity, hierarchy, and memory **into the air itself**. ### Frontinus: Rome’s Master of Strategy and Water URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/frontinus-rome-master-of-strategy-and-water/ Last updated: 2025-09-18T23:24:46.000Z Few Romans embodied the marriage of war and order as completely as Sextus Julius Frontinus. A soldier, senator, governor, and author, he left behind two works that capture the essence of Rome’s might: the [*Strategemata*](https://amzn.to/4mrLuye?ref=romanempiretimes.com), a manual of military ruses drawn from history, and [*De aquaeductu urbis Romae*](https://amzn.to/4nm9PXm?ref=romanempiretimes.com), the first great treatise on Rome’s water system. His life and writings reveal not only the ingenuity of a commander but also the meticulous care of an administrator charged with sustaining the world’s largest city. ### An Aristocrat at the Summit of Roman Politics In [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) of the late first century A.D. few aristocrats could compete with the preeminence of Sextus Iulius Frontinus. His career spanned consulships in 72/73, the governorship of Britain under [Vespasian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/), command of the Lower German army between 81 and 83/4, and the proconsulship of Asia around 84–85\. Under Nerva, he assumed control of the city’s water supply, and his prominence only grew with the rare distinction of near-consecutive consulships: suffect consul in 98 and ordinarius in 100 under [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/). Such repeated honors were unheard of outside the imperial family, marking him as a figure of extraordinary influence. [Pliny the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/) reflected this status when he described Frontinus as a *princeps vir* and *spectatissimus* in the eyes of the state. > “For Frontinus was a man of the highest distinction, and, as our State judged, the most eminent of citizens.” [*Epistulae*](https://amzn.to/4pr0cIF?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 4.8.3 > “…Frontinus, who was considered by our State the most conspicuous and distinguished man of his time.” [*Epistulae*](https://amzn.to/4pr0cIF?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 5.1.5 [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) too judged him to be “*vir magnus quantum licebat*”, as great a man as the times would allow. > “He was a great man so far as it was possible in those times.” Tacitus, [*Agricola*](https://amzn.to/4ppJ3Pn?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 17.2 His military reputation matched his political one. Aelian recalled conversations with him: > “…after talking at Formiae with the distinguished consular Frontinus, a man of great reputation by virtue of his experience in war, I was inspired to pursue the study of tactics.” Aelian, [*Tactica*](https://amzn.to/46a8oW6?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Later, Vegetius singled him out from earlier military writers, noting that his *industria* had won the approval of [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/trajan-bridge-ancient-world-first-to-surpass-1km-kilometer-2000-years-ago/). > “Frontinus also wrote on military science; his industry in this respect was approved by the deified Trajan.” Vegetius, [*Epitoma Rei Militaris*](https://amzn.to/4gw62UN?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 2.3.7 Such testimonies reveal a man whose writings, positions, and achievements combined to make him both an authority and an exemplar. ![A portrait gravure of Sextus Iulius Frontinus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-portrait-gravure-of-Sextus-Iulius-Frontinus.jpg) A portrait gravure of Sextus Iulius Frontinus. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### The Strategemata: Pragmatism or Politics? Frontinus’ *Strategemata*, written during [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/)’s reign, set down his military experience in the form of practical examples. These anecdotes were meant to instruct, but they also helped shape his public image. Some see the work as cautious and deliberately apolitical, while others suggest that its praise of [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/dining-with-domitian-and-the-enigma-of-domitian-black-dinner/)’s generalship might have carried a subtle undercurrent of criticism, expressed more in what Frontinus left unsaid than in what he wrote. Yet the evidence suggests otherwise. Domitian appears more often than any other emperor in the *Strategemata*, and his portrayal is consistently complimentary. Frontinus even inserts himself into one example, serving under Domitian’s command, thereby linking his own authority with the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/the-year-of-the-four-emperors/)’s. Rather than subversion, this presents a deliberate alignment with the regime. ### Between Domitian and Trajan The question then arises: what became of this alignment after Domitian’s death in 96? Unlike Pliny or [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/), Frontinus did not join the chorus of denunciation. His *De Aquaeductu*, written under Nerva and [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/), shows no attempt to distance himself from his earlier support. Pliny hints that Frontinus was not inclined to agonize about the past, but this was not mere temperament—it reflected security. Frontinus was too powerful a figure to need to excuse his conduct under Domitian. The *Strategemata*, far from being a “simply antiquarian” exercise, was part of Frontinus’ self-fashioning: a demonstration of his experience, his alignment with the ruling power, and his authority in military science. It secured his standing under Domitian and did not hinder his influence under [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/). Through both office and authorship, Frontinus emerged as a statesman whose mastery of strategy extended beyond the battlefield into the political arena. ![A page of the French translation of Frontinus’s Strategemata by Jean de Rouvroy](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-page-of-the-French-translation-of-Frontinus---s-Strategemata-by-Jean-de-Rouvroy.jpg) A page of the French translation of Frontinus’s Strategemata by Jean de Rouvroy. Public domain ### Britain’s Future Governor in Training The Second Adiutrix and the Thirteenth Gemina had marched north from Italy by the west-Alpine passes, crossing directly through the Lingones’ homeland on their route to Tréves. Their passage explains the final submission of the tribe recorded by Frontinus. The revolt ended without bloodshed, enabling Cerialis to turn his attention to Civilis and the lower Rhine. Of these two legions, the Thirteenth was an old Pannonian unit that had distinguished itself in the fighting against Vitellius. Its commander, Vedius Aquila, was still alive and apparently secure in his post, since Tacitus would surely have mentioned his removal or death. With so many new commands already to be filled after the civil wars, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) was unlikely to replace him. That left II Adiutrix, the brand-new legion, in need of strong leadership. Placing Frontinus at its head would have been both practical and politically sound. The[ legion](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-mystery-of-the-lost-roman-legion-the-ninths-final-march/) did not remain long in Germany. Once Civilis was crushed, Cerialis was dispatched to govern Britain. He took II Adiutrix with him, replacing the Fourteenth Legion, which was reassigned to Upper Germany. If Frontinus had been its commander during the submission of the Lingones, he would still have held that command through part of Cerialis’ subsequent northern operations. In this way, he acquired direct experience of British affairs before becoming governor himself in 74\. This conclusion is more than a small biographical note. The Flavian regime faced the challenge of stabilizing Britain while simultaneously pushing Rome’s frontier further north. The province was unsettled, and decisive action was expected. Cerialis, Agricola, and, as the evidence suggests, Frontinus all came to their governorships with prior knowledge of the province, enabling them to act with confidence. Frontinus’ brief remark in the *Strategemata*, long puzzling to scholars, therefore has greater weight. It shows that he too had been tested in the field before taking command of Britain, placing him on the same level as his more famous contemporaries. He did not arrive as an administrator alone, but as a soldier who had already dealt with the challenges of the land he would govern. ![Illuminated manuscript from Sextus Julius Frontinus’s Strategemata](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Illuminated-manuscript-from-Sextus-Julius-Frontinus---s-Strategemata.jpg) Illuminated manuscript from Sextus Julius Frontinus’s Strategemata. Public domain ### A Tradition of Cunning: Frontinus and the Roman Art of Stratagems The genre of stratagem collections had deep roots in both Greece and Rome. In Greece, the recording of clever ruses in war grew naturally out of the narratives of Homer and Herodotus, where cunning was celebrated alongside bravery. By the fourth century BCE it had developed into a distinct form of military writing, designed to instruct by example. Such material could be gathered for rhetorical training or incorporated into broader tactical manuals, like the Strategika of Aeneas Tacticus or Pyrrhus’ Tactica. Rome inherited and adapted these traditions. Funeral laudations of great men included martial exempla, reinforcing the prestige of ancestral cunning, while Valerius Maximus in the early empire compiled the *Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium libri IX*, which devoted a chapter to stratagems. Yet it was Frontinus who produced the earliest surviving independent collection of stratagems. His *Strategemata*, though conceived as a supplement to a now-lost treatise on the *scientia rei militaris*, became the most important Roman example of the genre. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Closeup-of-the-Frontinus-Gate-in-Hi--rapolis-1.jpg) ## Frontinus’ work belongs to what can be called a golden age for stratagem collections, beginning with his own and ending with that of Polyaenus. Closeup of the Frontinus Gate in Hiérapolis. Credits: Emmanuel PARENT, CC BY-NC 2.0 After Polyaenus, the genre largely disappeared until the Byzantine period. Frontinus assembled 583 examples of cunning deeds of commanders (*sollertia ducum facta*) to inspire future generals to attempt similar feats. He stressed the practical utility of the collection, explaining in the preface that it had been carefully arranged for quick consultation. The first three books cover stratagems before battle, during and after battle, and in siege warfare, while the fourth gathers examples under the broader heading of strategika. Each book opens with an index of tactical categories, and under each category the exempla are grouped by the names of the generals or peoples who employed them. This pragmatic design becomes clearer when compared with Polyaenus’ Strategika, written during the Parthian War of [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-marcus-aurelius-meditations-survive/) and [Lucius Verus](https://romanempiretimes.com/rethinking-lucius-verus-through-sources-and-historiography/). Polyaenus’ work was more expansive and literary, arranging its 900 examples thematically, ethnographically, and geographically, and even dedicating sections to barbarians or to his Macedonian ancestors. His aim seems partly to have been complementing rather than competing with Frontinus, but also to indulge a contemporary taste for biography and cultural identity. The result was more “readable” as literature, but less directly suited for military reference than the sharply practical layout of Frontinus’ *Strategemata*. The insistence on practicality was not mere pretense. Roman culture valued learning by example, whether through elders, speeches, or books. Frontinus himself, in the preface to his *De Aquaeductu*, says that he wrote that work to train himself for an unfamiliar office, preferring to learn from theory rather than from assistants. The *Strategemata* reflects the same spirit: it was a literary product rooted in his own practice, intended to prepare future generals. ![The Frontinus Gate, the monumental entrance to the Roman city flanked by two round towers, on the basis of a dedication to Domitian on the gate's facade, in the Ancient Greek city of Hierapolis, in modern Turkey](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/The-Frontinus-Gate--the-monumental-entrance-to-the-Roman-city-flanked-by-two-round-towers--on-the-basis-of-a-dedication-to-Domitian-on-the-gate-s-facade--in-the-Ancient-Greek-city-of-Hierapolis--in-modern-Turkey.jpg) The Frontinus Gate, the monumental entrance to the Roman city flanked by two round towers, on the basis of a dedication to Domitian on the gate's facade, in the Ancient Greek city of Hierapolis, in modern Turkey. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 To dismiss his stated motivation as just a literary convention would be unfair. In a society without formal institutions for teaching strategy, such manuals offered a real means of instruction. Even [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/), who boasted that Rome’s great commanders learned in the field, admitted that warcraft could be studied from books. His own experience as governor of Cilicia shows him taking tactical advice from a colleague who had drawn it from written manuals. This background explains how stratagems circulated among commanders and historians alike. Tacitus describes Petilius Cerialis sparing the property of Julius Civilis while ravaging the Batavian countryside and calls it *nota arte ducum*—a familiar stratagem. records the same ruse under Dionysius I, noting that many generals had used it. Such overlaps suggest that military treatises played a part, alongside history, in transmitting knowledge of tactics. Frontinus could not control who read his work; its clear organization would have made it valuable not just for soldiers but also for historians, lawyers, and orators seeking vivid examples. The bulk of the *Strategemata* looks to the past. Out of 583 examples, 567 come from Greek, Hellenistic, or Republican Roman history. This emphasis reflected both the available source material—especially writers like Valerius Maximus—and a cultural preference for ancient over recent exempla. Roman literary taste gave pride of place to the authority of antiquity. Cicero himself insisted on the superior weight of older examples, and Quintilian echoed the same view. Tacitus and Pliny the Younger occasionally defended the relevance of recent cases, which suggests that the prevailing opinion leaned toward the authority of the past. This tendency was part of the wider literary culture of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), which often preferred the models of antiquity to contemporary references. (*Frontinus and Domitian: the politics of the Strategemata, by S.J.V. Malloch*) ![A Roman coin depicting Sextus Julius Frontinus, found in Smyrna, Ionia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-Roman-coin-depicting-Sextus-Julius-Frontinus--found-in-Smyrna--Ionia.jpg) A Roman coin depicting Sextus Julius Frontinus, found in Smyrna, Ionia. Public domain ### Frontinus and the water supply of Rome [The aqueducts of Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/marvel-ancient-roman-aqueducts/), admired since antiquity, are understood today above all through the work of Sextus Julius Frontinus. Appointed *curator aquarum* under Nerva, he left the *De aquaeductu urbis Romae*, the only surviving ancient treatise on [the city’s water supply](https://romanempiretimes.com/romans-consumed-250-gallons-of-water-per-person-daily-why-is-this-important-for-modern-cities/). In it, Frontinus described Rome’s network of [aqueducts](https://romanempiretimes.com/aqua-virgo-a-2000-year-roman-aqueduct-that-still-works/), their capacities, and their distribution within the city. Though archaeology continues to refine our picture, his treatise remains the foundation for any study of how water was managed and consumed in the capital, offering invaluable insight into where, when, and why water was needed in ancient Rome. Metropolitan Rome, the *domina orbis*, could boast one of the greatest treasures of her empire: an abundant and ever-flowing public water supply. From Strabo onward, visitors to the Eternal City marveled at the aqueducts, not only for their utility but for their monumental grandeur. In 97 CE, as already mentioned, Sextus Julius Frontinus was appointed by Emperor Nerva to the office of *curator aquarum*, charged with overseeing this system. He represented the model of a senior senator working in close partnership with the princeps for the good of the commonwealth. For Frontinus, the aqueducts stood as monuments of Roman greatness, more impressive in their practical service than the pyramids were in their spectacle. In his *De Aquaeductu Urbis Romae*, composed after Nerva’s death as Trajan prepared to assume power—a succession in which Frontinus himself seems to have had influence—he outlines his duties, responsibilities, and achievements during about a year in office. The work provides a sketch of the history of Rome’s aqueducts, detailed technical data on sources and delivery, verbatim quotations of legal documents, and reflections from an administrator’s perspective. Yet it is not an engineering manual, nor a fiscal record, nor a handbook for future curators. Modern readers, often more eager to extract information than to read it as a literary text, have sometimes overvalued or undervalued Frontinus accordingly. The truth is that we cannot be sure of the purpose he intended. What remains certain is that nothing else quite like *De Aquaeductu* survives from the ancient world, making it a unique and enigmatic window into the infrastructure and ideals of imperial Rome. ![Frontinus’s Map of Aqueducts](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Frontinus---s-Map-of-Aqueducts.jpg) Frontinus’s Map of Aqueducts. Public domain ### Frontinus’ *De Aquaeductu*: Records, Reflections, and the Enigma of a Roman Commentarius In the prologue to his *De Aquaeductu*, Frontinus describes the work as a *commentarius*, a collection first intended for his own instruction. Yet its contents show a wider purpose. He offers data on each aqueduct—their builders, dates, sources, lengths, and delivery points—along with information on the distribution of water by pipes, supply quantities, and the categories of use, whether public, private, or imperial. He also records legal provisions governing water rights, maintenance, and penalties for abuse. But Frontinus does more than compile lists. Throughout the booklet he adds commentary, criticism, and plans for reform, including a careful review of official water figures and proposals for improvement. In doing so, he created a hybrid record: both archive and analysis. Though styled as a modest aid for personal reference, *De Aquaeductu* clearly addressed a broader audience, setting out the duties and achievements of Rome’s curator aquarum. Neither technical manual nor simple administrative guide, the work stands as a unique specimen of Roman literature—and the only surviving text of its kind from the ancient world. ![Aqueduct of Peyrou, Montpellier](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Aqueduct-of-Peyrou--Montpellier.jpg) Aqueduct of Peyrou, Montpellier. Credits: Wolfgang Staudt, CC BY 2.0 ### From Personal Notes to Public Report Although Frontinus described his *De Aquaeductu* as a commentarius for his own reference, the text goes far beyond private notes. It presents findings, criticisms, and reforms in a literary form clearly intended for an audience larger than a single successor. That audience was the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) and, importantly, the new [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/). The work reflects not only the duties of a diligent administrator but also the ideals and self-presentation of a senior senator. Some read it as an administrative report, others as political propaganda, a senatorial manifesto, or even as a pamphlet meant to announce the restoration of discipline in the water supply system. Whatever its precise purpose, *De Aquaeductu* stands as both a record of Rome’s aqueducts and a testament to Frontinus’ authority, character, and political role. ### Duty, Reform, and the Grandeur of Rome’s Waters From his opening words—*res ab imperatore delegata, mihi ab Nerva Augusto* (“A task entrusted by the emperor, to me by Nerva Augustus.” )—to his closing lines, where he presents himself as the intercessor for those seeking the *indulgentia principis*,( the indulgence (or leniency/favor) of the emperor) Frontinus’ *De Aquaeductu* reveals the image of a conscientious public servant. For him, effective administration required energetic and personal involvement. Only direct, first-hand knowledge of the system under his care could free the curator from reliance on subordinates. The text reflects this conviction: his reforms, aimed at stamping out fraud among lower officials, stand in sharp contrast to the negligence of his predecessors. ![A Glass barrel jug, attributed to Frontinus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-Glass-barrel-jug--attributed-to-Frontinus.jpg) A Glass barrel jug, attributed to Frontinus. Credits: The MET, Public domain Another theme runs alongside this: the curator’s duty to fulfill the expectations of the emperor who appointed him. Responsibility for Rome’s water supply rested on both princeps and curator, and only close cooperation between them could ensure success. This partnership had unequal parts, but the aqueducts—among the brightest jewels in Rome’s imperial crown—demanded such collaboration. Frontinus saw this relationship not as an ideal but as inherent in the office itself, established by [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) in 11 BCE to perpetuate the services once provided by Marcus Agrippa. Beginning with his lavish aedileship in 33 BCE, Agrippa had personally financed new aqueducts and employed slaves for their upkeep. After his death, Augustus inherited these resources and assumed the larger burden himself, while entrusting routine administration to a senatorial curator. The prestige of the office was high, honoring Agrippa’s legacy, and Augustus’ choice of Messala Corvinus as first curator underscored its dignity. By Frontinus’ time, more than a century later, the system had changed.[ Claudius ](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/)had doubled the water supply by building two new aqueducts and funding them at his own expense. He also created a parallel administrative branch staffed by imperial [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) and freedmen, which may have overshadowed the senatorial curator. Whatever the circumstances, Frontinus portrays the administration he inherited as disorganized and ineffective. His diligentia restored order. He disciplined the workforce, clarified duties within the service, and redefined the curatorial office itself. ![The public latrines along Frontinus Street, in Hierapolis](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/The-public-latrines-along-Frontinus-Street--in-Hierapolis.jpg) The public latrines along Frontinus Street, in Hierapolis. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 Guided by the legislative acts that had established the post, he sought not to invent a new role but to restore its senatorial dignity. To praise Rome’s aqueducts was to praise Rome itself. In recounting their history, he honored their *auctores*, the great figures who had built them, and positioned himself in their line. Antiquarian touches appear—references to Appius Claudius’ intrigues, Marcius Rex’s triumph, legal extracts from the archives, even trivia from Ateius Capito—but his strongest words are reserved for the structures themselves. These aqueducts, he insisted, surpassed the most wondrous monuments of earlier civilizations, for they were both useful and grand. Their upkeep was essential, *cum magnitudinis Romani imperii vel praecipuum sit indicium*—a foremost sign of Rome’s imperial greatness. They provided for the public needs of the capital, safeguarded the health of its citizens, and gave to the *regina et domina orbis* —queen and mistress of the world, Rome— the wholesome atmosphere befitting her supremacy. (*"Frontinus: De aquaeductu urbis Romae". Cambridge classical texts and commentaries. Editors: J. Diggle, N. Hopkinson, J.G.F Powell, M.D. Reeve, D.N. Sedley, R.J. Tarrant. Edited with introduction and commentary by R. H. Rodgers, Professor of Classics, The University of Vermont*) --- Frontinus stands at Rome’s hinge between war and order. Under Domitian he codified the ruses that steady armies; under Nerva and Trajan he restored the discipline that sustains a city. Read together, his books reveal one ethic—clarity, duty, and **a loyalty that kept Rome’s power moving**. ### Galen of Pergamon: Rome’s Most Famous Physician URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/galen-of-pergamon-rome-most-famous-physician-galenus/ Last updated: 2025-09-17T21:54:33.000Z He began his career in the blood and dust of the gladiatorial arena, stitching wounds and saving fighters in Pergamon’s amphitheater. Yet Galen would rise far beyond the roar of the crowds, becoming the most celebrated physician of the Roman world. Called to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/), he served emperors, dazzled audiences with his public demonstrations, and wrote works that defined medicine for more than a thousand years. ### Healing in the Heart of Rome Today Galen of Pergamon is remembered as the most prolific medical author of antiquity, whose writings shaped education for centuries across Byzantium and medieval Europe. Yet Galen never saw himself chiefly as an anatomist or theorist. At his core, he was a practicing doctor—one who spent decades treating patients in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) from the 160s until his death sometime after 203 CE. His clientele ranged from emperors such as [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-marcus-aurelius-meditations-survive/) and their households to ordinary people met in the streets, peasants from the countryside, and even slaves brought to his home clinic. In a lost work, surviving only in Arabic, Galen claimed never to have charged a fee. The hundreds of patient stories scattered through his writings paint a picture not of an aloof court physician, but of a public figure known across [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/), stopped in the street, challenged to debate, and surrounded by students, servants, and supporters. Practicing medicine in the [Roman capital](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) demanded both skill and courage. There were no antibiotics, anaesthetics, or sanitation. In cramped, foul-smelling rooms, Galen tended the sick as they burned with fever, convulsed, vomited, or slipped into death. Rome’s teeming streets were rife with infection, and life expectancy was brutally short. Malaria was common; Galen classified fevers by their rhythms—daily, every other day, or every three days—echoing the traditions of Hippocrates. ![Line engraving of Galen](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Line-engraving-of-Galen.jpg) Line engraving of Galen. Credits: Wellcome Collection, CC BY 4.0 He also faced waves of smallpox, the “great plague” that first struck in 166 CE and ravaged the empire for years. At Aquileia he treated stricken soldiers as the disease swept through the [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/); later in Rome, he lost friends and even most of his household slaves to the [epidemic](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-roman-pandemics-and-plagues-allowed-ecosystems-to-recover-from-pollution/). Other ailments included tuberculosis, snakebites, wounds, and countless chronic afflictions. Galen examined his patients with relentless attention. He felt for minute shifts in pulse and temperature, studied their bodily fluids, and listened closely to their own words about pain or discomfort. He probed their recent histories for clues—diet, travel, or emotional upheaval—and even diagnosed one man with a swallowed leech after he admitted drinking from a filthy fountain. Another, overheated and distraught after a quarrel at the [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), collapsed into fever. Galen believed emotional states like anxiety and anger could trigger or worsen illness, and he described cases of melancholy rooted in excessive worry, such as the patient convinced Atlas would one day drop the sky. His treatments were intimate and often intense. Galen visited homes, bathed patients, cooked for them, massaged their bodies, and administered purgatives or bloodletting. He could be ruthless—on one occasion bleeding a man so copiously that rival doctors joked he had butchered him like an animal. Yet Galen refused to abandon even the dying, insisting that honesty in prognosis, rather than withdrawal, protected a physician’s reputation. Most of his detailed case histories center on educated men of his own class, but Galen also treated women, children, and [slaves.](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) He respected their modesty—asking midwives to handle intimate procedures—but otherwise offered the same close care as with his male patients. His writings reveal a man both shrewd and uncompromising, whose identity rested not on theories but on what he called his “deeds among the patients.” Though later generations would dismiss many of his physiological ideas, Galen’s relentless clinical practice secured his place as one of the true founders of Western medicine. (*The art of medicine. Galen and his patients, by Susan Mattern History Department, University of Georgia, Athens*) ![Image from the bottom panel of the title page to the 1541 Junta edition of Galen's Works, depicting Galen demonstrating that the recurrent laryngeal nerves render an animal voiceless when cut](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Image-from-the-bottom-panel-of-the-title-page-to-the-1541-Junta-edition-of-Galen-s-Works--depicting-Galen-demonstrating-that-the-recurrent-laryngeal-nerves-render-an-animal-voiceless-when-cut.jpg) Image from the bottom panel of the title page to the 1541 Junta edition of Galen's Works, depicting Galen demonstrating that the recurrent laryngeal nerves render an animal voiceless when cut. Public domain ### From Pergamon to Rome Galen was born in September 129 CE in Pergamon, a flourishing city on the Ionian coast of Asia Minor, and he lived into the second decade of the third century, most likely dying in Rome in his eighties. Over this long and productive life, he dictated a staggering number of works—often several at once to relays of scribes—on subjects ranging from medicine and philosophy to philology and literary criticism. Many of these writings are now lost, yet what remains shows the scope of his intellect. He came from a prosperous family. His father, Nicon, was an architect and [engineer](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-engineering-the-backbone-of-an-empire/), a man Galen admired deeply for his moral and intellectual virtues. His mother, by contrast, he remembered as quarrelsome and prone to fits of violence. From his father, Galen received not only a fine education in grammar, [mathematics](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-ancient-romans-calculate/), and logic, but also a model of integrity and a disdain for wealth and reputation. He began studying philosophy at fourteen with teachers from the major schools—Platonist, Aristotelian, [Stoic](https://romanempiretimes.com/stoic-in-the-sauna-why-a-baiae-bathhouse-linked-to-cicero-is-deliciously-ironic/), and Epicurean—though he often criticized their arguments. He seemed destined for a philosopher’s career until, guided by a dream, Nicon directed his son toward medicine. Galen pursued his medical studies with characteristic determination. In Pergamon he trained under Satyrus, whom he later accused of misinterpreting Hippocrates. After his father’s death in 149 CE, he inherited a fortune and set out to broaden his education, studying in Smyrna under Pelops, a prominent Rationalist physician, and attending the lectures of the Platonist Albinus. ![The Asclepion (the Sanctuary of Asclepius) below the Ancient Greek city of Pergamon, in modern Turkey.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/The-Asclepion--the-Sanctuary-of-Asclepius--below-the-city-of-Pergamon.jpg) The Asclepion (the Sanctuary of Asclepius) below the Ancient Greek city of Pergamon, in modern Turkey. Credits: Hugh Llewelyn, CC BY-SA 2.0 He traveled further to Corinth and then Alexandria in search of Numisianus, the leading anatomist of the day. Returning to Pergamon in 157 CE, Galen was appointed physician to the local [gladiatorial school](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/)—“*even though I was young, only 28*,” he recalled. The position gave him unrivaled training in trauma and surgery, and he proudly noted that while his predecessors had lost many fighters, he “*hardly lost a single patient*.” His contract was renewed four times, and he held the post until 161. Soon after, he left Pergamon for Rome. He attributed this decision partly to unrest at home—describing it with the grave word *stasis*—and partly to his own ambitions. Before arriving, he traveled widely through the eastern Mediterranean, investigating herbs, minerals, and remedies. He recorded plant names in Thrace and Macedonia, explored Cypriot copper mines in search of medicinal ore, and even ventured to the Dead Sea in Palestine to study bitumen. In Rome, Galen’s ascent was, by his own account, dazzling. He claimed that his brilliance alone secured him success, though his family’s connections surely helped. He quickly moved in elite circles, impressing philosophers as well as physicians. Early in his Roman career he recounted a case that won him fame: in the street he encountered the philosopher Glaucon, who tested him by bringing him to a patient suffering from diarrhea often mistaken for dysentery. Galen diagnosed liver inflammation after observing bloody serum in the stool and confirming it by palpation and pulse. The patient, himself a doctor, had wrongly treated himself for pleurisy. Galen stunned Glaucon further by predicting the man’s intermittent cough, which occurred moments later. > “From this time onwards,” Galen recalled, > “Glaucon held both myself and the entire medical art in the highest regard, whereas previously he had not esteemed it highly, simply because he had never come across men worthy of respect who were versed in it” Galen*,* [*On the Affected Parts*](https://amzn.to/4ns7Fpz?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ![A gravure of Galen](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-gravure-of-Galen.jpg) A gravure of Galen. Public domain For Galen, the lesson was clear: physicians must distinguish which symptoms belong uniquely to a disease, which appear frequently, and which only rarely. But skill alone was not enough—one also had to seize opportunities. > “For while good fortune often provides many opportunities for achieving a great reputation, still most people are unable to avail themselves of them on account of their ignorance” Galen, [*On the Affected Parts*](https://amzn.to/4ns7Fpz?ref=romanempiretimes.com) This story, like others Galen preserved, highlights both his sharp diagnostic eye and his flair for self-presentation. He wanted to be respected as both a philosopher and a physician, and in Rome he achieved just that. (*The man and his work, by R. J. Hankinson in The Cambridge Companion to Galen*) ![Statue of Galen in the Faculty of Medicine of Bahia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Statue-of-Galen-in-the-Faculty-of-Medicine-of-Bahia.jpg) Statue of Galen in the Faculty of Medicine of Bahia. Credits: Paul R. Burley, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### Plague, Emperors, and Galen’s Place in Society In 166 CE a devastating [pandemic](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-roman-pandemics-and-plagues-allowed-ecosystems-to-recover-from-pollution/) swept through the Roman Empire, carried west by the army returning from [Lucius Verus](https://romanempiretimes.com/rethinking-lucius-verus-through-sources-and-historiography/)’ Parthian campaign. At this moment Galen abruptly departed Rome for Pergamon—whether, as he sometimes claimed, to escape the plague, or simply to avoid being detained by the emperors. Yet in 168 he was summoned back, joining [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-stoic-emperor-how-marcus-aurelius-outwitted-death-in-the-germanic-wilds/) and Lucius Verus at Aquileia in northern Italy as the disease tore through the ranks. Lucius himself succumbed, and Galen, overwhelmed by patients, later recalled tending countless victims of what he called “*the great plague*.” By his own account, Galen escaped following the army to the front thanks to a dream in which Asclepius forbade him. From then until the end of his life he lived mainly in Italy, above all in Rome, though he continued to travel. Galen’s education had been unusually broad: not only medicine but also philosophy, mathematics, and geometry, which he considered essential for the practice of medicine. His travels and his prestigious Roman practice further marked him as a man of high social standing. He styled himself as an independently wealthy member of Pergamon’s ruling elite, the city’s decurial class, and maintained estates in Rome, Pergamon, and Campania. The question of whether Galen lived by his medical earnings remains uncertain. He avoided speaking of fees, sometimes claiming he never demanded them, though in another anecdote he admitted to accepting a lavish reward for curing a senator’s wife. In all cases, he presented himself as a man conscious of his class position. Indeed, class runs through his writings as one of their most persistent themes. To understand Galen’s world is to grasp not just his medicine, but also his self-image as a member of Rome’s intellectual and [social elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). ![A painting dubbed Medicine in the Middle Ages by Veloso Salgado, Galen is in the middle](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-painting-dubbed-Medicine-in-the-Middle-Ages-by-Veloso-Salgado--Galen-is-in-the-middle.jpg) A painting dubbed Medicine in the Middle Ages by Veloso Salgado, Galen is in the middle. Public domain ### Rome: A City of Disease and Death Galen’s case histories are vivid, but they cannot be treated as a statistical mirror of Rome’s population or its health. He selected which patients and illnesses to describe for professional and cultural reasons, and his disease categories differ so sharply from modern ones that diagnosis is often uncertain. Still, his writings, combined with other evidence, help illuminate the precarious conditions of [life in Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/). Life expectancy in the empire hovered between twenty and thirty years, and was lower in cities than in the countryside. Rome itself has been called a “death-trap.” Despite its [aqueducts](https://romanempiretimes.com/marvel-ancient-roman-aqueducts/) and [sewers](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-romans-go-to-the-toilet-and-use-urine-in-ways-we-cannot-imagine-today/), living conditions for most were squalid. Tenements were overcrowded, prone to collapse, and often without proper latrines. [Waste was dumped](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-romans-go-to-the-toilet-and-use-urine-in-ways-we-cannot-imagine-today/) into pits or the streets, alongside animal carcasses and even human corpses. Animals were sold and slaughtered in public, while water supplies could easily be contaminated. The city’s [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/), widely used for treatment and daily life, were never disinfected and often described as filthy. These conditions created fertile ground for disease: cholera, dysentery, typhoid, tetanus, parasites, and more. Malaria was perhaps the most dangerous, its fevers filling Galen’s pages and its victims especially young children and newcomers. Tuberculosis also stalked the population, cutting lives short in young adulthood. Epidemics frequently swept Rome, none more infamous than the [“great plague” beginning in 166 CE](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-antonine-plague-devastation-reshaped-roman-empire/), which modern scholars identify as smallpox. It may have killed up to 30 percent of the city’s people when it first struck. ![Map of the Roman Empire in the time of Galen](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Map-of-the-Roman-Empire-in-the-time-of-Galen.jpg) Map of the Roman Empire in the time of Galen. Credits: Wellcome Collection, CC BY 4.0 Even the rich could not escape disease, though they fared better. Aristocrats lived on Rome’s higher ground, fled to country estates in dangerous seasons, and had private baths and better [food](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/). Yet their life expectancy, like that of emperors themselves, was scarcely higher than that of the general population. Among the [poor](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/), average life expectancy may have been in the high teens, with Rome’s numbers sustained only through constant immigration. That Galen survived into his eighties was extraordinary. His writings, though often triumphant in tone, hint at a grimmer reality: every fever, every cut, every strange sensation carried the risk of death. In such conditions, medicine was not just science or skill—it was a contest for survival in which the physician’s reputation and the patient’s life were bound together in every diagnosis. ### The Survival and Transformation of Galen’s Works The writings of Galen have reached us across a long and complex journey of transmission. Roughly 170 works survive under his name, though many are fragmentary, forged, or altered through centuries of copying and translation. None of his original manuscripts remain. Alarmed by the circulation of spurious texts even in his own lifetime, Galen compiled [two catalogs](https://amzn.to/48j4dbN?ref=romanempiretimes.com)—**On My Own Books** and **On the Order of My Own Books**—to distinguish the genuine from the false. Still, because many of his works were written for friends, then copied and circulated without his approval, multiple versions of the same treatise often existed. Galen himself acknowledged the instability of the written word, noting that texts could be falsified, corrupted, or poorly composed, and should always be scrutinized. Fragments of his works survive on papyrus, and their influence in late antiquity was immense. ![An illustration from the History of medicine in pictures, Galen cupping a patient](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/An-illustration-from-the-History-of-medicine-in-pictures--Galen-cupping-a-patient.jpg) An illustration from the History of medicine in pictures, Galen cupping a patient. Credits: National Library of Medicine, Public domain Oribasius excerpted him in the fourth century; his writings shaped the Alexandrian curriculum; they were translated into Syriac in the fifth century and Arabic in the eighth; and from there, into Latin for the medieval West. Galen’s ideas dominated medical education in Europe, the Middle East, and beyond, accumulating vast traditions of commentary and interpretation in Latin, Arabic, and Hebrew. In the sixteenth century, a wave of new translations and discoveries—some genuine, some forged—renewed interest in him. The first collection of his Greek works appeared in print in 1525, allowing scholars to return directly to Galen himself. Yet this same era saw his authority challenged. Vesalius, in his groundbreaking Fabrica, honored Galen but corrected him through human dissection, exposing mistakes born of Galen’s reliance on animal anatomy. Paracelsus, more radical still, rejected textual tradition entirely, advocating medicine based on personal experience and the powers of natural substances. Over time, discoveries such as Harvey’s demonstration of blood circulation and the decline of Aristotelian natural philosophy dismantled Galen’s physiological system. Still, Galen’s therapies endured in practice long after his theories were overturned. His central place in medical history was reaffirmed in the nineteenth century, when Karl Gottlob Kühn published a monumental twenty-volume edition of Galen’s works, a collection that remains the standard today. ([*Galen and the rhetoric of healing*](https://amzn.to/4mlliFk?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Susan P. Mattern*) ![Portrait of Galen, seated and holding book](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Portrait-of-Galen--seated-and-holding-book.jpg) Portrait of Galen, seated and holding book. Credits: Wellcome Collection, CC BY 4.0 ### Galen, Diet, and the Medicine of the Elite Roughly 80 percent of the patients Galen recorded came from the social elite, with sophists representing about 46 percent and only 21 percent drawn from lower classes. Galen himself admitted that he wrote for [Greeks](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/)—or for those who, though not Greek by birth, had cultivated the qualities of [Greek culture](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/). By this he meant men educated in literature and philosophy, a group firmly rooted in the wealthy strata of society. His emphasis on dietetic medicine naturally reinforced this focus. Diet required an intimate knowledge of a patient’s lifestyle and habits—an attention to detail only the rich could afford, both in time and money. For physicians, prescribing a regimen of diet carried not only therapeutic value but also intellectual prestige. In Galen’s system, diet was the cornerstone of health. Food had the power to unbalance the humors and cause disease, or to restore harmony and prevent illness. Prevention, therefore, was always preferable to cure. By contrast, harsher measures—drugs, bloodletting, cautery, or surgery—were last resorts, used only when diet failed. This reliance on food had a moral as well as medical dimension. It reflected [Stoic ideals](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/): moderation and balance were the path to truth and to the good life. Eating thus rose above mere sustenance, acquiring a philosophical weight that gave dietetics its central place within medicine. The boundary between food and drug, however, was not fixed. Galen noted that certain substances could shift categories depending on their preparation. Edder-wort, for instance, lost its medicinal potency only after being boiled several times. ![A possible representation of Galen, the famous Roman physician, based on historical sources](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-possible-representation-of-Galen--the-famous-Roman-physician--based-on-historical-sources.jpg) A possible representation of Galen, the famous Roman physician, based on historical sources. Credits: Roman Empire Times, OpenAI For him, a food was anything that nourished without strongly altering the body, while a drug acted forcefully, as a purge, emetic, or vermifuge. Through careful preparation—cooking, seasoning, or dilution—even a drug could be transformed into food. Galen’s story is one of ambition, intellect, and endurance. From the gladiatorial school of Pergamon to the courts of emperors, he built a reputation that survived long after his own world had vanished. He saw medicine not as detached theory but as lived practice, demanding courage, skill, and moral judgment. Though many of his ideas were later overturned, his writings shaped the way physicians thought and worked for more than a millennium. To read Galen today is to glimpse not only a physician at the height of Roman power, but also a man who believed that healing was as much a measure of character as of knowledge. ### Valerian: The Only Roman Emperor Who Was Captured Alive by an Enemy URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/valerian-the-only-roman-emperor-who-was-captured-alive-by-an-enemy/ Last updated: 2025-09-14T20:05:38.000Z He was the only [Roman emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) ever taken alive by a foreign enemy. Valerian’s reign, beginning in 253 CE, unfolded during one of the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/)’s darkest hours—a time of invasions, [plague](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-roman-pandemics-and-plagues-allowed-ecosystems-to-recover-from-pollution/), and internal unrest. His capture by the Persian king Shapur I in 260 was more than a personal humiliation; it was a blow to Roman prestige that shook the foundations of imperial power and became a symbol of the empire’s vulnerability in the age of crisis. ### Valerian in Chains: Rome’s Emperor as a Trophy of Defeat The capture of Emperor Valerian (r. 253–260) by the Sasanian Persians in Syria stands as one of the most infamous defeats in Roman history. Zosimus described it as: > “the greatest shame to the name of the Romans for future generations” While other Roman commanders had lost [battles](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-battle-of-cannae-romes-darkest-day/), [armies](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/), and even their lives in the East, Valerian’s survival as a living trophy for Persia was without precedent. Roman political culture placed supreme value on martial courage, and [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/) followed [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/)’ example by framing their role through displays of *virtus*. The epithet “Unconquered” (*invictus*) had by then entered official imperial usage, moving from literature and provincial inscriptions into the language of Roman power itself. Against this backdrop, Valerian’s surrender of his freedom to a foreign enemy in 260 represented a failure of unparalleled magnitude, overshadowing the deaths of [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/the-year-of-the-four-emperors/) in both foreign wars and civil strife during the same century. He became, in effect, a celebrity of defeat, whose fate allowed later writers to employ his story well beyond the event itself. Yet, despite its importance, Valerian’s fall has often been absorbed into the broad category of the “third-century crisis.” Modern historians usually reduce it to a passing entry in surveys of imperial disasters or as a prelude in accounts of his son [Gallienus](https://romanempiretimes.com/gallienus-the-emperor-who-reformed-rome-amid-ruin/) (r. 260–268). Placed alongside [Decius](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-decius-persecutor-of-christians-or-restorer-of-rome/)’ death against the Goths in 251, it marks the lowest ebb of Roman foreign policy and frontier security. When scholars have sought to reconstruct the disaster in detail, they have typically focused on chronology, the military context, or the trustworthiness of ancient testimony—debating whether Valerian was humiliated in captivity, whether his body was desecrated after death, and whether he was an incompetent general or a principled [Roman aristocrat](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). These approaches rest on privileging some sources as more reliable than others to piece together the most accurate version of events. ![Bust of Roman Emperor Valerian, in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Bust-of-Roman-Emperor-Valerian--in-the-Ny-Carlsberg-Glyptotek--Copenhagen.jpg) Bust of Roman Emperor Valerian, in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen. Credits: Richard Mortel, CC BY 2.0 But what if the focus shifted from reconstructing “what happened” to understanding how different narratives sought to explain an unprecedented disaster? From Persian inscriptions to late-antique fictional biographies and Christian historiography, Valerian became an irresistible figure for reinterpretation. His capture served as fertile ground for diverse traditions, confirming Gibbon’s later judgment that: > “the Pagan writers lament, the Christian insult, the misfortunes of Valerian.” 🔎 Edward Gibbon (1737–1794) was an English historian, writer, and Member of Parliament, best known for his monumental six-volume work [**The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire*](https://amzn.to/4gsvhYi?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (published between 1776 and 1788) ### The Earliest Memory of Captivity: Valerian in Shapur’s Res Gestae The first surviving record of Valerian’s capture appears in the *Res Gestae Divi Saporis* (Accomplishments of the Divine Shapur), a trilingual inscription at Naqsh-i Rustam in Iran that celebrated the deeds of Shapur I in Middle Persian, Parthian, and [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/). Although its precise date is uncertain, the text was almost certainly composed between 260 and 262, when the triumph was fresh and Valerian likely still alive, but before Shapur’s campaign against Palmyrene forces. Roman historians usually follow Mikhail Rostovtzeff’s Latin name for the text, but specialists on Persia refer to it as the Shāpūr–Ka‛ba-ye Zardošt or *ŠKZ*. In recounting the event, the scribe drew on Parthian traditions of diplomacy with Rome, offering detailed yet inaccurate information about the Roman army. The inscription treats [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/panis-quadratus-the-ancient-bread-that-fed-an-empire/) as a formidable enemy, presenting Valerian as nearly equal to Shapur himself, “king of kings.” Shapur also portrayed his campaigns not as divinely ordained conquests but as justified responses to Roman aggression. The ŠKZ narrates the climax of his third campaign in clear terms: > “And on the far side of Carrhae and Edessa \[now Harran and Şanlıurfa in Turkey\] a great battle occurred between us and the Caesar Valerian, and we took the Caesar Valerian prisoner with our own hands as well as the other leaders of the army, the praetorian prefect and the senators and the officers, all these we took in hand and deported to Persis.” ŠKZ §22, lines 24–26 ![Portrait of the Emperor Valerian, by Josiah Wedgwood](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Portrait-of-the-Emperor-Valerian--by-Josiah-Wedgwood.jpg) Portrait of the Emperor Valerian, by Josiah Wedgwood. Credits: The MET, Public domain The phrase “took in hand” (*ἐν χερσὶν ἐκρατήσαμεν*) echoes the iconography of Shapur seizing Valerian by the hand in Persian reliefs and in a cameo now in Paris. In this account, Valerian is presented not as an emperor humiliated but as part of the captured spoils, alongside his [praetorian](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/) prefect and high-ranking officers. Since the memory of victory was fresh, the ŠKZ required no further narrative about his fate as a deportee in Persia. Epigraphy and reliefs alike made the mere fact of capture the ultimate proof of Shapur’s power. Yet the inscription’s silences may hint at a hidden Roman achievement. While Shapur claims victory outside Carrhae and Edessa, those cities do not appear on his list of conquests. Some later sources suggest why: Peter the Patrician reports that the Persians bribed the Edessa garrison with seized “Syrian money” to allow a safe passage. This suggests Roman control persisted in at least one city, even if it was secured by corruption rather than valor. Zosimus, writing in the sixth century, went further by insisting that Valerian’s defeat had not allowed Persia to seize Rome’s eastern provinces. In his New History, Valerian remains a failed emperor, but not the worst: that dishonor was reserved for the Christian Jovian, who surrendered irrecoverable territory. In this way, Zosimus diminished Valerian’s disgrace by placing it within a larger arc of eastern defeats. A different lens comes from the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle, which offers a Syrian perspective from the 260s. The Sibylline Oracles, a composite collection mixing Greco-Roman myth with Jewish and Christian ideas, presented prophecy in familiar forms to persuade readers of their authenticity. Here Valerian’s defeat appears in allegory: > “The high-necked bull digging the earth with his hoofs and rousing the dust on his double horns will do much harm to the dark-hued serpent cutting a furrow with its scales; then \[the bull\] will be destroyed.” The bull represents Valerian, who fought fiercely but was ultimately annihilated by the Persian serpent. The oracle passes over the detail of capture, emphasizing instead his obstinate struggle and utter downfall. In this prophetic vision, Roman calamity sets the stage for renewed local resistance by leaders such as Uranius Antoninus of Emesa and Odaenathus of Palmyra. Thus, in the Syrian imagination, Valerian’s defeat did not carry the weight of an imperial crisis; instead, it heralded the rise of saviors who would eventually strike back at Persia. ![A Bishapur Bas-Relief that shows Roman Emperor Gordian III defeated and trampled under Shapur's horse, while Shapur has Valerian by the hand to underline Valerian's slavehood](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Another-Bishapur-Bas-Relief-that-shows-Roman-Emperor-Gordian-III-defeated-and-trampled-under-Shapur-s-horse--while-Shapur-has-Valerian-by-the-hand-to-underline-Valerian-s-slavehood.jpg) A Bishapur Bas-Relief that shows Roman Emperor Gordian III defeated and trampled under Shapur's horse, while Shapur has Valerian by the hand to underline Valerian's slavehood. Credits: youngrobv, CC BY-NC 2.0 ### Educated Folklore: Valerian’s Defeat in the Historia Augusta A century after Valerian’s capture, Roman imagination reshaped the disaster through the [*Historia Augusta*](https://amzn.to/3K3leNm?ref=romanempiretimes.com), a compilation of imperial biographies notorious for blending invention with history. Although unreliable for reconstructing events of the third century, it offers a glimpse into how later Romans remembered the past as a form of educated folklore. Much of the *Life of Valerian* is lost, and what remains is largely fabricated correspondence. From the vantage point of the late fourth century, the author claimed that Shapur broadcast his triumph across the East, receiving four kinds of responses. One group—including the Bactrians, Iberians, Albanians, and Tauroscythians—allegedly rejected Shapur’s letters and pledged their support to Rome in freeing Valerian. This list, spanning from border kingdoms like Iberia and Albania to distant Bactria and the anciently described Tauroscythians, displays both geographic erudition and the assertion of Rome’s friends on every frontier. It also reflects the strategic importance of the Caucasus—the “Mountain Arena” of Roman–Persian rivalry—as described by Elizabeth Fowden. (*Elizabeth Key Fowden is a noted historian specializing in the cultural, religious, and political interactions between Rome and Persia during Late Antiquity and the early Islamic period*.) 🔎 The phrase “the Mountain Arena” is employed by Craig H. Caldwell (drawing on Fowden’s work) to describe the strategically vital Caucasus region—this mountainous zone formed the contested “middle ground” between the Roman and Persian empires. Its control influenced the outcome of major wars between the two powers. Fowden herself uses the term “Barbarian Plain” to designate the Syrian steppe region centered around Rusafa, a frontier zone critically situated between Rome and Iran. This area is depicted as ethnically diverse and culturally dynamic, with its local religious and martial identities shaped by proximity to both imperial spheres. **Thus, “Mountain Arena” refers to the wider Caucasus frontier, while “Barbarian Plain” refers more specifically to the Syrian frontier where Fowden concentrates her study.* ![Shapur I captures the Roman emperor Valerian](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Shapur-I-captures-the-Roman-emperor-Valerian.jpg) Shapur I captures the Roman emperor Valerian. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times The Armenian king’s supposed reply offers a prophetic caution. He admitted both Shapur’s success and Armenia’s role in Valerian’s downfall, but warned: > “therefore, you have captured one old man but have made all the nations of the world extremely hostile to you”. Armenia’s position between [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) and Persia made any war ruinous for its people, an observation well-suited to the fourth-century reality of a divided Armenia caught between empires. Another letter, attributed to a Cadusian ruler north of Media, urged Shapur to restore Valerian, arguing that a magnanimous gesture would bring him greater honor. It called Valerian “leader of leaders” (*princeps principum*), elevating the captive emperor to a rank almost equal with the Persian “king of kings.” This appeal also invoked a recurring Roman trope: > “Romans are never more troublesome than when they are conquered” (2.2). As [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) and[ Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/) had noted in earlier defeats, disaster often sharpened Roman resolve. In this spirit, the author pointed to Galerius as the one destined to avenge Valerian and restore Roman honor ([*Life of Carinus*](https://amzn.to/3K2GuCD?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 18.3). ![Golden aureus Roman coin of Valerian, on the back side is Concordia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Golden-aureus-Roman-coin-of-Valerian--on-the-back-side-is-Concordia.jpg) Golden aureus Roman coin of Valerian, on the back side is Concordia. Credits: Classical Numismatic Group, Inc., CC BY-SA 2.5 Other letters reinforced this theme of resilience. One unnamed correspondent argued that Rome’s past enemies—the [Gauls](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/), [Carthaginians](https://romanempiretimes.com/hannibal-ad-portas-how-37-african-elephants-crossed-the-alps/), and [Mithridates of Pontus](https://romanempiretimes.com/mad-honey-warfare-how-king-mithridates-poisoned-pompeys-legions/)—had all eventually fallen under Roman power, warning Shapur that Valerian’s capture might lead to Persia’s own downfall. > “Rome, through Fate or its own virtus, is supremely powerful,” the letter declared, insisting that the emperor had been seized only “by trickery” (fraude). The *Historia Augusta* also claimed Valerian was “overcome by a kind of fated inevitability”, but sought to preserve his dignity as a great man supported by the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/). Thus, even amid fabrications, the work framed Rome as dangerous even without its emperor, Fortune as fickle, and Valerian as worthy of respect despite misfortune. The account also turned to Valerian’s son. When most Romans grieved, **Gallienus was said to have celebrated**, excusing himself by claiming his father had been captured through “eagerness for virtus”. Another explanation was that Gallienus rejoiced in freedom from his father’s famous gravitas. Philosophical asides and dark humor followed: Gallienus reportedly adapted the saying: > “I knew that my father was mortal,” and during one procession, jesters searched among Persian captives “for the emperor’s father”. Their fate, being burned alive by Gallienus’ orders, added cruelty to his portrait. The narrative closed with a reminder that Valerian never returned home, not even in death. The so-called tomb of Valerian near Milan belonged instead to his son of the same name, later marked “*Valerianus imperator*” by Claudius II. Taken together, the *Historia Augusta* reimagined Valerian’s defeat in ways that honored his memory, foreshadowed Roman revenge, and contrasted his gravitas with his son’s frivolity. In doing so, it suited a fourth-century world once again locked in eastern wars, where the desire for a new optimus princeps in the mold of [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/) or [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/10-things-you-did-not-know-about-marcus-aurelius/) shaped the storytelling of Rome’s past. ![Relief of triumph of Shapur I over Valerian at Naqsh-e Rostam depicting a famous scene in which the Roman Emperor, Valerian, is kneeling before Shapur I and asking for mercy](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Relief-of-triumph-of-Shapur-I-over-Valerian-at-Naqsh-e-Rostam-depicting-a-famous-scene-in-which-the-Roman-Emperor--Valerian--is-kneeling-before-Shapur-I-and-asking-for-mercy.jpg) Relief of triumph of Shapur I over Valerian at Naqsh-e Rostam depicting a famous scene in which the Roman Emperor, Valerian, is kneeling before Shapur I and asking for mercy. Credits: Diego Delso, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### Julian and the Silence on Valerian’s Chains A century after Valerian’s humiliation, Emperor Julian (r. 361–363) marched east against Shapur II, the great-grandson of Valerian’s captor. His army retraced the battlefields of earlier Roman–Persian wars, but Valerian’s name is strikingly absent from contemporary accounts. [Ammianus Marcellinus](https://romanempiretimes.com/ammian-or-ammianus-marcellinus-from-a-roman-soldier-to-one-of-the-best-historians-of-all-time/), who may himself have served in Julian’s Persian campaign, recalls reminders of other disasters but not Valerian. He identifies Carrhae only as: > “notable for the calamity of the Crassi and the Roman army,” Amm. Marc. [*23.3.1*](https://amzn.to/46lzYhI?ref=romanempiretimes.com) referring to [Crassus](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/)’ fatal defeat in 53 BCE. Near Dura, Julian made offerings at the tomb of the deified Gordian III. Gordian’s role in Roman–Persian history was contested: Roman tradition hailed his victory over Shapur I, while the Persian ŠKZ listed him among the king’s conquests. In addressing his troops after crossing the Euphrates, Julian invoked victorious emperors such as Trajan, [Lucius Verus](https://romanempiretimes.com/rethinking-lucius-verus-through-sources-and-historiography/), and [Septimius Severus](https://romanempiretimes.com/septimius-severus-founder-fighter-and-father-of-a-new-rome/), lamenting only in general terms: > “the unavenged shades of our butchered armies, the immensity of our losses … urge us on to the task we have undertaken, for all of us are united in our vows to remedy the past” The omission of Valerian suggests Julian’s unwillingness to acknowledge this catastrophic precedent. Yet Julian was not ignorant of Valerian’s fate. In his satirical [*Caesars*](https://amzn.to/3KmO4bl?ref=romanempiretimes.com), where a banquet of emperors is staged, “the father of Gallienus” appears with the emblems of captivity (Julian, Caes. 313B). There the jester Silenus mocks him with a line from Euripides’ [*Phoenician Women*](https://amzn.to/46tK1BM?ref=romanempiretimes.com): > “Who is the white-plumed man who stands in front to command the army?” Without granting Valerian or Gallienus a word, [Zeus](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) commands them to leave the gathering. Julian’s silence thus reflects contempt, for the disgrace of Valerian’s chains was intolerable to a ruler who sought to emulate [Alexander the Great](https://romanempiretimes.com/alexander-the-great-in-roman-thought-hero-rival-and-legend/). Indeed, in the same dialogue, Alexander derides [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) by stressing the futility of three centuries of Roman wars against Persia, which had never secured a province beyond the Tigris. In this reckoning, Valerian, though unnamed, embodied the futility that Julian wished to rise above. After Julian’s own Persian expedition ended in disaster and cost him his life, his critics used the memory he had suppressed. Gregory of Nazianzus invoked Valerian not as a persecutor of [Christians](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/), but as a cautionary parallel: another emperor who advanced too boldly into Persia and paid with ruin. Thus, Valerian re-entered the narrative of Julian’s reign only when his enemies employed the shame of the past to underscore the emperor’s defeat. ![King Shapur of Persia humiliating Emperor Valerian (Portrait of Emperor Charles V)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/King-Shapur-of-Persia-humiliating-Emperor-Valerian--Portrait-of-Emperor-Charles-V-.jpg) King Shapur of Persia humiliating Emperor Valerian (Portrait of Emperor Charles V). Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### From Persecutor to Trophy: Christian Memories of Valerian’s Captivity Unlike Julian, Christian writers insisted on remembering Valerian—but as the persecutor of their faith whose capture was merely the beginning of his punishment. The shock of his unprecedented “disappearance” demanded explanation, and Lactantius offered one in the early fourth century. In [*On the Deaths of the Persecutors*](https://amzn.to/42xPpCr?ref=romanempiretimes.com), he interpreted Valerian’s humiliation as part of God’s plan, calling it a: > “new and singular form of punishment” According to him, the emperor was stripped of both *imperium* and *libertas* as divine retribution for his crimes against Christians. Unlike other persecuting emperors who met disgraceful deaths and [*damnatio memoriae*](https://romanempiretimes.com/damnatio-memoriae-condemnation-and-eradication-in-the-political-sphere-of-rome/), Valerian lived on as a footstool for Shapur, a reversal of Roman art that had long shown Persians submitting at Roman feet. For Lactantius, this ongoing degradation surpassed Decius’ fate, whose corpse became “food for wild beasts and birds”. He even drew from the Psalms: “till I make your enemies your footstool,” linking Valerian’s abasement to Christ’s cosmic dominion (Div. inst. 4.12.17). Such imagery was so powerful that Lactantius claimed Persians despised all Romans because of the captive emperor. Gallienus’ failure to ransom his father was, in his view, not a personal flaw but a further sign of God’s wrath. The story continued after Valerian’s death, when his body was supposedly flayed and dyed red as a grotesque warning—whether or not Shapur actually preserved him in this way. Even [Diocletian](https://romanempiretimes.com/diocletian-architect-of-the-roman-empires-renewal/), Lactantius claims, was restrained by the “precedent of Valerian” (*exemplum Valeriani*) from leading an army against Persia himself. Thus, in Christian polemic, Valerian’s fate became proof that Rome’s victories were fleeting before divine justice. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Page-from-an-Imperial-Menologion--depicting-a-saint-being-beheaded-here--Polyeuctus---a-Roman-army-officer-martyred-at-Melitene--Asia-Minor--under-Emperor-Valerian-in-259.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/The-martyrdom-of-Saint-Cyprian--who-was-executed-under-Emperor-Valerian-1.jpg) ****Image #1**: Page from an Imperial Menologion, depicting a saint being beheaded here (Polyeuctus), a Roman army officer martyred at Melitene (Asia Minor) under Emperor Valerian in 259\. Credits: Walters Art Museum Illuminated Manuscripts, Public domain. ****Image #2**: The martyrdom of Saint Cyprian, who was executed under Emperor Valerian. Credits: Lawrence OP, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Eusebius of Caesarea carried this interpretation further. He cited Dionysius of Alexandria, who saw in the Apocalypse a prophecy that the “first beast” referred to Valerian, persecutor of Christians. Dionysius predicted he would rule for three-and-a-half years before God stripped him of power, and his disgrace fulfilled Isaiah’s words: > “These have chosen their own ways and their own abominations; their soul delighted in them. I will choose their delusions, and for their sins I will repay them” Valerian’s captivity, therefore, was divine punishment realized. When [Constantine ](https://romanempiretimes.com/constantine-arch-damaged-by-lightning-are-historical-monuments-ready-for-climate-change-disasters/)later celebrated his own victories, he took up this legacy. In his [*Oration to the Assembly of the Saints*](https://amzn.to/47EenUc?ref=romanempiretimes.com), Constantine singled out Valerian: > “caught and led as a prisoner in bonds with your very purple … finally, flayed and pickled at the behest of Shapur the king of the Persians, you were set up as an eternal trophy of your own misfortune!” Here, Valerian became not a Persian warning to Romans, but a Roman reminder of God’s justice. Even in diplomacy, Constantine used the precedent. In a letter to Shapur II, preserved in Eusebius’ [*Life of Constantine*](https://amzn.to/4goiean?ref=romanempiretimes.com), he referred to Valerian obliquely as: > “that one, who was driven from these \[Roman\] parts by divine wrath as by a thunderbolt … left in yours, where he caused the victory on your side to be very famous because of the shame he suffered” By reframing Valerian’s humiliation as God’s work, Constantine warned Shapur to treat Persian Christians well—or risk divine punishment himself. Later writers, however, were not satisfied. Orosius, writing after the sack of Rome in 410, insisted that Valerian’s punishment was too small a price for the blood of the martyrs. > “The incarceration of one impious man, albeit that it was forever and of a particularly vile kind, did not compensate … for the torture of so many thousands of the saints” [*Historiarum*](https://amzn.to/3VP538J?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 7.22.4. He repeated Lactantius’ image of Valerian as Shapur’s footstool but argued that God had punished the whole empire with barbarian invasions, civil wars, and torrents of blood. Valerian’s captivity was thus only one episode in a divine cycle of vengeance, insufficient to balance the weight of Christian suffering. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-fresco-depicting-Saint-Lawrence--in-the-presence-of-Emperor-Valerian--is-being-beaten-prior-to-his-execution.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Saint-Lawrence-was-arrested-under-the-Emperor-Valerian-in-258--laid-upon-a-gridiron-and-slowly-roasted-to-death--while-he-rejoiced-in-his-awful-martyrdom-and-died-praying-for-the-conversion-of-the-city-of-Rome.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-mosaic-of-Saint-Lawrence-by-Tessa-Hunkin-inside-Westminster-Cathedral--he-holds-the-martyr-s-palm--and-the-purse-which-he-was-entrusted-with-as-the-almoner-of-the-Roman-Church--in-the-background-is-the-gridiron-on-which-he-was-executed.jpg) ****Image #1**: A fresco depicting Saint Lawrence, in the presence of Emperor Valerian, is being beaten prior to his execution. Credits: Jim Forest, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0\. ****Image #2**: Saint Lawrence was arrested under the Emperor Valerian in 258, laid upon a gridiron and slowly roasted to death, while he rejoiced in his awful martyrdom and died praying for the conversion of the city of Rome. Credits: Thomas Hawk, CC BY-NC 2.0\. ****Image #3**: A mosaic of Saint Lawrence by Tessa Hunkin inside Westminster Cathedral, he holds the martyr's palm, and the purse which he was entrusted with as the almoner of the Roman Church, in the background is the gridiron on which he was executed. Credits: Lawrence OP, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 ### Valerian’s Authority in Captivity: Peter the Patrician’s Perspective Rather than emphasize themes of shame or divine retribution, the sixth-century historian Peter the Patrician approached Valerian’s disaster through the lens of a bureaucrat in [Constantinople](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/). He highlighted two diplomatic episodes—one contemporary to the emperor’s captivity and another tied to the Treaty of 298—that reveal how later Romans reflected on loyalty, authority, and imperial image. The first story concerns [Macrinus](https://romanempiretimes.com/macrinus-true-story-gladiator-2-power-player-rome-brief-emperor/), *comes* *thesaurorum* (count of the treasuries) at Samosata, who received a summons from Valerian in captivity. Shapur had allowed the official Cledonius, captured with Valerian, to deliver the request. But Macrinus refused to obey, declaring that no rational man would choose slavery over freedom and dismissing both Shapur and Valerian: > “one \[Shapur\] is an enemy, the other \[Valerian\] neither his own master nor ours.” Cledonius, however, interpreted the matter differently, insisting that his emperor still merited loyalty, and he returned to captivity beside him. Peter, trained in law, was drawn to the deeper issue—whether Valerian still retained authority as a prisoner of war. Macrinus framed his refusal in philosophical and legal terms, while Cledonius acted from personal devotion regardless of consequence. For Peter’s sixth-century audience, the account underscored enduring questions of obedience and duty within the imperial bureaucracy, framed with careful precision in his Greek translations of their official titles. Peter also recalled Valerian’s disgrace in the context of later Roman diplomacy with Persia. He noted that negotiations following Galerius’ victory in 298 included a Persian appeal to the “mutability of human affairs.” Apharbān, envoy of King Narseh, thanked Galerius for his treatment of the captured Persian royal family but added that reminder of changing fortune. The words enraged Galerius, who rebuked the Persians for recalling Valerian’s fate: > “after you had tricked \[Valerian\] with deceptions, held him to extreme old age and did not spare him a dishonorable end, then, by some abominable art, having preserved his skin, perpetrated an immortal outrage on a mortal body.” Despite such anger, Peter emphasizes that Galerius chose generosity, not vengeance. He attributes this restraint not to human fate but to Roman principle, citing Virgil’s maxim: > “to spare the subject and subdue the proud” Virgil, [*Aeneid*](https://amzn.to/4mhPMYS?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 6.853 Thus, where Shapur had sought to teach Rome a lesson with Valerian’s capture, Peter recasts Galerius as teaching the Persians what it meant to act with Roman virtue. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Bas-relief-from-the-2nd-century-AD-in-the-Tang-e-Chowgan-gorge-by-Bishapur--damaged-by-water-flowing-from-an-aqueduct.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Detail-from-the-carving--where-Valerian-as-a-slave-in-Bishapur--depicted-here-as-aiding-Shapur-onto-his-horse.jpg) ****Image #1**: Bas-relief from the 2nd century AD in the Tang-e Chowgan gorge by Bishapur, damaged by water flowing from an aqueduct. ****Image #2**: Detail from the carving, where Valerian as a slave in Bishapur, depicted here as aiding Shapur onto his horse. Credits: youngrobv, CC BY-NC 2.0 ### Shapur the Cruel: Byzantine Echoes of Valerian’s Defeat Romans not only affirmed their superiority in the face of Valerian’s humiliation but also used the story to vilify their Persian adversaries, who remained formidable foes into the sixth century. Whereas Peter the Patrician emphasized Shapur’s arrogance, Agathias painted a darker portrait of the king: > “a monster of wickedness and injustice … who set a dreadful precedent of vindictive cruelty and obscene brutality,” Agathias, [*The Histories*](https://amzn.to/4gsxC5w?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 4.24.3 by flaying Valerian alive. Agathias added that after the emperor’s death, Shapur unleashed plunder without restraint, pushing his campaigns from Syria into Cappadocia. For Agathias, writing in the reign of Justin II (565–574), the story resonated with his own age, when Rome again clashed with Persia and suffered defeats so severe that one may have driven the emperor himself into madness. Agathias’ disgust for Persia is further illustrated through a tale of Roman philosophers who sought refuge there, imagining it to be a haven for non-Christians. Yet they quickly fled, deciding that: > “despite the Persian king’s affection for them … they felt that merely to set foot on Roman territory, even if it meant instant death, was preferable to a life of distinction in Persia” Agathias, [*The Histories*](https://amzn.to/4gsxC5w?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 4.24.3 By the twelfth century, John Zonaras in his [*Epitome of Histories*](https://amzn.to/4mjIILv?ref=romanempiretimes.com) expanded on Agathias’ themes, stressing how Shapur’s cruelty deepened after Valerian’s capture and how the Persian king grew presumptuous in claiming mastery over the world. Among the most gruesome episodes is the report that Shapur, retreating toward Persia, crossed a ravine by filling it with the corpses of his Roman captives. Once the Christian version of Valerian’s humiliation had gained wide circulation, Byzantine historians added another layer: the capture of Valerian not only disgraced Rome but also corrupted Persia. Shapur’s triumph became proof of the degenerating effect of excessive victory, a theme that reinforced Byzantine moralizing about their eastern enemy across the centuries. ![The Humiliation of Emperor Valerian by Shapur, King of Persia, a painting by Hans Holbein the Younger](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/The-Humiliation-of-Emperor-Valerian-by-Shapur--King-of-Persia--a-painting-by-Hans-Holbein-the-Younger.jpg) The Humiliation of Emperor Valerian by Shapur, King of Persia, a painting by Hans Holbein the Younger. Public domain ### Al-Tabari’s Shapur: Valerian the Builder in Captivity In the tenth century, the historian Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari recorded a Sasanian perspective on Valerian’s fate, drawing from the seventh-century *Khvadhaynamagh* (Book of Kings) tradition. His [*History of the Prophets and Kings*](https://amzn.to/3IkHilU?ref=romanempiretimes.com) celebrates Shapur’s triumph not only in war but in the emperor’s long captivity. According to this account, after Valerian’s defeat—misplaced here at Antioch—he was resettled at Junday Sābūr (Gundeshapur). There, the Persian king forced “al-Riyānūs” (Valerianus) to oversee the building of a dam at Tustar (Shushtar), with Roman prisoners as the workforce. Valerian: > “held Shapur to a promise to free him once the dam was completed. It is said that Shapur took from al-Riyānūs a great financial indemnity, and set him free after cutting off his nose; others, however, say that Shapur killed him.” The error of placing the defeat at [Antioch](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) nevertheless ties symbolically to Gundeshapur, whose foundation name Beh-az-Andew-i-Shapur (“better than Antioch of Shapur”) commemorated the Persian king’s rivalry with Rome. In this retelling, Shapur outshines his enemies not only in battle but also in urban achievement. The Tustar dam and bridge become evidence of his skill as a ruler who transformed captives into useful labor. In some strands of the story, Shapur even appears as a fair master, though the mutilation of Valerian—his nose cut off before release—may reflect Byzantine or Arab traditions of corporal punishment rather than Persian practice. Thus, centuries after the event, Persian tradition recast Valerian’s capture in a way that honored Shapur. The emperor who had once been Rome’s supreme ruler became in memory a prisoner-builder, a symbol of Persian superiority in both conquest and construction, and—at least in one version—a captive granted a partially favorable end. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Where-the-Karun-River-passes-through-the-Shushtar-watermills-in-Iran--a-construction-overseen-by-the-captive-Emperor-Valerian.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-small-Roman-bridge-managing-the-flow-of-the-Karun-River-for--the-Shushtar-watermills.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/---Ceasar-s-bridge--that-also-functioned-as-a-dam--is-the-easternmost-construction-of-the-Roman-Empire--although-it-was-built-by-the-Roman-Emperor-Valerian-and-the-remains-of-his-army--as-slaves.jpg) ****Image #1**: Where the Karun River passes through the Shushtar watermills in Iran, a construction overseen by the captive Emperor Valerian. ****Image #2**: A small Roman bridge managing the flow of the Karun River for the Shushtar watermills. ****Image #3**: ‘Ceasar's bridge' that also functioned as a dam, is the easternmost construction of the Roman Empire, although it was built by the Roman Emperor Valerian and the remains of his army, as slaves. Credits: youngrobv, CC BY-NC 2.0 ### The Unfinished Fate of Valerian: An Emperor Reimagined Across Centuries The scale of Valerian’s defeat generated extensive commentary, and when we move beyond the events of his reign, the sheer variety of references to his infamy is striking. Early responses in Persia and Syria concentrated on the disgrace of the capture itself, but the uncertainty surrounding his fate soon opened the way for reinterpretation. As aforementioned, the *Historia Augusta* reshaped Valerian for a fourth-century audience, turning disaster into a story that upheld imperial virtus and stability. Julian, by contrast, sought to erase him entirely from the memory of Rome’s Persian wars, though Christian authors swiftly restored him to prominence. For them, Valerian’s persecution of the Church explained his ruin: Lactantius highlighted the grotesque details of humiliation to critique contemporary campaigns, while Eusebius cast his downfall as preordained within the divine plan of Christian history. Constantine drew on Valerian’s example to proclaim God’s sovereignty, punishing wicked emperors and humbling Persians who had once gloried in capturing a Roman ruler. Later, Orosius extended Valerian’s punishment to the empire as a whole, arguing that the disasters of the third century flowed from its collective crimes against Christians. In the sixth century, Peter the Patrician and Agathias examined the catastrophe for lessons about bureaucratic loyalty and Persian cruelty, while the Persian Khvadhaynamagh—preserved by al-Tabari—looked back to glorify Shapur, portraying Valerian as a captive builder and symbol of the king’s greatness. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Ruins-of-the-Palace-of-Roman-Emperor-Valerian--in-Bishapur-city--Capital-of-Sasanian-Empire--in-Kazerun-county--Iran.jpg) ## Far from being forgotten, Valerian became a figure reshaped across centuries. **Ruins of the Palace of Roman Emperor Valerian in Bishapur city (Capital of Sasanian Empire) in Kazerun county, Iran. Public domain* Modern historians have sometimes downplayed his importance, but the disaster served as a formative defeat that inspired new narratives in diverse contexts. Central to its adaptability was the unfinished quality of the story: with his ultimate fate and burial unknown, Valerian could be recast as a trophy, a villainous persecutor, or a symbol of Roman resilience. Unlike Nero, he did not become Antichrist or folk hero, nor did impostors arise in his name, yet both emperors shared the trait of an ambiguous end that invited speculation. Some accounts even left open the possibility of his eventual release, once rendered powerless by Shapur. Unlike territorial losses that could be reversed or legionary standards that could be recovered, an emperor enslaved was beyond restoration. If Valerian overlooked the precedent of Crassus’ capture nearby in 53 BCE, later authors did not. By adapting his misfortune to their own needs, they ensured that Valerian would be remembered as Rome’s unforgettable imperial prisoner of war. (*The Roman Emperor as Persian Prisoner of War: Remembering Shapur’s Capture of Valerian, by Craig H. Caldwell III in Brill’s Companions in Classical Studies. Warfare in the Ancient Mediterranean World*) ### How Assassinations Lit Rome’s Civil Wars: What Can Roman History Teach Us URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/how-assassinations-lit-rome-civil-wars-what-can-roman-history-teach-us/ Last updated: 2025-09-13T20:42:34.000Z After September 10, 2025, American headlines have grappled with the political shock of Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the polarized aftermath. The facts are still settling, but mainstream outlets sketch a common frame: a public killing during an event, a swift hunt for the young assassin, and an immediate fight to control the meaning of the act. [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/11/the-guardian-view-on-the-killing-of-charlie-kirk-a-perilous-moment-that-may-lead-to-more?ref=romanempiretimes.com) called it “a perilous moment that may lead to more,” while [The Economist](https://www.economist.com/in-brief/2025/09/11/america-reacts-to-charlie-kirks-killing?ref=romanempiretimes.com) warned that political murder can become routine. [NBC](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/live-updates-shooting-charlie-kirk-event-utah-rcna230437?ref=romanempiretimes.com) reports detail the investigation’s early steps, and [Politico](https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/12/charlie-kirks-widow-says-turning-point-will-carry-on-after-the-assassination-of-her-husband-00562792?ref=romanempiretimes.com) tracks how allies are already shaping the legacy. The particulars are modern; the pattern is not. In Rome, high-profile killings repeatedly triggered factional surges that outran the original grievance and reconfigured the state. The Roman experience does not offer neat analogies or easy slogans—only hard lessons about what violence at the top does to a republic, a monarchy, or any polity in between. ### From Murder to Mobilization: Caesar’s Death and the Unraveling of the Republic When [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) fell to a ring of senators on the Ides of March, the conspirators pitched their act as a constitutional restoration. They were not alone in thinking that targeted violence at the top might “reset” the system. Yet the immediate aftermath undercut that hope. [What are The Ides of March and Why are they Important?The day that Julius Caesar was assassinated has left its mark on history’s face.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/icon/Screenshot-2023-10-05-at-22.54.45-1-14.png)Roman Empire TimesChristina Athanasiou![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/thumbnail/Vincenzo_Camuccini_-_La_morte_di_Cesare-1.jpg)](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-are-the-ides-of-march-why-are-they-important/) In the Forum and the streets, grief, fear, and opportunism spread more quickly than any plan for lawful succession. [Mark Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/) rode the shock into leverage; [Octavian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) transformed it into legality. The lesson was not that assassination “worked,” but that death at the apex can convert private resentment into public mobilization—often against the assassins themselves. Brutus and Cassius drew on a Roman tradition that saw tyrannicide as a defense of the commonwealth. But the Republic they sought to save depended on habits and expectations that violence erodes. Appian frames the century’s story as a drift from factional strife to one-man rule, punctuated not by settlements but by escalations. The conspirators created a vacancy without a mechanism to fill it, then watched as rhetorical claims—liberty, law, tradition—were rapidly subordinated to the logic of armies and money. In the months that followed, the funeral, Antony’s maneuvers, and Octavian’s legal daring mattered more than the daggers in the Curia. The young Caesar (Octavian) turned mourning into mandate and aligned legality with force. The “Republic” soon meant what the winners said it meant. Appian’s analysis stresses the sequence: [murder](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-shadow-of-the-dagger-assassinations-of-roman-emperors/), contestation, factional bids, then a new settlement under a single princeps. The assassination was the spark, not the engine; the engine was mobilization. Even ancient observers who granted moral seriousness to the conspirators admitted the structural problem: a killing could stop a man, not a momentum. By the time of Philippi, slogans about the res publica were fused to marching orders; after Actium, those slogans were repurposed to explain a durable monarchy. Assassination, in short, rearranged who controlled coercion; it did not restore limits on it. ![Julius Caesar’s assassination during the Ides of March](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Julius-Caesar-assassination-ides-of-march.jpeg) Julius Caesar’s assassination during the Ides of March. Public domain ### “The Year of the Four Emperors”: Galba to Vespasian and the Price of Precedent A century later, Rome learned again that elite killings do more than eliminate rulers; they rewrite rules. [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/)’s suicide in 68 set off a chain of claims grounded in the army’s preferences and provincial weight. Galba’s elevation, Otho’s swift coup, Vitellius’s advance, and Vespasian’s consolidation produced not a constitutional debate but a test of who could align legions, urban cohorts, and supply chains fastest. The killing or deposition of each claimant didn’t end the crisis; it opened the next bid. [69 CE: The Year of the Four EmperorsThe Year of the Four Emperors (69 CE) is one of the most chaotic periods in Roman history, occurring after Emperor Nero’s death and marking a transitional phase from the Julio-Claudian dynasty to the Flavian dynasty.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/icon/Screenshot-2023-10-05-at-22.54.45-1-13.png)Roman Empire TimesChristina Athanasiou![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/thumbnail/An-illustration-of-Roman-Emperor-Vespasian--standing-on-top-of-the-bodies-of-Galba--Otho-and-Vitellius.jpg)](https://romanempiretimes.com/69-ce-the-year-of-the-four-emperors/) The key is precedent. Once an army in Spain or the Rhine could make an emperor, every governor could imagine it. Once praetorians could swing a decision in the capital, every contender had to price their loyalty. Violence at the top—assassination, coerced suicide, street fighting—drove home that legitimacy now meant command of force validated after the fact by the Senate. That learned behavior from 68–69 never entirely left the imperial system. Otho’s suicide after defeat at Bedriacum is often read as a tragic, even noble exit to spare Rome further blood. But it did not spare the city a second battle or prevent [Vitellius’s brutal December](https://romanempiretimes.com/gemonian-stairs-rome-spot-mourning-execution-scalae-gemoniae/). What stabilized the situation was not the moral posture of a defeated emperor; it was Vespasian’s capture of the apparatus: the food routes, the Danubian legions, and eventually the capital. Violence at the summit had taught everyone to look past “right” to “capacity.” We study 69 not to rehearse gore but to see how a system learns. Rome learned that civil order could be suspended and reassembled around military coalitions. It learned that assassination did not restore old limits but shortened time horizons: commanders hedged, courtiers gambled, and “the public good” became whatever stopped the bleeding for now. Later claimants—some competent, many not—would live inside that template. ([*The Cambridge Ancient History*](https://amzn.to/4nntE0i?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*;* [*Appian’s Civil War*](https://amzn.to/3IjE0zk?ref=romanempiretimes.com)) ![A painting by Viviano Codazzi, depicting Emperor Vespasian’s Triumph when entering Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-painting-by--0AViviano-Codazzi--depicting-Emperor-Vespasian---s-Triumph-when-entering-Rome.jpeg) A painting by Viviano Codazzi, depicting Emperor Vespasian’s Triumph when entering Rome. Public domain ### From Commodus to the “Auction of the Empire”: When Assassinations Became a Business Model [Commodus](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-commodus-truly-the-megalomaniac-gladiator-emperor/)’s murder on the last day of 192 looked, at first, like a re-set. Pertinax, an experienced senator, promised thrift and reform. Within three months he was dead, cut down by guards angered at tighter discipline and smaller payouts. Then came the moment that Roman moralists never forgot. Outside the Praetorian camp gates, the City Prefect Sulpicianus and the senator Didius Julianus bid against each other for the soldiers’ favor. [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/)’s verdict remains devastating: > “just as if it had been in some market or auction-room, both the City and its entire empire were auctioned off.” Cassius Dio, [*Roman History*](https://amzn.to/3JUE4Gn?ref=romanempiretimes.com) [The Imperial Auction: Fact or Fiction? Unraveling the Reign of Didius JulianusIn the shadowed corridors of Roman history, Marcus Didius Julianus stands as one enigmatic figure to wear the imperial purple.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/icon/Screenshot-2023-10-05-at-22.54.45-1-15.png)Roman Empire TimesChristina Athanasiou![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/thumbnail/Was-the-Roman-Empire-truly-auctioned-to-Didius-Julianus-by-the-Praetorian-Guard--or-is-it-just-a-myth-.jpg)](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-imperial-auction-fact-or-fiction-unraveling-the-reign-of-didius-julianus/) Herodian’s narrative is even starker about the terms: the guards “*announced that the position of emperor was up for sale.*” The assassination of a bad ruler had not purified the system; it had taught its guardians that killing created a market. In the weeks that followed, Septimius Severus marched on Rome as the “corrective,” punishing the sellers and the buyer while retaining the principle that armies decide. The empire did not forget the auction. Neither did later soldiers. The Severan settlement that emerged—[Severus](https://romanempiretimes.com/septimius-severus-founder-fighter-and-father-of-a-new-rome/), then Caracalla—acknowledged the new truth: the [praetorians](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/) and provincial legions were veto players. Assassination became a bargaining chip. A threatened killing could extract donatives; an actual one could justify a march. When assassination is priced in, the palace becomes a marketplace with blades. The state keeps functioning, taxes keep flowing, but the cost of everything rises. Pertinax’s reforms failed not because austerity is wrong in principle but because assassinations reduce trust to zero. When enemies and supposed protectors alike expect quick payouts, any long-horizon policy reads like an insult. What follows is not policy debate but personnel change—at speed, often with knives. The moral is plain in the sources: once assassination is seen to “work,” it gets repeated by actors who care less about programs than positions. ![The Death of Commodus, commissioned by his mistress Marcia (the woman hiding under her veil), a painting by Fernand Pelez](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/The-Death-of-Commodus--commissioned-by-his-mistress-Marcia--the-woman-hiding-under-her-veil---a-painting-by-Fernand-Pelez.jpeg) The Death of Commodus, commissioned by his mistress Marcia (the woman hiding under her veil), a painting by Fernand Pelez. Public domain ### Brothers, Blood, and a Mother’s Arms: Caracalla, Geta, and the Family Civil War When Septimius Severus died in 211, he left a formula many monarchies still dream about: power shared between sons under the watch of a [formidable empress mother](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/). Within months, the arrangement failed. Caracalla lured Geta to a supposed reconciliation in their mother Julia Domna’s apartments; soldiers cut the younger brother down. Ancient writers never forgot the setting. Dio captures both the shock and the horror of the scene, with Geta dying in Julia’s embrace and Caracalla’s regime erasing the memory in proscriptions and [damnatio](https://romanempiretimes.com/damnatio-memoriae-condemnation-and-eradication-in-the-political-sphere-of-rome/). [Brothers Divided: The Tragic Tale of Caracalla and GetaAs the Severan dynasty rose to prominence, the two brothers were groomed to jointly inherit their father’s empire. Despite their shared upbringing, their differences—both personal and political—were stark and irreconcilable.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/icon/Screenshot-2023-10-05-at-22.54.45-1-16.png)Roman Empire TimesChristina Athanasiou![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/thumbnail/Caracalla-murdering-his-brother-Geta-in-front-of-their-mother.jpg)](https://romanempiretimes.com/brothers-divided-the-tragic-tale-of-emperors-caracalla-and-geta/) Assassination here did not trigger a national mobilization—there was no rival army in the field for Geta—but it did inaugurate a continuous low-grade civil war of purges, fear, and flattery. Herodian’s portrait of Caracalla leans into the post-murder psychology: a ruler who sought legitimacy in soldierly theatrics and in repeated largesse to the troops. The structure is familiar: once legitimacy is secured by bayonets, it must be fed by payments; when payments slow, so does loyalty. One reason modern readers return to this episode is that it fuses the personal and the political. Rome’s institutions were strong enough to collect taxes and fight wars; they were not strong enough to offset the effects of fratricide at the top. When succession becomes a life-and-death lottery, everyone around the throne adjusts incentives. Courtiers rush to anticipate the victor’s mood; generals trim sails; [the Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) practices silence. The polity “works,” but it works fearfully. The cycle continued through the 210s and into the 220s, through the brief, [scandal-hungry reign of Elagabalus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-divine-chaos-of-elagabalus-romes-most-unconventional-emperor/) and the purge that brought Severus Alexander to power. Each act reinforced the lesson that persons mattered more than processes, and that violence could reset who governed without settling how. ([*The Cambridge Ancient History*](https://amzn.to/46jWzeS?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*; Herodian,* [*History of the Empire*](https://amzn.to/3VOmeaw?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*; Cassius Dio,* [*Roman History*](https://amzn.to/4nujHOw?ref=romanempiretimes.com)) ![Caracalla murdering his brother Geta in front of their mother](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Caracalla-murdering-his-brother-Geta-in-front-of-their-mother.jpeg) Caracalla murdering his brother Geta in front of their mother. Public domain ### 10 Things that Roman Assassinations Teach—and What They Don’t The long arc of Roman history makes one fact painfully clear: **assassinations did not end crises, they magnified them**. Each killing — whether of Caesar in the Senate chamber, Geta in his mother’s arms, or Commodus in his bath — promised resolution but delivered chaos. Civil wars, vendettas, and instability were the natural offspring of political murder. To read Appian or Herodian is to see how swiftly a single dagger thrust could unravel the fragile fabric of imperial order. In considering these bloody precedents, we can draw lessons not only about the Roman world but about the universal dangers of believing that violence can restore stability. 1. *Assassination is a trigger, not a cure.* Caesar’s killers had a theory of political correction. So did the plotters against Commodus. In both cases, the act that removed a leader created a contest that ultimately empowered the best organizer, not the most “constitutional” claimant. Appian’s through-line is blunt: **out of factional violence came monarchy, not restoration**. Rome teaches that theorizing assassination as a reset underestimates how quickly force and finance fill a vacuum. 2. *Killing at the top resets incentives below.* After 69 CE and again after 193, everyone with a stake in imperial succession learned to price in violence. Praetorians asked what their loyalty was worth today. Frontier legions weighed whether backing their governor now would pay better than waiting. The Senate preserved dignity by approving what armies had already decided. That is not cynicism; **it is institutional adaptation after a series of shocks**. 3. *Markets emerge where mechanisms fail.* Dio’s account of March 193 is not a metaphor. “*Both the City and its entire empire were auctioned off*.” Herodian adds the sales pitch: “*the position of emperor was up for sale*.” Markets arise when formal mechanism (lawful succession) and informal norms (donatives within bounds) collapse. Once that price is discovered, later players try to improve their terms. 4. *Family murders do not privatize the crisis; they broadcast it.* Caracalla and Geta’s case proves that even domestic assassinations rearrange public life. Purges expand; loyalists are bought; administrators self-censor. **The state functions, but narrowly**. In Rome, that meant a louder army and a quieter Senate. In any system, it means policy shrinkage and a politics of avoidance. 5. *“Lessons” are structural, not partisan.* Roman sources can be unsparing about personalities—vain, timid, cruel, or rash. The risk for modern readers is to moralize the people and miss the pattern. Appian, Dio, and Herodian keep pointing to structure: once violence at the summit is “normal,” actors below rationally adapt. The point is not that motives don’t matter; it’s that motives are channeled by incentives shaped by prior killings. 6. *What about now? Use history carefully.* The reports and commentary after Charlie Kirk’s killing already show how quickly a society scrambles to narrate an act of violence: grief statements, calls for crackdown, warnings about overreach, arguments about motive and blame. The Roman record does not tell us what to do next; it does suggest **which questions matter**: 1. Who controls the levers of coercion and procedure? 2. Which institutions stand ready to channel the shock into lawful action? 3. What incentives will the event create for those who hold force, funds, or followers? Briar-patch rhetoric abounds after a killing; Rome’s chroniclers insist that structure is what keeps you out of it. 7. *Guardrails must be tended in advance.* One reason assassinations destabilized Rome is that guardrails—term limits with teeth, norms around military obedience to civilian command, credible fiscal promises—had frayed. Once crisis hit, it was too late to design them. The Republic’s last generation learned that charismatic appeals and emergency powers solve today’s problem while hollowing tomorrow’s order. The Principate that followed worked when it served expectations and paid its troops. **When it failed either task, knives reappeared**. 8. *The rhetoric of “restoration” is tempting—and treacherous.* From the Ides onward, [Roman assassins](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/) claimed to be giving the state back to itself. The trouble was that “itself” needed procedures the killing had just weakened. [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/) succeeded not because he restored the Republic but because he offered something else with the old names: predictable command, reliable pay, and legal fictions that soothed elites. If there is a usable lesson, it is this: durable settlements deliver predictability without pretending to rewind history. 9. *Beware the downstream “pricing” of violence.* After 193, an emperor could calculate what a donative must be to avert a barracks revolt. After 69, a governor could compute how many legions plus how much grain secured Rome. Assassination taught Romans to cost politics as a series of short-term buys. Any system that lets one killing rebalance the constitution risks teaching future players to treat murder as a transaction. Roman elites paid for that lesson for centuries. 10. *Memory matters—but it is not enough.* Roman writers curated these episodes for a reason: to shame, to warn, to explain. Their stories kept alive the idea that violence at the summit is not only immoral but wasteful. Yet the same culture also preserved the incentives that made repetition likely. If there is a Roman “ask,” it is the unglamorous one: maintain procedures, fund transitions, police the boundary between force and law, and resist turning grief into programmatic vengeance. Those are banal tasks. They are also the ones that kept Rome quiet when, on occasion, it was quiet. At the end of the day, what History teaches us is that deeply supporting the core values of freedom and democracy need to be the means to walk us through times of crisis, not polarization, taking sides and political labeling that fuel the fire of hate even further. [Bernie Sander’s video message](https://youtu.be/HlIvH6ozvv4?si=-R-qMvKdogh5D6mE&ref=romanempiretimes.com) captures the essence of all the aforementioned, beautifully. --- ### The Plague of Cyprian: Disease, Faith, and Crisis in the Roman Empire URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-plague-of-cyprian-disease-faith-and-crisis-in-the-roman-empire/ Last updated: 2025-09-11T22:49:25.000Z In the middle of the third century CE, as [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) staggered under military invasions, political chaos, and economic decline, another invisible enemy struck with devastating force. The Plague of Cyprian, named after the bishop of [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) who described its horrors, swept across the empire from 249 to 262 CE. It killed thousands each day in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) alone, emptied towns, and terrified communities already weary from crisis. Yet its legacy went far beyond the mystery of its symptoms: it reshaped social bonds, exposed the fragility of imperial power, and offered new strength to a rising faith that would transform the empire — Christianity. ![Saint Cyprian (Kyprianos), in a Byzantine representation](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Saint-Cyprian--Kyprianos---in-a-Byzantine-representation.jpg) Saint Cyprian (Kyprianos), in a Byzantine representation. Credits: [athonian.gr](https://www.athonian.gr/orthodox-icons/saints-male-en/saint-cyprian-the-hieromartyr-106/?ref=romanempiretimes.com), Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ## A Plague in the Heart of Empire [Disease](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-roman-pandemics-and-plagues-allowed-ecosystems-to-recover-from-pollution/) was never far from [Roman life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/). Endemic ailments such as malaria plagued populations constantly, and outbreaks appear in Roman histories and [poetry](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/). Among the great epidemics remembered in antiquity are three: the [Antonine Plague](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-antonine-plague-devastation-reshaped-roman-empire/) of the late 2nd century CE, the Cyprian Plague of the mid-3rd century, and the Justinianic Plague beginning in the 6th century. Modern scholarship has lavished attention on the Antonine and Justinianic outbreaks, in part because they are thought to have reshaped population and power in visible ways. The Cyprian Plague, however, unfolded at the very heart of Rome’s political crisis in the 3rd century, and though contemporary testimony about it is plentiful, it has long been neglected. New evidence makes its study timely. Mass graves in Thebes and in Rome, combined with numismatic motifs and Christian writings, confirm the presence of a devastating epidemic in the years around 250–270 CE. The one detailed list of symptoms comes from the bishop Cyprian of Carthage, though it is far briefer than Galen’s medical notes on the Antonine Plague. This absence of clinical detail helps explain why competing diagnoses remain, from smallpox to measles to bubonic plague. A closer look at the symptom pattern, however, suggests the disease resembled a viral hemorrhagic fever such as Ebola. ## The Plague and the Crisis of the Third Century The outbreak coincided with the Crisis of the Third Century, an age of upheaval following the assassination of Severus Alexander in 235 CE. His murder by mutinous generals on the German frontier ended dynastic succession and left the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-roman-empire-a-brief-history/) at the mercy of “barracks emperors”—soldiers elevated for battlefield success and cut down when fortune turned. Alongside this political fragility came economic decline, triggered by the Severan debasement of currency and rising military costs, and unceasing frontier wars. This turbulence makes the plague’s history difficult to trace. Records are fewer than in the time of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) or [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/antinous-and-hadrian-love-devotion-or-divine-ambition/), and [emperors ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/)rose and fell too quickly for clear narratives to form. Still, certain points emerge. The epidemic spanned at least eight [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/69-ce-the-year-of-the-four-emperors/), beginning under [Decius](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-decius-persecutor-of-christians-or-restorer-of-rome/) (249–251 CE) and continuing until [Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/) II (268–270 CE), who himself succumbed during a renewed outbreak at Sirmium. Egypt appears as the likely origin: in 249 CE, a bishop in Alexandria wrote of a disease present in every household. Riots in that same year may have carried contagion into the ranks of soldiers and spread it along imperial networks. In Rome the plague made itself known in 251 CE, when Hostilian, son of Decius and adopted heir of [Trebonianus Gallus, ](https://romanempiretimes.com/trebonianus-gallus-and-volusianus-father-and-son-in-the-shadow-of-crisis/)died of the disease. Gallus, unpopular for his passivity, remained in the city and lashed out ineffectively at Christians. His inaction prompted the general Aemilian to march on [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/), leading to Gallus’s assassination and Valerian’s elevation. Valerian and his son Gallienus divided imperial duties, but the plague afflicted their armies. Valerian was eventually captured in the East, leaving Gallienus sole emperor during the years when the epidemic seems to have struck hardest. Though the [legions ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-enigmatic-disappearance-of-the-9th-roman-legion/)were not destroyed, outbreaks in their camps weakened them repeatedly, compounding the empire’s fragility. ![A painting by Jules-Élie Delaunay, depicting the Plague in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-painting-by-Jules---lie-Delaunay--depicting-the-Plague-in-Rome.jpg) A painting by Jules-Élie Delaunay, depicting the Plague in Rome. Public domain ## Literary Testimonies ### Cyprian of Carthage The plague takes its name from Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, whose writings provide the only extant symptom list. In one letter, he responds to accusations that [Christians](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/) had caused the disaster, countering that the epidemic exposed the corruption of individuals and that Christians, unlike their accusers, would find salvation beyond death. In his treatise [*Ad Demetrianum*](https://amzn.to/4piW6SP?ref=romanempiretimes.com), he argued against pagan charges, insisting that the plague was not due to Christian impiety. > “…You accuse of the crime of plague and disease, although by plague itself and disease the crimes of individuals are either detected or increased, while mercy is not shown the weak and avarice and rapine await open-mouthed for the dead.” St. Cyprian, [*Ad Demetrianum*](https://amzn.to/4piW6SP?ref=romanempiretimes.com) His most important testimony is the sermon [*De Mortalitate*](https://amzn.to/4piW6SP?ref=romanempiretimes.com), delivered around 252 CE, when compulsory sacrifices were being enforced throughout the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-roman-empire-treasure-ever-found/). In it, Cyprian exhorts Christians not to fear the epidemic but to endure it as a trial of faith and a passage to eternal life. Here he gives his vivid description of the disease: severe diarrhea, burning fevers that ulcerated the throat, constant vomiting, inflamed and bloody eyes, gangrene consuming limbs, and long-term consequences including deafness and blindness. > “That now, the bowels, loosened into a stream, dissipate the strength of the body; that the fire taken up from the marrow boils up into wounds of the throat; that the intestines are shaken by constant vomiting; that the eyes burn with the force of blood; that the feet or other members of the body are amputated by the rottenness of the diseased infection; that either the gait is crippled through loss and weakness of the body, or hearing is obstructed, or sight is blinded—this serves as a proof of faith.” St. Cyprian, [*De Mortalitate*](https://amzn.to/4piW6SP?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ![Detail of 6th-century mosaic depicting Saint Cyprian, from the church of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Detail-of-6th-century-mosaic-depicting-Saint-Cyprian--from-the-church-of-Sant-Apollinare-Nuovo-in-Ravenna.jpg) Detail of 6th-century mosaic depicting Saint Cyprian, from the church of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna. Credits: Lawrence OP, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 ### Dionysius of Alexandria Letters from Alexandria, preserved through later transmission, add more. In one, Dionysius remarks that after the epidemic, the number of people aged fourteen to eighty was less than the pre-plague tally of those aged forty to seventy, implying shocking mortality. Another describes multiple deaths within each household and contrasts Christians—who cared for the sick and buried the dead—with pagans, who abandoned the afflicted but still fell ill. The rhetoric may exaggerate the moral contrast, but it underscores the epidemic’s contagiousness and places its beginning firmly in Egypt, earlier than the Carthaginian accounts. > "So that the number of people from fourteen to eighty years old no longer equals the number from forty to seventy before the disaster." Eusebius, *Historia Ecclesiastica* (Book 7, chapters 22–23) > "It would have been enough if only the first-born of each had died; but now death has carried off multitudes in every house." Eusebius, HE 7.22.10–11 He then contrasts behavior: Christians — > "most of our brethren, in their exceeding love and affection, spared not themselves and clung to one another, visiting the sick without thought of danger, ministering to them continually, and treating them for their healing in Christ." Pagans — > "the heathen behaved in the very opposite way. At the first onset of the disease they thrust away those who began to be sick, and kept aloof even from their dearest; they cast them half-dead into the roads, and treated unburied corpses as vile refuse, hoping thereby to avoid the spread and contagion of the fatal disease; but do what they might, they found it difficult to escape." ### Other Contemporary Witnesses Other near-contemporary voices also refer to the plague. A Christian deacon, Pontius, who later wrote Cyprian’s biography, described a devastating epidemic that killed many daily and transcended borders. Another text, *De laude martyrii,* emphasized the novelty and mortality of the disease, portraying it as an unknown scourge that wasted entire cities and urged Christians to seek glory in martyrdom rather than fear infection. These accounts reinforce the scale and horror, even if tinged with theological interpretation. Writers of the fourth to twelfth centuries continued to record memory of the third-century pestilence, often citing earlier, now-lost sources. Some late reports describe the plague as **lasting fifteen years** or being spread by contact with clothing or even sight. Others link it to the advance of the Goths or to poisoned air. Though colored by later biases, these accounts confirm that the epidemic left a long impression. ![A painting created by the circle of Pierre de Cortone, depicting Armageddon and its plagues](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-painting-created-by-the-circle-of-Pierre-de-Cortone--depicting-Armageddon-and-its-plagues.jpg) A painting created by the circle of Pierre de Cortone, depicting Armageddon and its plagues. Public domain ## Archaeological Evidence ### Coinage Material culture offers further support. In these decades, coinage frequently emphasized divine powers. *Apollo Salutaris*, [god ](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/)of healing, appeared on coins of emperors such as [Gallus](https://romanempiretimes.com/trebonianus-gallus-and-volusianus-father-and-son-in-the-shadow-of-crisis/), Volusian, Aemilian, and Valerian. Depicted nude with a laurel branch and lyre, Apollo was linked to the emperor as a source of health and protection. Gallienus later paired Apollo with the legend *Salus Publica*, highlighting hopes of safeguarding the people. Such imagery signals an official recognition of plague and an appeal to divine healing. ### Mass Graves Excavations add physical testimony. At the catacomb of Saints Peter and Marcellinus in Rome, more than 1,300 bodies were deposited hastily in layers, with alternating orientations to conserve space. In Thebes, Egypt, a mass grave was discovered where victims were covered with lime, perhaps to suppress miasma or to preserve remains, and lime kilns on site may have been fueled by burning coffins and bodies. Other possible plague burials have been noted at San Callisto in Rome and, more recently, at Parion in Asia Minor, though dating is less secure. Such large, hurried deposits show unusual mortality crises consistent with epidemic disease. ![A painting by Peter van Halen depicting the plague of the Philistines at Ashdod](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-painting-by-Peter-van-Halen-depicting-the-plague-of-the-Philistines-at-Ashdod.jpg) A painting by Peter van Halen depicting the plague of the Philistines at Ashdod. Credits: Wellcome Collection, CC BY 4.0 ## Diagnosing the Plague ### A Method from the Antonine Precedent Determining the identity of an ancient epidemic is fraught with difficulty. Many signs—fever, chills, vomiting—are nonspecific. With the Cyprian Plague, the problem is sharper still: no medical author like Galen observed it, and only a handful of lines describe symptoms. To approach it, a method known as differential diagnosis is used. Each symptom is weighed against diseases known to produce them; those that do not fit are eliminated until the closest match remains. This technique has been applied successfully to the Antonine Plague of the late 2nd century. That earlier epidemic benefits from Galen’s scattered but firsthand accounts. He noted rashes, gastrointestinal bleeding, cough, and high fever, with death clustering around the ninth to twelfth day. Some patients survived, but those with blackened exanthem or blood-darkened stool nearly always perished. Such patterns ruled out bubonic plague and typhoid, leaving hemorrhagic smallpox as the most convincing identification. This precedent shows both the value and the limits of ancient reporting: absence of a symptom cannot always be taken as proof of its absence, but repeated positive signs can guide diagnosis. ## Evaluating the Diagnoses ### Smallpox and Measles Both smallpox and measles have been frequently proposed. Measles is easily discounted: it causes a flat rash across the body, not mentioned by Cyprian, and usually strikes children most severely, whereas sources imply widespread adult mortality. It also grants lifelong immunity, making recurring outbreaks in the same cities unlikely. Smallpox fits more closely. Its symptoms—diarrhea, throat ulceration, ocular damage—align with Cyprian’s account, and its spread through military and urban networks is plausible. Yet Cyprian nowhere mentions the hallmark rash and pustules. Only the rare hemorrhagic form of smallpox produces the combination of bloody eyes, severe diarrhea, and ulcerated throats he describes. That form, however, was uncommon and typically left survivors scarred, another detail absent from his text. ![Saint Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Saint-Cyprian--Bishop-of-Carthage.jpg) Saint Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage. Public domain ### Bubonic Plague The disease caused by Yersinia pestis produces vomiting, fever, and limb pain. Its septicemic form brings diarrhea and internal bleeding, and the pneumonic form spreads person-to-person. But the most common sign of bubonic plague—the swollen, blackened buboes of groin and armpit—goes unmentioned by Cyprian. For him to describe continuous vomiting, diarrhea, and gangrene, yet omit such obvious swellings, weighs against this diagnosis. ### Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers Diseases caused by viruses such as Lassa, Yellow Fever, Dengue, and Ebola all share a pattern of fever, hemorrhaging, diarrhea, and high mortality. Some, like Yellow Fever and Dengue, are mosquito-borne and less likely to have spread so widely in Roman Europe. Ebola, however, matches most of Cyprian’s details. It causes extreme fever, vomiting, diarrhea, conjunctival bleeding, tissue necrosis leading to limb loss, and sensory loss including blindness and deafness. It also spreads through bodily fluids and even from the corpses of the dead—making the Christian care for victims and burials all the more striking, and dangerous. Unlike measles or smallpox, Ebola does not confer immunity, so cities could suffer repeated outbreaks. When Cyprian’s symptom list is set against all proposed diseases, Ebola or a related viral hemorrhagic fever emerges as the best match. Its clinical picture aligns with his words, its contagion explains widespread fear of contact, and its persistence without immunity explains multiple waves across the empire. While no biomolecular evidence survives to prove the case, the fit between description and disease is striking. ## The Legacy of the Plague Exact numbers cannot be recovered, but ancient voices emphasize scale. Dionysius of Alexandria claimed that after the epidemic, the number of living between fourteen and eighty was smaller than the number aged forty to seventy before the plague. Other reports claimed two thousand people died in a single day in Rome. (There are reports that claim 5000 people died every day) Modern parallels help estimate. In the 2013–2016 Ebola epidemic, mortality among the infected initially reached 70%, before falling closer to 40% with intervention. If the Cyprian Plague was similar, death rates among those infected could have been between 40–70%, though this would not mean the entire population was struck. More likely, pockets of high mortality devastated cities, villages, and armies, while other areas were spared. The epidemic exposed deep tensions. Edicts required compulsory sacrifice to the gods, provoking Christian resistance. Christians, far from fleeing, were praised by their own leaders for nursing the sick and burying the dead—acts that may have increased mortality among them, yet also elevated their reputation. Pagan sacrifices, by contrast, were visibly ineffective. In a society where divine favor was expected to secure health, this failure undermined old rituals and gave Christianity credibility as a “religion of care.” The cultural response echoes what is seen in later crises. Archaeology at Poggio Gramignano in Italy, for instance, shows pagan rituals reappearing during a later malaria outbreak, with puppy sacrifices and other rites to ward off evil. In the 3rd century, similar anxieties were channeled through compulsory sacrifices. Yet as the plague did not cease, the appeal of Christianity’s promise of eternal life grew stronger. ("A Plague in a Crisis: Differential Diagnosis of the Cyprian Plague and its Effects on the Roman Empire in the Third Century CE" by Amber Kearns) While the evidence drawn from Cyprian, Dionysius, and the archaeological record already paints a vivid picture of the epidemic, further research has uncovered additional details that deepen our understanding of both its scale and its consequences. These findings bring into sharper focus how profoundly the plague shaped the empire’s demography, culture, and political order. ![A gravure by Marcantonio Raimondi, depicting an ancient plague scene](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-gravure-by--0AMarcantonio-Raimondi--depicting-an-ancient-plague-scene.jpg) A gravure by Marcantonio Raimondi, depicting an ancient plague scene. Public domain ## Rome’s Forgotten Pandemic Research has revealed further dimensions of the Cyprian Plague that sharpen our sense of its scale and consequences. Records from Alexandria show that the epidemic began in Egypt around 249 CE and that the city’s population may have collapsed by more than sixty percent. This catastrophic demographic loss highlights the scale of devastation before the disease ever reached Carthage or Rome. Some later testimonies also preserve details not found in Cyprian. One recalls the torment of extreme thirst, an additional symptom that reinforces the picture of a disease resembling a viral hemorrhagic fever. Reports also noted the epidemic’s seasonality: striking hardest in autumn and receding in summer, a pattern unlike smallpox or plague. The archaeological record adds chilling confirmation. At Thebes in Egypt, lime kilns and pits were used for large-scale corpse incineration — rare, direct evidence of epidemic disposal in antiquity. In Rome, hurried burials in the catacombs of Marcellinus and Peter stacked over 1,300 skeletons in layers, a striking sign of mortality crisis. The toll was staggering. **Contemporary sources claimed up to 5,000 deaths in a single day in Rome**, and observers insisted that entire cities were left emptied of inhabitants. The plague also reverberated through politics, economy, and religion. The collapse of the silver-based currency system and its replacement with gold coincided with the epidemic. Military command shifted decisively to Danubian officers after senators were excluded from legionary leadership under Gallienus. Pagan philosophers lamented that traditional gods such as Asclepius had abandoned the cities, while the figure of Jesus was increasingly honored. This climate of despair and religious reorientation helped accelerate Christianity’s expansion, as its communities provided care and hope where older cults seemed powerless. ("Pandemics and passages to late antiquity: rethinking the plague of c.249-270 described by Cyprian" by Kyle Harper) The Plague of Cyprian was more than a medical mystery. It was a force that struck at the empire’s armies, emptied its cities, and unsettled its faith in the old gods. It left scars in the archaeological record, in the writings of bishops and philosophers, and —as aforementioned— in the coinage of emperors who turned to Apollo for deliverance. Above all, it revealed the fragility of a world already in crisis. In the silence left by traditional rituals, Christianity’s promise of endurance and salvation found fertile ground, ensuring that this forgotten pandemic played a decisive role in reshaping the Roman world. 📜 For those that want to learn more about The Plague of Cyprian we hope you’ll enjoy [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od66vzA1L24&ref=romanempiretimes.com): ### How Roman Pandemics and Plagues Allowed Ecosystems to Recover from Pollution URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/how-roman-pandemics-and-plagues-allowed-ecosystems-to-recover-from-pollution/ Last updated: 2025-09-13T10:07:17.000Z The [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/) is often remembered for its [architecture](https://romanempiretimes.com/vitruvius-the-roman-who-shaped-modern-architecture/), [roads](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/), and [laws](https://romanempiretimes.com/foundations-of-justice-romes-twelve-tables/), but it also left an environmental legacy. [Recent studies of marine sediments in the Aegean](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-mines-as-environmental-catastrophes-how-the-empire-polluted-the-mediterranean-with-lead/) have shown how the empire’s mining and smelting released lead into the atmosphere and seas on a scale large enough to leave a detectable chemical signal. Around 2,150 years ago, coinciding with [Roman expansion into Greece](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/), this pollution first became visible in natural archives. ### The Scale of Roman Pollution The demand for silver and gold drove this contamination. [Coinage](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/), jewelry, and elite display all required refined metals, and the process of cupellation used to separate silver from lead ores released fine lead particles into the air. These could travel across the Mediterranean and settle in marine environments, where they became trapped in sediments. Over time, the seabed accumulated a layered record of Roman economic activity. This record shows continuous pollution for more than a thousand years. Yet it also reveals sudden interruptions. During major pandemics that devastated the empire, lead levels in sediments fell dramatically. These declines provide evidence that plagues disrupted not only social and political life but also the environmental pressure created by Rome’s industrial economy. ![Lisbon, National Museum of Ancient Art, The Plagued Philistines](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Lisbon--National-Museum-of-Ancient-Art--The-Plagued-Philistines.jpg) Lisbon, National Museum of Ancient Art, The Plagued Philistines. Public domain ### The Antonine Plague The first major pandemic recorded in Roman history was the [Antonine Plague](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-antonine-plague-devastation-reshaped-roman-empire/), which struck in 165 CE during the reign of [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-marcus-aurelius-meditations-survive/). Likely carried by soldiers returning from campaigns in the Near East, it spread rapidly through the empire. [Ancient physician Galen](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-innovations-in-medicine-genius-discoveries-and-dangerous-missteps/) described its symptoms in detail, and modern scholars believe it was probably smallpox. Estimates suggest it killed between five and ten million people, weakening the empire’s military capacity and straining its resources. Mining operations were highly dependent on labor. [Enslaved workers](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/), convicts, and free laborers were needed to dig shafts, transport ore, and operate furnaces. The Antonine Plague caused a sharp reduction in available manpower. The workforce required to sustain mining and smelting simply could not be maintained at previous levels. This reduction in labor had a direct impact on the amount of lead being released into the environment. Economic disruption compounded this effect. With trade diminished and communities focused on survival, demand for new coinage and luxury goods fell. Refining activity slowed as markets contracted. The decline in both labor and demand meant that many mining operations either ceased or worked at reduced capacity. The environmental consequence is visible in the marine record: **sediment cores show a clear reduction in lead levels dating to this period**. The Antonine Plague demonstrates how human health and environmental impact were directly linked. A disease that reshaped the empire’s society and economy also allowed ecosystems to recover, at least temporarily, from the pressures of extraction and smelting. ![Last Words of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (who died from the Antonine Plague), a painting by Eugène Delacroix](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Last-Words-of-the-Emperor-Marcus-Aurelius--who-died-from-the-Antonine-Plague---a-painting-by-Eug--ne-Delacroix.jpg) Last Words of the [Emperor Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/10-things-you-did-not-know-about-marcus-aurelius/) (who died from the Antonine Plague), a painting by Eugène Delacroix. Public domain ### The Plague of Cyprian A century later, the empire faced another devastating outbreak known as the [Plague of Cyprian](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-plague-of-cyprian-disease-faith-and-crisis-in-the-roman-empire/). Beginning around 249 CE, this pandemic lasted nearly two decades and struck during a time of political instability and external pressure. The bishop Cyprian of Carthage described its effects in his writings, noting high mortality and widespread fear. Some scholars suggest it may have been caused by a viral hemorrhagic fever. The long duration of the Plague of Cyprian made its impact particularly severe. Cities lost large portions of their populations, and rural areas were also deeply affected. The crisis overlapped with the “*Crisis of the Third Century*,” when the empire faced invasions, economic collapse, and frequent changes of leadership. Mining and metallurgy, already vulnerable to instability, were heavily disrupted. With reduced demand for coinage and diminished state capacity to organize large-scale operations, smelting slowed across the empire. While the environmental evidence for this period is less dramatic than for the Antonine or Justinianic plagues, **it is consistent with a broader pattern of decreased pollution during times of widespread disease**. The Plague of Cyprian thus represents another moment when the empire’s environmental impact was softened by demographic catastrophe. This plague highlights how sustained crises could alter not only human systems but also the natural world. The combination of disease, political turmoil, and economic weakness temporarily reduced the empire’s pressure on ecosystems, even if recovery was uneven and short-lived. ![A gravure depicting The angel of death striking a door during the plague of Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-gravure-depicting-The-angel-of-death-striking-a-door-during-the-plague-of-Rome.jpg) A gravure depicting The angel of death striking a door during the plague of Rome. Credits: Wellcome Collection, CC BY 4.0 ### The Justinianic Plague The most devastating pandemic of antiquity was the Justinianic Plague, which began in 541 CE under the reign of Emperor Justinian I. Spread by fleas carried by black rats, it is recognized as an early outbreak of bubonic plague. Contemporary historian Procopius wrote vividly about its impact on [Constantinople](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), describing thousands of deaths each day. Estimates suggest the pandemic killed as much as half the population in some regions. The economic consequences were catastrophic. Agriculture declined, trade faltered, and state revenues plummeted. Mining, which required coordinated labor and logistical support, was especially vulnerable. As populations collapsed, the empire could no longer sustain the extraction and refining systems that had fueled centuries of coinage and luxury production. Marine sediments capture this disruption. Cores from the Aegean show **a pronounced decline in lead levels during the sixth century**, corresponding with the Justinianic Plague. The scale of the drop suggests that major mining operations ceased or slowed dramatically. The environment responded quickly, with ecosystems showing measurable recovery within decades. The Justinianic Plague illustrates how demographic collapse translated directly into ecological change. The silence of furnaces and the abandonment of mines left a chemical signature just as strong as the centuries of activity that preceded it. ### Plagues as Environmental Turning Points The Roman pandemics reveal a consistent pattern: when populations declined, pollution decreased. These crises reduced the demand for coinage and luxury goods, disrupted the labor needed to mine and refine metals, and weakened the state’s ability to organize production. The environment, long pressured by continuous extraction, experienced moments of reprieve. The sedimentary record provides precise evidence for this process. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Plague-in-an-Ancient-City--from-Michiel-Sweerts-1.jpg) ## ****Lead levels fall during plague years and rise again as populations recover and mining resumes.** **Plague in an Ancient City, from Michiel Sweerts. Public domain* The correlation between historical events and geochemical data strengthens the conclusion that pandemics functioned as environmental turning points. Yet these recoveries were temporary. Once the immediate crisis passed, the economic and social systems of the empire returned to previous patterns. Mines reopened, furnaces reignited, and pollution resumed. The resilience of Roman society ensured that environmental relief was short-lived. The plagues thus show both the vulnerability and the persistence of imperial systems. ### Reading History Through Sediments The ability to connect plagues to environmental change depends on advances in modern science. By analyzing cores taken from the Aegean seabed, researchers measured the ratio of lead to naturally occurring elements such as zirconium. This method distinguishes human-caused pollution from natural geological variation. Radiocarbon dating of organic material within the cores provided a timeline, while comparison of multiple sites ensured accuracy. The results are striking. **Peaks in lead concentrations align with periods of economic stability and expansion, while troughs correspond to pandemics and crises**. The decline during the Antonine and Justinianic plagues is particularly clear, confirming that major societal disruptions left an environmental trace. This approach represents a new way of reading history. Texts and inscriptions record human experiences of plague, while sediments preserve the ecological consequences. Together, they provide a fuller picture of how pandemics reshaped both society and nature in the Roman world. ### Long-Term Ecological Implications Although the recoveries were temporary, they show how sensitive the Mediterranean was to changes in human activity. Lead levels fell quickly when mining ceased, demonstrating that ecosystems responded rapidly to reduced pressure. Forests cleared for charcoal had a chance to regenerate, rivers carried fewer pollutants, and the air grew cleaner. The resilience of natural systems contrasts with the fragility of human ones. While the empire struggled to recover from plagues, the environment showed signs of immediate improvement. This pattern highlights the interconnectedness of human and ecological systems. Rome’s prosperity drove pollution, while its crises provided relief. The long-term implication is that even pre-industrial societies were capable of altering environments on a large scale, but also that nature retained the capacity to recover when given the opportunity. The sediments of the Mediterranean preserve this dynamic, showing both the costs of empire and the possibilities of ecological resilience. ![Saint Sebastian Interceding for the Plague Stricken, a painting by Josse Lieferinxe](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Saint-Sebastian-Interceding-for-the-Plague-Stricken--a-painting-by-Josse-Lieferinxe.jpg) Saint Sebastian Interceding for the Plague Stricken, a painting by Josse Lieferinxe. Public domain ### Roman Pandemics and the Environment The great plagues of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) were moments of immense human suffering and political disruption. Yet they also reveal how closely linked human activity and environmental change were in antiquity. When disease reduced populations and halted industry, the Mediterranean experienced measurable recovery from pollution. This pattern, visible in marine sediments, shows that pandemics acted as unintentional conservation events. They interrupted the continuous extraction and refining that had filled the atmosphere and seas with lead. The declines in pollution demonstrate that even the most powerful empire of antiquity could not sustain its environmental impact during times of demographic collapse. In studying these episodes, we gain insight into both Roman history and the history of the environment. Plagues reshaped the empire’s politics and society, but they also reshaped its seas. The Mediterranean remembers not only the grandeur of Rome but also the silence of its mines during times of crisis. (*Communications Earth & Environment, by Koutsodendris et al.*) ### How Gaius Marius Changed Rome’s Armies Forever URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/how-gaius-marius-changed-rome-armies-forever/ Last updated: 2025-09-09T22:13:49.000Z [Gaius Marius](https://romanempiretimes.com/gaius-marius-the-rise-and-fall-of-rome-saviour/) (157–86 BCE) stands among the most transformative commanders of the ancient world. Under his leadership, Rome secured victories in North Africa and repelled a massive invasion of some 300,000 Germanic tribes pressing into Italy. The key to these successes lay in a set of five radical reforms that reshaped recruitment, training, and the very makeup of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/mistress-of-rome-servilia-caesar-and-the-politics-of-passion/)’s legions. By opening the ranks to new segments of society and standardizing their service, Marius turned the citizen militia into a permanent, professional army. This shift gave Rome a powerful instrument for conquest abroad and control at home, establishing a military model that endured for centuries. Yet these changes also carried profound consequences, undermining the stability of the Republic itself. ![Marius defeats the Cimbri, a painting by Alexandre-Gabriel Decamps](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Marius-defeats-the-Cimbri--a-painting-by-Alexandre-Gabriel-Decamps.jpg) Marius defeats the Cimbri, a painting by Alexandre-Gabriel Decamps. Public domain ## The Marian Reforms Under the Historian’s Lens The Roman military left a deep imprint on nearly every dimension of [Roman life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/), and few areas of study remain untouched by its presence. The impact of Marius’ reforms can be traced through a wide range of evidence that allows historians to reconstruct and assess the transformation of [Rome’s armies](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) after his time. Yet the nature, reliability, and usefulness of these sources vary considerably, leading to conflicting, inconclusive, and at times erroneous interpretations of what the reforms truly involved. Many general works on the [Roman army](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) provide only a brief overview of Marius’ changes, offering little detail on the motivations behind them or their long-term effects. More specialized studies on infantry equipment, examine weapons, [formations](https://romanempiretimes.com/testudo-the-military-formation-that-lasted-from-ancient-rome-to-today-2/), and battlefield practices, which can shed indirect light on how the reforms reshaped the military. Illustrations based on ancient descriptions and archaeological finds supply useful visual context, though their accuracy is often limited by artistic interpretation. Texts focused exclusively on Marius are rare, particularly in English, and tend to emphasize his political career over his military innovations. A further complication lies in the scholarly tendency to attribute almost any military development between 110 and 30 BCE to Marius without firm evidence. Such claims are often unreferenced and lack corroboration, highlighting the need for comparative analysis across different types of sources. Any serious reconstruction of the Marian reforms must begin with the ancient texts. [Sallust](https://romanempiretimes.com/sallust-details-on-the-historian-of-roman-elite-and-the-republic-decline/)’s Jugurthine War and [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/)’s Life of Marius remain the most substantial accounts, while scattered details can be found in Appian, Florus, [Pliny](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/), Orosius, and Frontinus, writing between the first and fifth centuries CE. Comparative insights into pre- and post-Marian military practice can be drawn from [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-and-the-architecture-of-roman-power/), [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/), [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/), Josephus, and Vegetius. Later historians such as [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) and [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) also provide valuable context on the military and political climate of the late Republic and early [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/), while grammarians like Festus preserve important terminology relevant to the reforms. Yet biases, gaps, and the temporal distance of these sources pose challenges. Sallust, a supporter of [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/) who served under him, often portrays Marius in a favorable light while attacking the Senate, as in the speech he ascribes to Marius in 107 BCE. Plutarch, writing some three centuries later, relied heavily on partisan sources such as Sulla’s memoirs. Others, like Diodorus’ Histories, survive only in fragments, with much of the material on Marius lost. Beyond literary evidence, additional sources enrich the picture. Inscriptions, military diplomas, and official lists from the imperial period provide first-hand glimpses into the life of soldiers shaped by Marius’ reforms. Monuments such as [Trajan’s Column](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/), the Altar of Ahenobarbus, and [funerary reliefs](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) supply visual comparisons between the pre- and post-Marian army. Archaeological discoveries—including camps, [coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/), and weapons—offer tangible links to the organization and equipment of the [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-enigmatic-disappearance-of-the-9th-roman-legion/), often proving more reliable than literary testimony. Together, these sources form the foundation for any reappraisal of Marius’ military reforms and their enduring impact on Rome. ![Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, The Triumph of Marius](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Giovanni-Battista-Tiepolo--The-Triumph-of-Marius.jpg) Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, The Triumph of Marius. Public domain ## The Roman army before Marius To grasp the scale of Marius’ changes, it is essential to understand the structure of Rome’s army in the second century BCE. [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/), writing in book six of his [*Histories*](https://amzn.to/4neYLeZ?ref=romanempiretimes.com), offers the fullest description. Each year, soldiers were selected by the *dilectus*, a ceremony of lot-drawing that filled four consular legions. Service was viewed as a civic duty, with enlistment originally lasting only a single campaign season, though by the Punic Wars terms of several years became common. Men could be recalled up to sixteen years of service, balancing soldiering with civilian life. Eligibility depended on property. Only citizens worth more than 4,000 asses could serve, based on the belief that landholders would fight more loyally for the state. Recruits were then divided by wealth and age into four ranks*: velites* (light infantry skirmishers), *hastati* (young, medium infantry), *principes* (experienced heavy infantry), and *triarii* (older heavy infantry with spears). Each was differently armed, from the lightly equipped velites with javelins to the heavily armed triarii. Though many scholars assume soldiers supplied their own equipment, Polybius and Plutarch indicate that the state issued arms, with costs deducted from pay. Wealth distinctions may therefore have reflected repayment ability rather than direct purchase. A legion numbered around 4,200 men, divided into *maniples* and *centuries*, arrayed in three successive lines of hastati, principes, and triarii. This “manipular” system allowed units to rotate in and out of battle: skirmishers began the fight, hastati engaged next, then principes, with the triarii as the final reserve. This flexible deployment was effective against rigid phalanxes but left gaps that could be exploited by looser formations. It was in this army, organized by wealth and fought in layered ranks, that Marius began his career—an army he would soon revolutionize. ![A painting by Pierre-Joseph François of Gaius Marius sitting on the ruins of Carthage](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-painting-by-Pierre-Joseph-Fran--ois-of-Gaius-Marius-sitting-on-the-ruins-of-Carthage.jpg) A painting by Pierre-Joseph François of Gaius Marius sitting on the ruins of Carthage. Public domain ## The Military Career of Gaius Marius Understanding the reforms of Gaius Marius requires first setting them against the backdrop of his career. Born near Arpinum in 157 BCE to modest parents, Marius came from outside the Roman aristocracy and sought advancement through military service. His career began in 134 BCE as a cavalryman in Spain under Scipio Aemilianus. He later held a tribunate in the 120s BCE, served in Asia Minor, and was elected praetor in 115 BCE, followed by a governorship in Spain the next year. In 111 BCE Rome went to war with Jugurtha of [Numidia](https://romanempiretimes.com/numidia-rome-african-frontier-and-the-soldiers-who-changed-an-empire/), a conflict prolonged by broken truces, revolts, and Roman setbacks. By 109 BCE Quintus Caecilius Metellus commanded in Numidia, with Marius as his cavalry officer. After several inconclusive campaigns, Marius secured election to the consulship of 107 BCE with popular backing and replaced Metellus in command. It was here that he introduced his first reform: allowing citizens without property to enlist. His campaign brought mixed results, but by 106 BCE he had taken several cities and Jugurtha’s treasury, aided by cavalry under Lucius Cornelius [Sulla](https://romanempiretimes.com/sulla-rome-reluctant-tyrant/). The war ended in 105 BCE when Jugurtha was handed over through negotiations with Bocchus of Mauretania. With Jugurtha defeated, Marius was elected consul again in 104 BCE to face a far greater challenge: migrating Germanic tribes who had annihilated a Roman army at Arausio. As he raised new troops, Marius introduced three linked reforms: altering the baggage train and the soldiers’ load, making the cohort the army’s basic unit, and adopting the eagle as the sole legionary standard. While the German tribes first diverted toward Spain, Marius held repeated consulships in 103 and 102 BCE to prepare. In 102 BCE the Teutones and Ambrones advanced into southern Gaul, while the Cimbri and Tigurini threatened northern Italy. Marius defeated the Teutones and Ambrones at Aquae Sextiae after securing supply lines with a new canal, then joined his colleague Catulus against the Cimbri. Before the decisive battle at Vercellae in 101 BCE, during his fifth consulship, Marius introduced his final reform: a redesign of the legionary javelin. At Vercellae, the combined armies of Marius and Catulus crushed the Cimbri, ending the Germanic threat. 🏛️ The Teutones and Ambrones were Germanic tribes that migrated southward during the late 2nd century BCE, part of the great movement of peoples that also included the Cimbri. Originally from northern Europe — likely the Jutland Peninsula (modern Denmark) and surrounding areas — they began moving into Gaul and eventually threatened Roman territory. ****The Teutones:** **A large tribe often mentioned alongside the Cimbri. Ancient writers describe them as formidable warriors, feared for their size and ferocity. Their migration brought them into conflict with Rome after they crossed into southern Gaul.* ****The Ambrones:** **A smaller but allied tribe, culturally and linguistically related to the Teutones. They fought alongside them during the invasion of southern Gaul. Ancient sources, such as Plutarch, note their distinctive war cries — shouting “Ambrones!” as they charged into battle.* In 102 BCE, these two tribes advanced toward Italy but were intercepted by Marius at Aquae Sextiae (modern Aix-en-Provence, France). There he won a decisive victory, annihilating the Ambrones and most of the Teutones, an achievement that bolstered his reputation as Rome’s savior. The rest of Marius’ life was marked less by triumph than turmoil. He returned to politics with diminishing success, clashed with the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) over land for his veterans, and entered into bitter rivalry with Sulla over command in the East. He still fought in the Social War of 90–89 BCE, but the conflict with Sulla led to civil war, executions, and his exile. Restored to power in 86 BCE, he was elected consul for a seventh time, only to die seventeen days later at the age of seventy-one. No further reforms followed his earlier innovations, but the army he had reshaped endured long beyond him. ![A painting by Joseph Kremer, depicting exiled Gaius Marius sitting among the ruins of Carthage](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-painting-by-Joseph-Kremer--depicting-exiled-Gaius-Marius-sitting-among-the-ruins-of-Carthage.jpg) A painting by Joseph Kremer, depicting exiled Gaius Marius sitting among the ruins of Carthage. Public domain ## Opening the Ranks: Marius’ Head-Count Reform (107 BCE) In 107 BCE, while preparing for the war in Numidia, Marius broke with tradition by enlisting volunteers from the *capite censi*—landless citizens normally exempt from legionary duty—and recalling veterans to fill his ranks. This marked a decisive departure from the dilectus, which had long limited service to property holders. Scholars have debated whether this was the “next step” in a gradual reduction of property thresholds or a radical reform. The evidence suggests the latter: Marius faced not a shortage of men in general, but a shortage of willing property-owning recruits, reluctant to endure a long and unprofitable African campaign. Volunteers from the head-count offered a solution—men with little to lose and much to gain from [military pay](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/), plunder, and the chance of advancement. The consequences reached far beyond Numidia. By opening the army to the dispossessed, Marius shifted loyalty from the Republic to individual commanders who provided success and rewards. This reform gave Rome a larger and more flexible pool of manpower, laying the groundwork for the professional armies of the late Republic and the Principate. It also set in motion a new political dynamic where military power became the key to political office—a path later taken by Sulla, [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/), and [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/). ![A painting by W. Rainey, depicting Caius Marius and the Ambassadors of the Cimbri](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-painting-by-W.-Rainey--depicting-Caius-Marius-and-the-Ambassadors-of-the-Cimbri.jpg) A painting by W. Rainey, depicting Caius Marius and the Ambassadors of the Cimbri. Public domain ## From Manipules to Cohorts In the late Republic, Rome abandoned the manipular system in favor of the cohort, reshaping the army’s structure and battlefield tactics. Before Marius, cohorts existed as ad hoc groupings of maniples, but evidence suggests that around 104 BCE, during preparations for the Germanic wars, Marius formalized the cohort as the legion’s basic unit. Each cohort now contained six centuries of eighty men—about 480 soldiers—ten cohorts forming a legion. This change erased the old class-based divisions of hastati, principes, and triarii. Uniform equipping replaced varied weaponry, with all legionaries now carrying the [*gladius*](https://romanempiretimes.com/forged-for-battle-the-six-century-reign-of-the-roman-gladius/)*,* [*scutum*](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-last-legionary-unveiling-the-scutum-of-dura-europos/), and *pila.* Removing light-armed velites and standardizing arms created formations better suited to withstand the mass charges of the Cimbri and Teutones. The cohort also gave flexibility: units could form defensive squares, shift to meet attacks from several directions, and mutually support each other. Beyond tactics, the cohort strengthened cohesion. Mixing recruits from all backgrounds in one formation, outfitted alike, built solidarity and reduced resentment. Marius’ recall of [veterans](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) further stabilized these new units, while the cohort’s larger size made them more resilient in melee. The adaptability and esprit de corps fostered by this reform ensured that the cohort became the permanent backbone of the Roman legion, retained through Caesar’s time and into the Empire. ### Maniple vs Cohort at a Glance #### Manipular Legion (pre-Marius) ****Basic Unit**: **Manipulus* (“handful”) ****Unit Size**: 120 men (**hastati* & **principes*) or 70 men (**triarii*) ****Legion Size**: ±4,200 men (plus cavalry & allies) ****Troop Types**: Divided by weather/age: **velites*, **hastati*, **principes*, **triarii* ****Equipment**: Varied by class: from light javelins to spears and heavy armor ****Deployment**: Triplex **acies* (three lines), **maniples* staggered in checkerboard ****Tactical Strengths**: Flexibility against phalanx-style armies, rotation of ranks ****Loyalty & Cohesion**: Based on property class and civic duty #### Cohort Legion (post-Marius) ****Basic Unit**: **Cohors* (“enclosure, band”) ****Unit Size**: ±480 men (6 centuries of 80) ****Legion Size**: ±5,000 men (10 cohorts) ****Troop Types**: All legionaries equipped and trained alike ****Equipment**: Standarized: **gladius, scutum, pila* for all ****Deployment**: Cohorts as flexible blocks; could form squares, pivot, support each other ****Tactical Strengths**: Greater cohesion, resilience, and adaptability vs large tribal warbands ****Loyalty & Cohesion**: Built through uniform training, shared arms, and mixed recruitment ![A painting by W. Rainey, depicting Gaius Marius sitting in exile](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-painting-by-W.-Rainey--depicting-Gaius-Marius-sitting-in-exile.jpg) A painting by W. Rainey, depicting Gaius Marius sitting in exile. Public domain ## Marius’ Mules: Mobility, Endurance, and the Transformation of Roman Warfare In 104 BCE, during preparations for the Germanic threat, Marius introduced one of his most enduring reforms: reducing the baggage train and requiring each legionary to carry his own kit. Soldiers bore rations, cookware, tools, and weapons on a forked pole across their shoulders, earning the nickname “Marius’ Mules.” While earlier commanders like Scipio Aemilianus and Metellus had experimented with burdening troops for discipline, Marius institutionalized the practice. The reform had sweeping effects. By shrinking the reliance on cumbersome wagons and animals, the legions gained mobility, speed, and independence. Units could march faster, seize ground, and entrench themselves without waiting for supplies. This meant Rome’s armies could advance deep into hostile territory, conduct rapid strikes, and adapt to sudden encounters. [Caesar’s later campaigns in Gaul](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/) vividly demonstrate the tactical freedom this system provided: troops in “light order” could march ahead of baggage, fortify a base, and fight effectively. Beyond logistics, the hardship of carrying heavy loads hardened soldiers physically and forged a new esprit de corps. Shared endurance promoted solidarity and discipline, while the ability to live off what they carried made legions less tied to the state’s traditional structures. This self-sufficiency became a hallmark of the Roman soldier. Evidence from Josephus, Trajan’s Column, and Vegetius confirms that the system persisted well into the Empire, proving its long-term value. “Marius’ Mules” turned the legion into a faster, more mobile, and more cohesive fighting machine. It was not simply a change in marching order but a redefinition of how Rome waged war—projecting power swiftly, decisively, and with armies bound together by shared burden. It remains one of the most important logistical revolutions in Roman military history. ### What Did a Gaius Marius “Mule” Carry? A Marian legionary typically bore 30–40 kg of equipment on a forked carrying pole (furca). His load included: - Weapons → Gladius (short sword), pila (two javelins), dagger - Armor & Shield → Helmet, mail or breastplate, large scutum shield - Rations → Grain (about two weeks’ supply), dried foods, water flask - Cooking gear → Pot, pan, and basic utensils - Tools → Entrenching spade or pickaxe, saw, and stakes for camp palisade (sudes) - Personal kit → Cloak, blanket, spare sandals, and small personal item ![Caius Marius Amid the Ruins of Carthage, a painting by John Vanderlyn](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Caius-Marius-Amid-the-Ruins-of-Carthage--a-painting-by-John-Vanderlyn.jpg) Caius Marius Amid the Ruins of Carthage, a painting by John Vanderlyn. Public domain ## The Eagle, the eternal symbol of the Roman army Among Rome’s most iconic military emblems stands the [eagle,](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-has-the-eagle-become-the-roman-symbol/) though this was not always the case. Before Marius, legions carried several animal standards, including the wolf, horse, boar, and minotaur. Pliny the Elder, the only ancient author to attribute the reform directly to Marius, dates it to his second consulship in 104 BCE. Pliny associates the eagle with the *prima ordinatio*, while the other animals were linked to different ranks. Scholars remain divided over how these standards functioned: some think each consular legion carried one of the four animals, others believe the manipular ranks each had their own insignia. A closer reading of Pliny, however, suggests that legions carried all five standards together but only took the eagle into battle, leaving the others in camp. The eagle, under the care of the aquilifer and the senior centurion of the first cohort, thus already symbolized the legion as a whole. > “Before the time of Gaius Marius, the legions carried five standards: the eagle, wolf, minotaur, horse, and boar. Marius gave preeminence to the eagle, and it alone began to be carried into battle, the rest remaining only in camp.” Pliny, [*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/47ARMYL?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 10.16 Marius’ reform abolished the use of the four lesser standards, leaving the eagle as the sole emblem of the legion. This aligned naturally with his wider restructuring: the end of class-based ranks, the adoption of the cohort, and the uniform equipping of troops. Older standards such as the vexillum and open-hand manipular signs may have continued as banners for centuries, but their role became secondary. The aquila was placed with the first cohort, usually on the right flank, serving as the reference point for deployment. Standard-bearers of cohorts and centuries aligned themselves by it, ensuring cohesion in movement and battle. Caesar’s order at Ruspina—that men should not advance more than four feet beyond their standards—illustrates this practical function. The eagle quickly became more than a tactical marker. It created esprit de corps, binding together men of varied backgrounds who had joined the army as volunteers after the head-count reform. Loyalty, once tied to property and the Republic, now centered on the legion and its eagle. Studies of military cohesion show that unit identity is crucial to morale, and for Roman soldiers the aquila embodied their collective pride. ![A painting by Rzeszów of Gaius Marius on the ruins of Carthage](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-painting-by-Rzesz--w-of-Gaius-Marius-on-the-ruins-of-Carthage-1.jpg) A painting by Rzeszów of Gaius Marius on the ruins of Carthage. Public domain Caesar’s campaigns provide examples of aquilifers who risked or gave their lives to save the eagle, even throwing it into enemy ranks to spur comrades forward or carrying it ashore in Britain to force hesitant soldiers to follow. Accounts describe soldiers defending standards to the death, and Tacitus later called the eagles the “*true deities of our legions*.” The eagle also carried religious meaning. Associated with [Jupiter](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/), its thunderbolt grasp confirmed the legion’s tie to Rome’s supreme god. This gave soldiers the sense of marching under divine protection, while offering Rome a potent symbol of its claim to rule. Ancient sources even describe standards “refusing” to be moved, such as before [Crassus](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/)’ disaster at Carrhae, when the eagles seemed to resist crossing the Euphrates. These stories reflect the semi-divine aura that had come to surround them. By the late Republic and into the Principate, the eagle’s political significance grew. Cinna carried one of Marius’ old eagles during the Marian War, and smaller eagles appear in Caesar’s armies. Under [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), eagles became instruments of diplomacy and propaganda. Envoys swore oaths before them, cities adopted their image, and Herod himself set up a golden eagle at the Jerusalem Temple. Victories and defeats were measured by standards captured or recovered: Augustus gloried in regaining those lost by Crassus to the Parthians, a feat advertised on coins and monuments, while the loss of three eagles in the [Teutoburg](https://romanempiretimes.com/arminius-from-friend-of-rome-to-german-leader-at-the-teutoburg-forest-battle/) disaster was remembered as a profound humiliation. In the end, the adoption of the eagle as the sole legionary standard reshaped Roman identity. It gave legions unity, pride, and a divine connection; it provided the state with an emblem to project its authority abroad; and it created a symbol so powerful that its fate was tied to the legion itself. Through this reform, Marius left one of his most enduring legacies—an image that would stand at the heart of Rome’s military and imperial power for centuries. ![Gaius Marius prisoner in Minturnae, a painting by Jean-Germain Drouais](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Gaius-Marius-prisoner-in-Minturnae--a-painting-by-Jean-Germain-Drouais.jpg) Gaius Marius prisoner in Minturnae, a painting by Jean-Germain Drouais. Public domain ## The Pilum: Marius’ Last Reform The pilum was Rome’s heavy throwing spear, central to legionary tactics. Traditionally it had a wooden shaft and long iron shank, fixed with two rivets. Marius altered its design before the battle of Vercellae (101 BCE): one iron rivet was replaced by a wooden peg that snapped on impact, bending the shaft and rendering enemy shields useless. Ancient writers, especially Plutarch, highlight its success in forcing the Cimbri to abandon their shields. Scholars debate the effectiveness and longevity of this innovation. Archaeological finds show pila of different designs, some with iron soft enough to bend, suggesting multiple experiments to ensure shields became unusable. Caesar later describes pila that bent at Bibracte in 58 BCE, showing the principle endured even if Marius’ exact peg design did not. The pilum reform was not as permanent as his other changes—the cohort system, “Marius’ Mules,” or the eagle—but it reflected the same spirit of adaptation. It showed Marius’ focus on practical battlefield needs, ensuring that Rome’s legions had every advantage over massed tribal armies. While the rivet modification was eventually abandoned, the pilum itself remained a defining weapon of Rome’s soldiers into the imperial era. (*On the Wings of Eagles. The reforms of Gaius Marius and the creation of Rome’s first professional soldiers, by Christopher Anthony Matthew*) --- Marius’ reforms were born of hard necessity but forged a new kind of Roman army—mobile, cohesive, and increasingly tied to its commanders. That force secured Rome’s borders and fueled expansion; it also unsettled the Republic’s politics. Whatever the debates over detail, the army that marched into the last century of the Republic—and the Empire that followed—moved in Marius’ footprint. ### The Roman Army Before and After the Marian Reforms #### Pre-Marian Army (Polybius’s manipular system) ****Recruitment**: Limited to citizens worth ≥ 4,000 asses; militia drawn annually via **dilectus* ****Service Term**: Seasonal or campaign-based; could total 16 years across life ****Motivation**: Civic duty tied to property ownership ****Organization**: Manipular system: **velites, hastati, principes, triarii* ranked by wealth & age ****Equipment**: Varied by class/wealth; partly issued by state, repaid via wages ****Unit Strength**: ±4,200 per legion; maniples of 60-120 men ****Tactics**: Triplex acies with successive ranks; maniples allowed rotation & flexibility ****Loyalty**: To Republic and Senate; soldiers as citizen-militia #### Post-Marian Army (Reforms 107-104 BCE) ****Recruitment**: Open to all Roman citizens, including landless **capite censi* volunteers ****Service Term**: Long-term service (ca. 16-20 years), creating standing armies ****Motivation**: Career path with pay, equipment, and potential land grants ****Organization**: Cohort system: 10 cohorts per legion, each 480 men; class divisions abolished ****Equipment**: Standardized equipment for all, uniform appearance across legion ****Unit Strength**: ±5,000 per legion; cohorts of 480 men, 6 centuries each ****Tactics**: Cohorts provided larger, more versatile blocks; could form defensive squares, adapt formations ****Loyalty**: Increasingly personal loyalty to commanders who paid and rewarded them ### Why Roman Numerals Endure in Watchmaking — And the Curious Case of IIII URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/why-roman-numerals-endure-in-watchmaking-and-the-curious-case-of-iiii/ Last updated: 2025-09-08T21:48:13.000Z To this day, when collectors lift a Cartier Tank, a Rolex Datejust with a Roman dial, or a Patek Philippe Calatrava, they are greeted not with Arabic digits but with an alphabet born on the stones of the Roman Forum. The watch face, a small circle of metal, is framed by the same numerals that once adorned milestones, [triumphal arches](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrians-arch-of-triumph-in-ancient-jerash-a-gateway-to-the-past/), and imperial decrees. The connection is more than stylistic. It signals continuity, permanence, and the authority of tradition. ## Time Written in Rome’s Alphabet Roman numerals in horology are not the most practical way of telling time. A single glance at a digital screen is faster; Arabic numerals are easier to read at speed. But practicality was never the point. Numerals on dials are symbols first, markers of heritage before they are tools of mathematics. Horological historians agree that the persistence of Roman numerals has to do with their capacity to project gravitas. In a culture where watches are as much about status and lineage as about timekeeping, Roman numerals signal that a piece belongs to the great conversation of history. They evoke monuments, law codes, and liturgy — a visual shorthand for longevity. This conservatism is not accidental. Scholars of numerical notation have long noted that number systems are among the most conservative features of culture, resistant to innovation even when efficiency demands change. Horology is a perfect case study. Watches and clocks are practical devices, but they are also personal and public symbols. They are meant to inspire trust, and few scripts inspire it more than [Rome’s](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/). To wear a watch with Roman numerals is to carry history itself on one’s wrist, to make a small circle echo with empire. ([*Numerical Notation*](https://amzn.to/3VJlN12?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Chrisomalis*) ![Cartier tank americaine, midsize, yellow gold](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Cartier-tank-americaine--midsize--yellow-gold.jpg) Cartier tank americaine, midsize, yellow gold. Credits: Jonathan Cohen, CC BY-SA 2.0 ## Clocks Before Watches: Legibility and Legacy The medieval world did not need numerals to tell time. Public bells sufficed: the strike of a hammer on bronze echoed across a town square, dictating work and prayer. When dials began to appear on monumental clocks in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, they introduced a visual system that complemented the sound. The choice of script mattered. Clockmakers wanted numerals that looked solemn, official, and clear even when carved into wood or painted across wide faces. Roman numerals, already familiar from inscriptions, provided exactly that. From these monumental clocks, the habit spread into homes. Domestic clocks of the Renaissance and early modern period carried over the same numerals. They created what horological scholars call a “visual grammar of time”: a standard arrangement of twelve Roman numerals around a circle. It was a grammar of authority. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Church-Clock-of-St.-Michaelis--Hamburg.jpg) ## In an age when mechanical timekeeping was itself miraculous, the use of Rome’s numbers made the new machines legible and trustworthy. **Church Clock of St. Michaelis, Hamburg. Credits: Mark Michaelis, CC BY 2.0* Arabic numerals were already available, but they carried connotations of calculation rather than authority. On dials, Arabic numerals looked modern but less venerable. Roman numerals offered continuity with the civic clocks of the past and with inscriptions every literate person knew. As horology spread from town squares to mantelpieces, the Roman script carried with it a weight of familiarity. By the seventeenth century, it had become the default for European clockmakers. The convention persisted into watchmaking: the pocket watches of the seventeenth century, the wristwatches of the nineteenth, and the luxury timepieces of today all inherited the same grammar. Roman numerals were not just legible; they were respectable, a sign that the keeper of time acknowledged the authority of history. ([*The Changing Face of Time*](https://amzn.to/46gpTml?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Desborough*) ## The Problem of Four: IIII vs IV in Watchmaking If Roman numerals embody tradition, the use of *IIII* instead of *IV* embodies tradition at its most peculiar. Nearly every watch and clock uses *IIII*, the so-called “clockmaker’s four.” The choice has puzzled generations. After all, Roman inscriptions themselves used IV widely. Why should horology diverge? One explanation is symmetry. With four numerals composed of only I’s (I, II, III, IIII), the dial balances with four numerals composed with V’s (V, VI, VII, VIII) and four with X’s (IX, X, XI, XII). The result is a tripartite harmony: three clusters of four numerals each, equally distributed around the circle. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-macro-of-a-Panerai-homage.jpg) ## Replace IIII with IV, and the balance is lost. **A macro of a Panerai homage. Credits: Guy Sie, CC BY-SA 2.0* The left side of the dial suddenly carries a heavy V that has no counterpart opposite. As one historian of dials observed, the majority of clocks adopted IIII “by far,” precisely to preserve this visual equilibrium. The goal was not arithmetic but harmony. Other theories have circulated. Some claim that IV was avoided to prevent confusion with the initials of Jupiter (IVPITER). Others point to practicality: four strokes were easier to cast in metal than one stroke and a V. The most colorful legend involves King Charles V of France, who supposedly commanded clockmakers to use IIII on all his dials, and whose preference spread throughout Europe. Whether apocryphal or not, it illustrates a truth: horological conventions often originate in authority and then persist through repetition. Modern watch museums acknowledge these competing explanations. [The Seiko Museum in Tokyo](https://museum.seiko.co.jp/en/knowledge/trivia02/?ref=romanempiretimes.com) presents the Charles V anecdote as one possible origin, alongside the symmetry theory. Collectors debate the point endlessly, but the reality is simple: once a convention dominates, it resists change. And so, centuries later, a Rolex Datejust or a Cartier Tank still displays *IIII*. (*Numerals on Clock and Watch Dials, by Hering; Clockmaker’s Four, by Durel*) ## Symmetry and the Aesthetics of Time The case of *IIII* underscores a deeper truth about horology: dials are artworks as much as instruments. Time can be displayed in many ways, but to inspire confidence, it must also look ordered. The circle of numerals is therefore not only a measure of hours but a composition of shapes. Watchmakers have always treated dials as canvases. The numerals, hands, and chapter rings together create a visual harmony that reassures the viewer of accuracy and order. Roman numerals, with their tall, upright strokes, lend an architectural quality, like miniature columns framing the dial. Within this architecture, *IIII* is the keystone: its visual balance stabilizes the whole. Symmetry mattered especially in the early centuries of clockmaking, when mechanical precision was limited. A clock might lose or gain minutes, but a dial that looked symmetrical conveyed trust. The viewer forgave the mechanism’s flaws because the face promised order. In watches, this aesthetic authority became even more important. A timepiece worn on the body was a jewel as well as a tool. The dial’s design declared status, and Roman numerals with *IIII* became hallmarks of sophistication. Even today, collectors react instinctively to this balance. A dial with *IV* feels unusual, sometimes even unsettling, because it disrupts the visual symmetry the eye expects. In luxury watchmaking, where heritage and elegance are paramount, such disruption is rarely welcome. This is why *IIII* persists not by accident but by design. ([*A General History of Horology*](https://amzn.to/4p9Yhbn?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Turner*) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Cartier-Tank-Basculante.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-Panerai-Lumino-Marina-Watch.jpg) ****Image #1**: Cartier Tank Basculante. Credits: kitchener.lord, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0, ****Image #2**: A Panerai Lumino Marina Watch. Credits: Johnson Watch, Public domain ## Tradition That Outlives Function The irony is that Roman numerals are now less functional than ever. Few people calculate time from them quickly; fewer still need them in an age of digital clocks. And yet they persist. Why? Because horology is about more than function. It is about tradition, identity, and symbolism. Luxury watches, in particular, sell narratives as much as mechanisms. A Rolex with Roman numerals suggests permanence. A Cartier dial covered in seriffed numerals recalls the Paris of the early twentieth century. A Patek Philippe that chooses Roman markers places itself in a lineage stretching back to Renaissance clocks. Roman numerals also resist the homogenization of Arabic numerals. Arabic digits dominate our lives in banking, computing, and communication. By contrast, Roman numerals are rare, appearing only in ceremonial contexts—on monuments, in royal inscriptions, in film credits. Their rarity makes them special. On a dial, they elevate a watch from instrument to heirloom. As one scholar of numerals notes, notations are never neutral. They encode values. In horology, the Roman system encodes prestige. When a watchmaker chooses I–XII instead of 1–12, they are not choosing clarity but continuity. They are inviting the wearer into a tradition older than the watch itself. ([*Numerical Notation*](https://amzn.to/3VJlN12?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Chrisomalis*) ## Exceptions to the Rule Tradition does not mean uniformity. There are exceptions. The most famous is London’s Great Clock of Westminster—Big Ben—which uses IV instead of IIII. The choice makes the tower distinctive, a visible counterpoint to the majority of European clocks. But it also proves how unusual the deviation is. Tour guides still point it out precisely because the expected form is IIII. Other exceptions are scattered. Certain modernist designers in the twentieth century experimented with IV, seeking to break from convention. Some brands today produce models with Arabic numerals or minimalist markers, abandoning numerals altogether. Yet these are departures from tradition, not the tradition itself. The mainstream of luxury watchmaking continues to rely on Roman numerals, with IIII firmly in place. The persistence of this convention demonstrates the power of repetition. Once a habit enters the repertoire of clockmakers, reinforced across centuries of dials, it becomes almost impossible to uproot. Even in the most innovative watches of today, the pull of tradition remains. ![Big Ben Closeup, showing the IV instead of IIII numeral](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Big-Ben-Closeup--showing-the-IV-instead-of-IIII-numeral.jpg) Big Ben Closeup, showing the IV instead of IIII numeral. Credits: Phil Dolby, CC BY 2.0 ## Time, Tradition, and Identity In the end, Roman numerals endure in watchmaking not because they are useful but because they are meaningful. They connect the present to the past, the wristwatch to the tower clock, the pocket watch to the Roman milestone. They embody symmetry, tradition, and superstition in a single script. The survival of *IIII* is the most vivid symbol of this endurance. It is wrong in Roman epigraphy, but right in horology. It balances the dial, satisfies the eye, and anchors centuries of craft. Whether born of symmetry, superstition, or the decree of a king, it has become part of watchmaking’s DNA. As Hering wrote almost a century ago, *“The form of numerals on dials has less to do with mathematical correctness than with tradition and custom.”* Time itself has changed, but the numerals that mark it remain. Watches tick forward, but their faces look backward, to Rome. To glance at a dial is to glimpse a paradox: a modern machine wrapped in an ancient language, a tool of precision adorned with a superstition, a symbol of progress bound by tradition. It is a paradox that horology has embraced. The hands move on; the numerals stay the same. (*Numerals on Clock and Watch Dials, by Hering*) ### I’m a Roman Empire Nerd: Spartacus back to Netflix is a Historical Nightmare URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/im-a-roman-empire-nerd-spartacus-back-to-netflix-is-a-historical-nightmare/ Last updated: 2025-09-05T20:51:51.000Z Netflix is re-licensing Spartacus (Starz) after years away, with all seasons — including the prequel Gods of the Arena — slated to arrive on September 22, 2025 (U.S.). The window length isn’t confirmed, but the timing ensures a fresh wave of attention for a show famous for its stylized violence and operatic plotting. That renewed visibility is precisely why the historical claims deserve a sober review. A compelling series can still miseducate, especially when it wraps conjecture in the costume of authority. ### Why This “Return” Matters Spartacus himself is not a cipher invented for television. He is a real figure, attested by ancient authors, who led a large and frightening revolt during the Third Servile War (73–71 BCE). Yet virtually everything beyond that skeleton — his motives, internal debates, and personal relationships — lies in shadow. The show fills those gaps with modern, character-driven arcs that secure narrative momentum but sacrifice historical caution. For Roman Empire Times readers, this is familiar ground. [We have written before about Spartacus](https://romanempiretimes.com/spartacus-the-gladiator-who-defied-rome/) as a historical actor rather than a modern icon, tracing the revolt through the few sources that survive and acknowledging how many questions remain open. The Netflix return is an opportunity to underline that distinction again: an engaging screen myth versus an evidence-based reconstruction. ![Marble sculpture of Spartacus from Denis Foyatier in the Louvre Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Marble-sculpture-of-Spartacus-from-Denis-Foyatier-in-the-Louvre-Museum.jpg) Marble sculpture of Spartacus from Denis Foyatier in the Louvre Museum. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 ### Sources: What We Actually Know Our best accounts of the revolt come from Plutarch’s [*Life of Crassus*](https://amzn.to/3I5O6nn?ref=romanempiretimes.com) and Appian’s [*Civil Wars*](https://amzn.to/4p8ZBet?ref=romanempiretimes.com). Both wrote in the second century CE — generations after the events — relying on earlier historians like [Sallust](https://romanempiretimes.com/sallust-details-on-the-historian-of-roman-elite-and-the-republic-decline/) and [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) whose relevant texts are largely lost. Even so, [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/) and Appian agree on the basics: Spartacus was a Thracian who escaped from a gladiatorial school at Capua with dozens of others, gathered a heterogeneous army, defeated several Roman forces, and was finally crushed by [Crassus](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/), with [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/) entering late and taking credit for mopping up survivors. The thinness of the ancient record is crucial. Plutarch and Appian sketch broad movements, not intimate portraits. We do not possess a diary, correspondence, or a detailed campaign log from the rebel camp. The series fills the lacunae with intrigues and relationships that make for good television but go well beyond what the texts support. Viewers should keep the hierarchy clear: Plutarch and Appian are primary narratives; modern dramatizations are imaginative interpolations. That caution matters most whenever the show presents a character’s “true” motive or a decisive political meeting that left no historical trace. In the absence of contemporary testimony, such scenes are narrative devices rather than recoveries of fact. ### The Caesar Problem The series’ most conspicuous liberty is the insertion of a young [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) into the heart of the Servile War. On screen he is a schemer inside Crassus’s orbit, trading stratagems and close-quarters confrontations with rebels. It is a powerful way to link familiar names and to frame the revolt as a prequel to [Caesar’s later career](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/). It is also **unsupported by the sources**. Neither Plutarch nor Appian places [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/) in the campaign against Spartacus. Caesar and Crassus will later share political history, but there is no textual evidence that Caesar acted as a fixer in Italy during the [slave](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) war. Modern encyclopedic summaries and scholarly overviews repeat this point: he lived during the revolt, certainly, but his participation is unattested. The choice to weave Caesar into the plot is understandable as television — it tightens the narrative and raises the stakes — yet it blurs the line between documented involvement and invented proximity. For an audience learning the period primarily through the series, **the risk of misremembering invention as fact** is high. ![Statue of Spartacus, gladiator of ancient Rome, in the amphitheatre of Santa Maria Capua in Vetere, Caserta](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Statue-of-Spartacus--gladiator-of-ancient-Rome--in-the-amphitheatre-of-Santa-Maria-Capua-in-Vetere--Caserta.jpg) Statue of Spartacus, gladiator of ancient Rome, in the amphitheatre of Santa Maria Capua in Vetere, Caserta. Credits: emilius da atlantide, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 ### Batiatus, the Ludus, and a Cliff that Never Was The show’s Capuan *ludus* (gladiator school) is cinematic: a multi-level complex perched theatrically above a cliff, doubling as a stage for confrontations and private intrigues. The real ludus associated with the revolt belonged to a Roman named Lentulus Batiatus (a corruption of Vatia in some manuscripts). Ancient sources identify him as the *lanista* whose school Spartacus escaped. That is nearly the sum of what we can say with confidence about his establishment from the record. Archaeology and social history suggest [gladiator schools](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/) were integrated into urban fabrics or their immediate outskirts, not dangling over vertiginous drops. They were walled, regimented institutions designed to control valuable human property — trained fighters whose lives were capital assets. Television sets privilege dramatic sightlines and symbolic placement; history points to enclosed training yards, barracks, armories, and administrative spaces sized to the business of spectacle. When viewers internalize the cliff-top ludus as “how it looked,” they carry away a false architectural memory. The genuine debate among historians concerns the organization, financing, and staffing of gladiator schools — questions the series occasionally nods at but rarely treats with rigor. ### Gladiators: To the Death? Not So Fast A central promise of Spartacus is ever-escalating bloodshed, suggesting that gladiatorial bouts were regularly [fights to the death](https://romanempiretimes.com/thumbs-down-to-the-myth-the-truth-behind-roman-arena-gestures/). Modern scholarship draws a more complicated picture. Trained gladiators represented significant investments. While mortal outcomes did occur, the “every match ends in slaughter” premise is misleading. Rulesets, referees, and promoter economics mattered; gladiators who entertained reliably were valuable and fought repeatedly across seasons. Recent syntheses accessible to the general reader emphasize this nuance: ancient combat sports balanced drama with sustainability. Elite funerary spectacles or imperial caprice could tilt the scales toward higher lethality, but routine school-run shows depended on a roster that survived more than an episode. The series’ balletic carnage works as choreography; as evidence of standard practice, it distorts. This matters because gladiators in the revolt (Spartacus, Crixus, Oenomaus) are often imagined as death-court veterans honed by constant lethal wins. The reality is closer to professional fighters with specialized training who could still die, but whose careers were designed to be repeatable. ![Detail from The Oath of Spartacus, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Detail-from-The-Oath-of-Spartacus--Ny-Carlsberg-Glyptotek.jpg) Detail from The Oath of Spartacus, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Credits: Michiel2005, CC BY-NC 2.0 ### Ethnicity, Names, and Anachronism The series casts a wide net of characters to diversify its world, but in doing so it often reassigns ethnicities and names in ways that flatten the historical texture. A Carthaginian nicknamed “Barca,” for example, borrows resonance from Hamilcar’s family name even though [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/) had been destroyed in 146 BCE and “Barca” functions in the show mostly as shorthand for ferocity. Enomao (Oenomaus) appears in ancient sources as a Gaul, not the identity presented on screen. These shifts are creative choices; they are not transparent to viewers unfamiliar with the period. None of this denies that the rebel force was ethnically mixed. Plutarch and Appian note Gauls and Thracians among core lieutenants and a swell of rural slaves and herdsmen joining as the revolt grew. The problem is not diversity but specificity: when familiar labels are imported for dramatic effect, they can harden into canonical “facts” in public memory. The same applies to invented Roman politicians and household members whose interpersonal subplots drive the series. In a record as thin as ours, an extra consul or tribune with a complex backstory makes for pacing — but viewers should be told up front, as many historical dramas now do, that characters and events have been condensed or fictionalized. ### A Revolutionary Icon — or a Survivor? Modern culture prefers Spartacus as a proto-revolutionary who consciously aimed to abolish slavery across the Republic. That image is powerful and morally satisfying, **but** **it is not what the sources assert**. The texts vacillate between Spartacus seeking escape from Italy, tactical campaigns for supplies and leverage, and a late-stage bid to negotiate from strength. Whether he intended to march on Rome is disputed even in antiquity. This difference is not pedantry. Portraying Spartacus as a programmatic liberator recasts the war as a teleological struggle whose endpoint is emancipation, rather than an opportunistic and evolving revolt against a brutal system. The series gains a coherent “cause” and clear character motivation; the history remains more uncertain and more tragic. A responsible way to watch the show is to grant the moral clarity it desires without attributing that clarity to the record. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/An-illustration-of-Spartacus--by-Gideon-Slife.jpg) ## Spartacus can be admired as a symbol **without* turning him into a 1st-century BCE abolitionist. **An illustration of Spartacus, by Gideon Slife. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times* ### Compressing Timelines, Inflating Intrigue Television thrives on compression. Campaign seasons shrink, journeys collapse into montages, conspiracies converge in a single atrium. In Spartacus, this logic produces a constant churn of reversals and betrayals that suggests an omnipresent Roman deep state arrayed against the rebels. The sources present something messier: praetors sent with insufficient forces, consuls suffering defeats, and a [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) that only gradually recognizes the scale of the emergency before empowering Crassus. Likewise, the progression from breakout to Alpine strategy to southern maneuvering spans months and involves multiple commanders. The show streamlines those phases to keep the ensemble cast in tight orbit, which heightens drama while erasing the administrative lag and logistical problems that plague any ancient campaign. The consequence is a near-constant “now or never” tone that substitutes for the stop-start pattern of ancient warfare. There is nothing wrong with compression if it is labeled as such. Problems arise when compressed sequences are later remembered as literal chronology. For audiences using the series as a first primer on late Republican crisis management, **the distortions are significant**. ### What the Show Gets Right (and Why It Still Misleads) To be fair, the series does succeed in conveying the fear the revolt inspired. [Roman elites](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) were alarmed by a fast-growing, mobile army deep in Italy, and the political stakes for Crassus and, later, Pompey were real. The improvisational quality of early Roman responses is also broadly captured: the state underestimated the threat before shifting to more experienced commanders. The material world of training, equipment, and improvisation is sometimes well observed — [gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-legends-about-gladiator-sweat-heres-what-we-found/) adapting tools into weapons, the use of local terrain, and the recruitment of rural laborers with animal-handling experience. None of that rescues the show from its larger inventions, but it explains why it can feel authentic at moments even when it is not. For educators and historically curious viewers, this is an opportunity rather than a problem. A scene can spark an interest that drives someone to Plutarch, Appian, or modern syntheses. The danger is when the scene becomes the history. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Late-actor-Andy-Whitfield-speaking-about-Spartacus-in-Comic-Con.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Actress-Lucy-Lawless-and-Actor-Liam-McIntyre--speaking-about-Spartacus-in-Comic-Con.jpg) ****Image #1**: Late actor Andy Whitfield speaking about Spartacus in Comic Con. Credits: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0 ****Image #2**: Actress Lucy Lawless and Actor Liam McIntyre, speaking about Spartacus in Comic Con. Credits: Starz Entertainment, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 ### Bottom Line: Watch, But Footnote It The return of Spartacus to Netflix will introduce a new cohort to one of antiquity’s most gripping episodes. As entertainment, the series makes deliberate choices: center a charismatic lead, entwine him with marquee Romans, and escalate every fight to operatic stakes. As history, those choices blur boundaries that the ancient sources keep deliberately vague. 🏛️ On the spectacle side of things, Spartacus definitely delivers. From the gripping performance of the first season’s lead actor Andy Whitfield, [who tragically died from cancer](https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/spartacus-actor-andy-whitfields-cancer-battle-documented-now/story?id=38240987&ref=romanempiretimes.com), to the mesmerizing sensual scenes with Lucy Lawless and the gory, mature violence displayed in crystal-clear quality, the show really does entertain. If you stream it, treat the show as historical fiction with aggressive liberties. Use it as an on-ramp to the texts that survive, and to the careful modern work that weighs them. Rome’s slave war does not need invented conspiracies or imported celebrities to be compelling. The fragments we possess, read with care, are dramatic enough. The revolt of Spartacus deserves attention as a complex social uprising inside a [slave society](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) — not merely as a canvas for spectacle. Netflix can put the show back in front of us. We can put the record back beside it. ### Gaius Marius: The Rise and Fall of Rome’s Saviour URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/gaius-marius-the-rise-and-fall-of-rome-saviour/ Last updated: 2025-10-15T10:19:11.000Z He was the man who rose from obscurity in Arpinum to dominate Roman politics, the *homo novus* who shattered precedent with seven consulships and claimed to have saved the Republic from annihilation. Gaius Marius (157–86 BCE) embodied both the promise and peril of Rome’s late Republic: a general who crushed Jugurtha and the northern tribes, yet whose ruthless ambition, political violence, and bitter rivalry with [Sulla](https://romanempiretimes.com/sulla-rome-reluctant-tyrant/) plunged the state into its first civil war. At once savior and destroyer, his career marked a turning point when military glory became the surest path to power. ### The Forgotten Savior of Rome Since the fall of the Western Empire in 476 CE, the Republic and [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/) have held a unique grip on the imagination. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/foundations-of-justice-romes-twelve-tables/)’s achievements, longevity, and cultural reach are unmatched in the West. Its collapse, long in the making, now appears inevitable after centuries of strain—yet its influence remains plain to see. Modern admiration often centers on figures like [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/), [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-four-journeys-of-hadrian-the-globetrotter-emperor-of-the-roman-empire/), [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/10-things-you-did-not-know-about-marcus-aurelius/), and [Constantine](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-truly-great-was-emperor-constantine-the-great/). But this focus can obscure those who made their rise possible. Among them, Gaius Marius stands out—exceptional in his time, yet comparatively obscure today. ![The bust in the foreground depicts the consul - general Gaius Marius, behind him, his contender Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/The-bust-in-the-foreground-depicts-the-consul---general-Gaius-Marius--behind-him--his-contender-Lucius-Cornelius-Sulla-Felix.jpg) The bust in the foreground depicts the consul - general Gaius Marius, behind him, his contender Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Marius’ ascent was extraordinary. He seized the political stage, stayed in power longer than any Roman before him, reformed the legions, and defeated some of Rome’s most dangerous foes in striking victories. He was hailed as a savior and lauded by the people; at his height, some treated him as more than mortal. For all his flaws, few figures defined their era as decisively as Marius. He began as an unlikely hero. His family lacked influence; none of his close kin had held office. He professed humble origins and a life marked by hardship, yet he was relentless and ambitious. In an age when wealth and lineage were the usual path to office, he forced his way upward to an influence and popularity unmatched until [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/)—who was linked to him by marriage. His rise, however, carried costs. Marius increasingly bent constitutional norms when it suited him and worked with dubious allies to achieve political aims. As his power ebbed and rivals pressed him, his harsher traits—pettiness, cruelty, and an unquenched appetite for power—became more visible. In the end, the man who once saved the Republic also helped unbalance it, tarnishing his legacy. Marius was born around 157 BCE, a time when infant mortality was high and [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) itself was changing fast. Even as Roman power spread, the state showed visible stress. Roman legends of violent beginnings — from [Romulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-and-remus-the-legendary-founders-of-rome/)’ fratricide to the fall of kings — set the stage for a Republic wary of one-man rule. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Closeup-of-a-first-century-CE-togate-torso-bearing-a-17th-century-CE-head-dubbed-Caius-Marius-1.jpg) ## Rome’s rise, like Marius’, was rapid and unforeseen—and it came with risks and side effects. **Closeup of a first century CE togate torso bearing a 17th century CE head dubbed Caius Marius. Credits: Mary Harrsch, CC BY 2.0* In 509 BCE, the Romans expelled Tarquinius Superbus and set up a republic, with assemblies, [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/), and magistracies designed to limit power. Through alliances and wars, Rome gained control of Italy. Contact with [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) led to three Punic Wars. After early victory, Rome endured Hannibal’s long invasion before defeating him at Zama. The memory of that terror—“[Hannibal at the gates](https://romanempiretimes.com/hannibal-ad-portas-how-37-african-elephants-crossed-the-alps/)”—never faded. Later, [Cato](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/) urged Carthage’s destruction, and Scipio Aemilianus finally razed the city, ending the third war. By mid-second century BCE, Rome dominated the western Mediterranean, drew wealth from mines, taxes, and booty, and saw slaves and riches flood the city. Yet the capital itself was no marble metropolis—crowded, unsanitary, fire-prone, and haphazardly built. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) could call it “[Romulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-romulus-kill-remus-the-tragic-tale-of-the-founders-of-rome/)’ cesspool.” Traffic clogged its narrow streets; fires were frequent long before [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/) organized the vigiles. Politics likewise faltered. Violence grew, demagogues rose, and the system bent. Rome’s society was divided between patricians and [plebeians](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/), but wealth and power existed within both. Early plebeian protests—the famous secessions—produced negotiated settlements. Over time, however, the tribunate gained the power to bypass the Senate and take laws directly to the people. [The Gracchi](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-gracchi-brothers-visionaries-or-socialist-revolutionaries/) marked a turning point. Tiberius Gracchus pushed land redistribution in 133 BCE, clashed with the Senate, and was killed in street violence. His brother Gaius advanced further reforms, including subsidized grain, and also died in bloodshed. Their program showed the reach of the tribunate—and the growing readiness to use force. There were no modern parties; candidates leaned on family, reputation, and money. Broadly, *populares* favored appealing to the people and sometimes bypassing the Senate; optimates defended traditional senatorial authority. Corruption spread—bribes, spectacles, and patronage shaped elections; foreign gifts and domestic payments greased decisions. Both camps shared blame. Marius spent his youth away from Rome’s grime, at Cereatae near Arpinum, a community long tied to Rome and granted citizenship in 188 BCE. Without that enfranchisement, neither Marius nor Arpinum’s other famed son, Cicero, could have reached Roman office. Rural life was austere and valued; Cato the Elder praised agriculture as the source of [Rome’s best soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/). Marius likely absorbed habits of discipline, frugality, and hard work there. Little is securely known of his family beyond names—father Gaius Marius, mother Fulcinia, at least one brother (Marcus) and a sister (Maria). Ancient reports differ on their means. Some portray real poverty; others suspect Marius emphasized humble origins to court popular favor. Many modern scholars judge his father to have been an equestrian, which would fit the wealth needed for legionary eligibility in that era. Education mirrored means. Rome had no public schools; families paid for tutors or group instruction when they could. [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) influence on education was strong, even if some Romans—Marius included, according to hostile reports—dismissed it. In practice, a successful political career implies at least some training in letters and rhetoric, whether formal or self-taught. Like other Roman youths, Marius likely marked his passage to manhood by donning the *toga virilis* and being presented in the forum. He came of age as Rome grew richer and wider in reach—but also as its politics coarsened. Beneath Rome’s successes, character failed; that moral decay would shape the world Marius entered—and the one he helped to make. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Caius-Marius-after-having-completely-defeated-the-Cimbri-and-the-Teutons--burns-their-weapons--in-the-presence-of-his-Army--receiving-from-the-same-thousand-lots-of-acclamations.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Caius-Marius--while-he-was-hiding-inside-a-swamp-is-discovered-by-his-enemies-who-were-looking-for-him--and-take-him-out-with-ropes-in-order-to-lead-him-to-Minturna--to-decide-his-fate.jpg) ****Image #1**: Caius Marius after having completely defeated the Cimbri and the Teutons, burns their weapons, in the presence of his Army, receiving from the same thousand lots of acclamations. ****Image #2**: Caius Marius, while he was hiding inside a swamp is discovered by his enemies who were looking for him, and take him out with ropes in order to lead him to Minturna, to decide his fate. Public domain ### Numantia: The Making of a Soldier In the 130s BCE, young Gaius Marius first appeared in the historical record as a soldier in the Third Celtiberian War, better known as the Numantine War. The Romans struggled against the Numantines, who were skilled in guerrilla tactics and defended their stronghold with natural bluffs, walls, and marshes. Several Roman commanders failed, and Rome’s prestige suffered. In 134 BCE, command went to Scipio Aemilianus, conqueror of Carthage, who restored discipline by harsh training and strict inspections. Marius, possibly serving as a junior officer or cavalryman, impressed Aemilianus with his diligence, courage, and even the care he showed for his horse and mule. According to reports, Marius fought bravely in single combat before his general’s eyes, earning high praise. Aemilianus encircled Numantia, constructing walls, towers, trenches, and even flooding a swamp to trap the city. As starvation and disease set in, some inhabitants turned to cannibalism. Eventually, many Numantines killed their families and themselves rather than surrender. The survivors set fire to their city before capitulating in 133 BCE, and Aemilianus leveled Numantia as he had Carthage. Marius’ exact role remains unclear, but his conduct during the campaign won him honors and the notice of Aemilianus, who allegedly patted him on the shoulder and remarked that here was perhaps Rome’s future general. The campaign forged Marius’ ideals of discipline, endurance, and ruthless determination—qualities that shaped his later career. ![Monument to Gaius Marius on the Capitol Hill in Rome, by Giacomo Lauro and Giacomo Mascardi](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Monument-to-Gaius-Marius-on-the-Capitol-Hill-in-Rome--by-Giacomo-Lauro-and-Giacomo-Mascardi.jpg) Monument to Gaius Marius on the Capitol Hill in Rome, by Giacomo Lauro and Giacomo Mascardi. Public domain ### The Climb Through the Cursus Honorum Marius’ political career unfolded along the *cursus honorum*—Rome’s traditional ladder of offices. The Republic’s system divided authority among magistrates and assemblies, limiting individual dominance. Advancement through the ranks demanded both ability and connections. The path usually began with the quaestorship, focused on financial duties, then moved to the aedileship, where ambitious men won popularity by sponsoring games. The praetorship followed, providing judicial authority and military commands. At the summit stood the consulship, Rome’s highest office, with sweeping military and civic powers. Other posts added complexity. The tribunate of the plebs, originally created to defend ordinary Romans, had by Marius’ day become a powerful office with the ability to propose laws directly and veto decisions—even those of fellow tribunes. Charismatic tribunes could block senatorial authority, making the office a potent tool of populist politics. Marius, as a *novus homo* (“new man”), faced daunting barriers—no aristocratic lineage, no family precedent in high office. Yet with ambition, military distinction, and the backing of patrons like the Metelli, he began ascending the ladder, starting with a military tribuneship and, by 119 BCE, election as tribune of the plebs . His career path, though fraught with opposition, showed that even an outsider could climb Rome’s political hierarchy with persistence, fortune, and skill. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Gaius-Marius-sits-on-the-ruins-of-Carthage.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Caius-Marius--with-the-thunder-of-his-voice--drops-the-sword-from-the-hands-of-the-soldier-who-was-to-kill-him.jpg) ****Image #1**: Gaius Marius sits on the ruins of Carthage. ****Image #2**: Caius Marius, with the thunder of his voice, drops the sword from the hands of the soldier who was sent to kill him. Public domain ### A New Man’s Boast: Scars Instead of Statues Marius built his career without ancestral portraits to parade in the forum. Instead, he declared: > “I cannot… display family portraits… but I can show spears, standards, cups, and other spoils… and scars on my breast”. 🏛️ That line is attributed to Gaius Marius in Sallust’s Jugurthine War. It comes from the speech Sallust puts into Marius’ mouth when he campaigned for the consulship in 107 BCE (ch. 85). In it, he contrasts himself with the Roman nobility who boast of family statues and ancestry, while he points instead to his own service and wounds. > *“Ego hominem novi generis, qui non imagines, neque triumphos, neque consulatus maiorum meorum, sed ea quae ipse gessi, virtute parta, habeo.”* > “I, a man of new family, have no ancestral portraits, triumphs, or consulships to display, but I can show the spoils I myself have won by valor.” [*Jugurthine War*](https://amzn.to/481R1I8?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 85.29 This carefully crafted image of the hard soldier appealed to Rome’s masses, who saw in him both simplicity and valor. Still, beneath the rustic mask could lay an insatiable drive: ambition, cunning, and the will to break precedent. As a youth, Marius was said to have caught an [eagle](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-has-the-eagle-become-the-roman-symbol/)’s nest with seven fledglings—interpreted as an omen of seven consulships, an unheard-of destiny. Whether legend or truth, the story followed him all his life, proof to admirers that fortune had marked him out. Born in Arpinum, likely to an equestrian household rather than the poverty he claimed, he wore austerity as a badge of honor. Later, however, he abandoned that simplicity; Plutarch sneered that his Misenum villa was furnished “effeminately and luxuriously,” a far cry from his farmer’s origins. ![An etching by Robert Blyth of Caius Marius on the Ruins of Carthage](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/An-etching-by-Robert-Blyth-of-Caius-Marius-on-the-Ruins-of-Carthage.jpg) An etching by Robert Blyth of Caius Marius on the Ruins of Carthage. Public domain ### Julia of the Julii: Marriage and Alliance His [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/) to Julia of the Julian clan linked Marius to Rome’s nobility, making him uncle by marriage to [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/). It was a union of ambition and lineage, bridging new wealth with ancient pedigree. Little is known of their personal affection, but politically it was invaluable. They had a son, Gaius Marius the Younger, though some sources suggest adoption. ### Shadows of Glory: Rivalry and Resentment The rivalry with Lucius Cornelius Sulla exposed Marius’ darkest traits. When Bocchus of Mauretania erected a monument in Rome showing Jugurtha’s surrender to Sulla, Marius raged—his glory stolen in stone. The insult festered into hatred. Later, when Sulla secured the [Mithridatic command](https://romanempiretimes.com/mad-honey-warfare-how-king-mithridates-poisoned-pompeys-legions/), Marius’ envy was unrestrained. We can descibe him as a man who, having tasted adulation, could not abide being eclipsed. His ambition grew reckless. Sallust recounts Marius’ claim that noble birth mattered less than personal valor, yet in practice, he would wield violence and intimidation to secure power. Hyden underlines that he was “*a soldier first, a politician second*,” and when politics failed him, he turned to force. ### The Weight of Years: Wealth, Age, and Decline By his sixties, Marius was fabulously wealthy but plagued by age and illness. To prove his vitality, he reportedly exercised on the Campus Martius in full armor, only to collapse from fatigue. He endured a brutal operation for varicose veins without flinching—[stoic](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/) to the point of vanity, refusing anesthetic so that no one could call him soft. His final return to Rome, alongside Cinna, was marked by terror. Declared *hostis* (enemy of the state), he exacted vengeance in bloody purges, condemning senators and equestrians alike without trial. Once savior, he became scourge, his name tied to massacre as much as to victory. ![Caius Marius in prison; two Cimbrian soldiers entering his cell, by Giorgio Ghisi, designed by Polidoro da Caravaggio](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Caius-Marius-in-prison--two-Cimbrian-soldiers-entering-his-cell--by-Giorgio-Ghisi--designed-by-Polidoro-da-Caravaggio.jpg) Caius Marius in prison; two Cimbrian soldiers entering his cell, by Giorgio Ghisi, designed by Polidoro da Caravaggio. Public domain ### Between Savior and Destroyer At his zenith, Marius was adored, hailed almost as a demi-god who had crushed Jugurtha, the Teutones, and the Cimbri. But his fall was spectacular. His ambition, cruelty, and taste for violence corroded his legacy. He had given Rome the army it needed to defend itself, but also the precedent for generals to wield legions as tools of personal power. ### The Seventh Consulship and Death In 86 BCE, Marius returned to Rome in triumph and terror, elected to his seventh consulship—an honor no Roman before him had achieved. Yet his victory was short-lived. Seized by illness and exhaustion, he died only seventeen days into office, at the age of seventy. His death spared him from facing Sulla’s vengeance, but not from history’s judgment. Rome gave him a grand funeral, complete with honors befitting a savior. The crowds remembered the general who had saved them from Jugurtha and the northern tribes. Yet even in death, his image was divided: to some, the protector of Rome; to others, the man who had set it on the path of civil war. His body lay in state, draped with symbols of victory, but his legacy lingered as both a warning and a memory of greatness undone. ([*Gaius Marius. The rise and fall of Rome’s saviour*](https://amzn.to/3K7dBFj?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Marc Hyden*) --- Marius’ life traced the arc of the Republic itself—rising from obscurity to unmatched power, reshaping Rome in war, and then unraveling in violence and rivalry. His seven consulships secured his place in history, yet his relentless ambition left scars on the state he claimed to save. To remember Marius is to confront both the **heights of Roman greatness** and the **flaws that hastened its fall**. ### Roman Mines as Environmental Catastrophes: How the Empire Polluted the Mediterranean with Lead URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-mines-as-environmental-catastrophes-how-the-empire-polluted-the-mediterranean-with-lead/ Last updated: 2025-09-04T13:15:03.000Z The Mediterranean was not only a sea of trade and conquest. It also became the basin that absorbed the waste of an empire. [New research](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01921-7?ref=romanempiretimes.com) analyzing seabed sediments in the Aegean has demonstrated how Roman mining and metallurgy introduced measurable levels of lead pollution beginning more than two thousand years ago. Around 2150 years before the present, **a clear and persistent signal of lead** appears across marine and terrestrial archives of the region. This coincides with [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s consolidation of power in Greece following the destruction of Corinth in 146 BCE. ### Rome’s Expanding Footprint in the Mediterranean The study emphasizes that this was not a localized phenomenon. The spread of lead contamination shows that human activity had become large enough to leave a basin-wide chemical footprint. Lead released during mining and smelting processes did not remain confined to the mines themselves but traveled through the atmosphere and rivers into the sea. Once deposited on the seabed, it preserved a record of imperial activity that remains visible to modern science. This finding reframes the reach of Roman power. [Roads](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/), cities, and armies expanded the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) on land, but its industrial activity extended its influence into the natural environment. The onset of marine lead pollution marks one of the earliest examples of widespread human impact on the sea, centuries before the industrial age. ![Slaves working in an Ancient Greek mine, probably Laurio, painting on Corinthian terracotta plaque, 5th century BC](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Slaves-working-in-an-Ancient-Greek-mine--probably-Laurio--painting-on-Corinthian-terracotta-plaque--5th-century-BC.jpg) [Slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) working in an Ancient Greek mine, probably Laurio, painting on Corinthian terracotta plaque, 5th century BC. Public domain ### Mining, Coinage, and the Luxury Economy At the heart of this pollution was the empire’s reliance on silver and gold. [Roman coinage](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) was the foundation of its [fiscal system](https://romanempiretimes.com/credit-loans-and-risk-how-ancient-rome-handled-money-without-a-central-bank/). [Soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/), officials, and merchants relied on a steady supply of silver denarii and gold aurei, and these coins required continuous mining and refining. To extract silver, Romans used a process known as *cupellation*. Lead-bearing ores were heated until the base metal oxidized and separated, leaving behind the precious metal. This method, while effective, produced large quantities of airborne lead particles that could travel long distances. The demand for coinage was immense. The empire’s expansion required armies to be paid and provincial administrations to be financed. Monetary reforms, such as those of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) and later emperors, depended on the steady production of refined silver and gold. Each new issue of coins represented not only a political statement but also a burst of metallurgical activity, with pollution as its by-product. ![Buried Roman treasure with gold Aureus coins of Emperors Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero Drusus and Augusta Antonia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Buried-Roman-treasure-with-gold-Aureus-coins-0A-of-Emperors-Tiberius--Caligula--Claudius--Nero-Drusus-and-Augusta-Antonia.jpg) Buried Roman treasure with gold Aureus coins of Emperors Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero Drusus and Augusta Antonia. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Silver and gold were also central to [elite consumption](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). Wealthy Romans commissioned jewelry, tableware, and decorative objects that required additional refining and smelting. [Public spectacles ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/)and temple dedications displayed metals on a grand scale. The cultural importance of silver and gold reinforced the economic demand, ensuring that mining districts continued to operate at high capacity. The environmental cost of this demand can now be measured in marine sediments. The cores extracted from the [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) seas reveal sustained lead levels for a full millennium after their first appearance, showing how deeply the economy of empire was tied to continuous extraction and its ecological consequences. (*The Metallurgy of Roman Silver Coinage, by Butcher & Ponting*) ![Pair of Roman silver cups (scyphi) with relief decoration](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Pair-of-Roman-silver-cups--scyphi--with-relief-decoration.jpg) Pair of Roman silver cups (scyphi) with relief decoration. Public domain ### The Aegean Mining Landscape The Aegean region contained several major mining centers that contributed to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s wealth. The Laurion mines in Attica had been active since the Classical period and were famous for their extensive underground networks and slag heaps. These mines were crucial to the finances of [Athens](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrian-gate-in-downtown-athens-below-acropolis-a-gateway-to-history/) in the fifth century BCE and later came under Roman influence. Their galleries, washeries, and furnaces left a landscape visibly shaped by extraction. Further north, the Pangaion mountain range and the island of Thasos were also rich in silver and lead ores. Archaeological surveys have documented shafts, smelting debris, and metallurgical installations that testify to large-scale production. These districts supplied not only local markets but also the wider Roman economy. The exploitation of such resources illustrates how Rome drew upon the mineral wealth of conquered territories to sustain its fiscal and cultural systems. The environmental effects of these mines extended beyond the sites themselves. Deforestation to provide timber for supports and charcoal for furnaces altered local ecosystems. Erosion carried sediments and pollutants into rivers, which transported them to the coast. Combined with atmospheric emissions from smelting, these processes ensured that the impact of mining was felt far from its point of origin. Marine cores from across the Aegean confirm that the lead produced in these districts entered the sea in significant quantities. The geographical spread of the signal shows that Roman mining was not an isolated or local affair but a regional industry with basin-wide effects. (*Archaeometallurgical studies of Laurion, Thasos, and Pangaion*) ![Possible Roman mining debris, found underwater in the seas of Thasos, Greece](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Possible-Roman-mining-debris--found-underwater-in-the-seas-of-Thasos--Greece.jpg) Possible Roman mining debris, found underwater in the seas of Thasos, Greece. Credits: Arend Kuester, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 ### Atmospheric and Marine Pathways of Pollution Understanding how Roman mining left its mark on the Mediterranean requires attention to the processes by which lead traveled. Smelting and cupellation released fine particles into the air. These could be transported by prevailing winds across large distances before settling on land or water. The study describes this clearly: the release of lead was: > “predominantly via the fine-particle fraction and, as such subject to large-scale atmospheric transport, resulting in a supra-regional to hemisphere-wide distribution.” *Communications Earth & Environment,* by Koutsodendris et al. [Rivers](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/) and streams carried another portion of the contamination. Mines and smelting sites produced waste products that weathered into waterways, especially where forests had been cleared. With reduced vegetation, soil erosion increased, and sediments enriched with lead entered the rivers. These, in turn, emptied into the sea, where they contributed to the accumulation of pollutants in coastal and marine environments. The combination of these pathways explains the strength and persistence of the signal in Aegean sediments. It also shows how tightly connected ancient societies and natural systems were. Mines, forests, rivers, and seas formed a single network of cause and effect, with human demand for metals driving changes across the landscape and into the marine realm. The fact that this impact can still be measured today demonstrates how durable such processes were. ### Rome’s Environmental Legacy The continuity of lead pollution for over a thousand years underscores how deeply the empire’s economy depended on mining. Peaks in lead levels align with periods of political stability and economic growth, while temporary declines correspond to times of disruption. The overall picture is one of sustained pressure on the environment, tied directly to the structures of Roman society. What is striking is the persistence of these signals in the present. The cores analyzed in the Aegean show that lead levels remain above natural background conditions, even after the end of antiquity. The Roman and Byzantine centuries created a long-lasting chemical horizon that has not been erased. While later industrial activities added their own pollutants, the ancient contribution remains identifiable. This continuity highlights how human impact on the environment is not only a modern phenomenon. The [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), often admired for its engineering and administration, also demonstrates how pre-industrial societies could alter ecosystems on a regional scale. The Mediterranean, a central arena of Roman activity, preserves this legacy in its very sediments. ![A possible representation of a Roman mine near a Greek river, polluting the area and the water surrounding it](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-possible-representation-of-a-Roman-mine-near-a-Greek-river--polluting-the-area-and-the-water-surrounding-it.jpg) A possible representation of a Roman mine near a Greek river, polluting the area and the water surrounding it. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### Reading Rome in the Seabed The [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/)’s mining operations were more than a matter of economic policy or elite display. They were engines of environmental change whose effects can still be traced today. By demanding continuous supplies of silver and gold for coinage, jewelry, and public spectacle, Rome ensured that mines and furnaces worked without pause. The lead they released entered the atmosphere and rivers, eventually finding its way into the sea. Marine sediments now provide the archive of this activity. They record the onset of pollution in the second century BCE, its persistence for over a millennium, and its continued presence above natural levels. Rome’s conquest and economy extended its influence into the natural world, leaving a chemical signature alongside its monuments and texts. To study these sediments is to read another history of empire, one not written in stone but in dust and deposits. It shows that the environmental consequences of human ambition began long before industrialization, and that the seas still carry the imprint of Rome’s search for wealth. (*Communications Earth & Environment, by Koutsodendris et al.*) ### Trebonianus Gallus and Volusianus: Father and Son, in the Shadow of Crisis URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/trebonianus-gallus-and-volusianus-father-and-son-in-the-shadow-of-crisis/ Last updated: 2025-09-02T21:14:35.000Z The mid-third century was an age when emperors rose and fell with [dizzying speed](https://romanempiretimes.com/69-ce-the-year-of-the-four-emperors/), their power determined less by policy than by the temper of the [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/). Among those fleeting rulers were Trebonianus Gallus and his son Volusianus, a father-and-son dynasty whose brief reign mirrored the chaos of the times. ### A Dynasty of Two Years The mid-third century thrust upon [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/) a series of rulers ill-prepared for the storm of crises surrounding them. With dangers erupting inside the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) and on distant frontiers, the task of governance became nearly impossible. Leadership was fleeting, the record of their reigns fragmentary, and their reputations often judged more harshly than their circumstances warranted. A telling example is offered by the joint rule of Trebonianus Gallus and his son Volusianus (251–253 CE). For barely two years, they faced disaster on every side: Gothic invasions in the Balkans, Sasanian advances in the East, internal unrest in the capital, and a plague that refused to loosen its grip on [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/). The crisis that brought Gallus to power began with catastrophe. In June 251, Emperor Decius and his son Herennius Etruscus were cut down at Abrittus in Lower Moesia, victims of the final surge of Gothic raids led by Cniva. In the wake of this humiliation, the legions on the [Danube](https://romanempiretimes.com/trajan-bridge-ancient-world-first-to-surpass-1km-kilometer-2000-years-ago/) proclaimed as emperor their commander, Trebonianus Gallus, governor of the province. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-statue-of-Emperor-Trebonianus-Gallus--from-Antakya-Archaeology-Museum.jpg) ## With him, they raised his son Volusianus, presenting a new dynasty to fill the void. **A statue of Emperor Trebonianus Gallus, from Antakya Archaeology Museum. Credits: Dosseman, CC BY-SA 4.0* The sources offer little detail about this change, repeating only that it was the soldiers’ choice that made them emperors. Some ancient writers even whispered that Gallus had betrayed Decius, boasting of his role in the defeat. Yet this theory falters: it is hard to imagine soldiers elevating the very man accused of causing their disaster, especially while Decius’ surviving son, Hostilianus, remained in Rome. More likely, the emperor and his heir perished in the confusion of battle, and Gallus’ elevation was the army’s desperate response to preserve order on the frontier. ### The Rise of a New Dynasty Once secured as emperor, Gallus made peace with Cniva. The treaty brought a temporary calm to the Danubian frontier, though it was criticized both in antiquity and by modern scholars as hasty and humiliating. The Goths were allowed to depart with their plunder and captives, and Gallus promised them annual tribute from the empire’s coffers. Yet this uneasy settlement gave Gallus and Volusianus the time they needed to travel to Rome and present themselves before the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/). There, Gallus sought to consolidate legitimacy by binding himself to the fallen dynasty. Decius’ surviving son Hostilianus, already honored with imperial rank, was adopted by Gallus and confirmed as Augustus. Volusianus, meanwhile, was granted the title of Caesar, the clear heir-apparent. [Coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) and official acts reflected this new arrangement: Rome would be ruled not by one [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/) but by a coalition of families, symbolizing stability after chaos. Gallus even ordered the [deification](https://romanempiretimes.com/ascending-to-the-divine-the-practice-and-meaning-of-apotheosis-in-ancient-rome/) of Decius, giving divine honors to his predecessor. An unusual silence surrounds Gallus’ wife, Afinia Gemina Baebiana, the mother of Volusianus. Unlike the empresses before her, she never bore the title of Augusta after her husband’s accession. Whether she had died early or was estranged from Gallus is uncertain. One theory holds that her absence was intentional: perhaps Gallus chose to leave the title with Herennia Etruscilla, Decius’ widow, who continued to be honored as Augusta. If so, this would have been a remarkable act of deference, signaling Gallus’ policy of merging his line with that of Decius rather than displacing it. ![Bust of Roman Emperor Volusianus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Bust-of-Roman-Emperors-Volusianus.jpg) Bust of Roman Emperor Volusianus. Credits: Agota, CC BY-SA 3.0, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### Plague and the Death of Hostilianus The arrangement of shared rule was short-lived. Within months of Gallus’ arrival in Rome, the empire was struck by the relentless plague (Plague of Cyprian) that had already been raging for years. Among its victims was the young Augustus Hostilianus, whose death was variously dated by ancient writers to midsummer or late autumn of 251 CE. Whether he died in June, August, or later in the year, the result was the same: the fragile balance Gallus had crafted collapsed. Hostilianus’s death left Gallus and Volusianus as sole rulers, and the relationship with Decius’ memory grew more complicated. While Gallus had initially honored his predecessor and embraced his family, Zosimus later claimed that the new regime began to view Decius and his sons as potential threats to their authority. What is clear is that Gallus and Volusianus now had to govern alone, with only the prestige of their newly created dynasty to support them. The plague itself continued to devastate the empire. It had begun under Philip the Arab and by Gallus’ reign had already consumed half a decade of Roman life. Contemporary accounts describe its toll as no less ruinous than the wars of the period. Production faltered, armies weakened, and resources dwindled. In response, the emperors turned to [divine aid](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/), issuing coins invoking Apollo Salutaris and the piety of the Augusti, appealing to the gods for deliverance. Some sources suggest Gallus even revived aspects of Decius’ religious policy, though without the systematic persecution of [Christians](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/) that had marked his predecessor’s reign. ![Bronze statue of the emperor Trebonianus Gallus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Bronze-statue-of-the-emperor-Trebonianus-Gallus.jpg) Bronze statue of the emperor Trebonianus Gallus. Metropolitan Museum of Art, Public domain ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Bronze-statue-of-the-emperor-Trebonianus-Gallus-head.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Bronze-statue-of-the-emperor-Trebonianus-Gallus-side-view.jpg) Some scholars believe this statue to belong to [Maximinus Thrax](https://romanempiretimes.com/maximinus-thrax-how-did-a-towering-barbarian-giant-soldier-become-roman-emperor/), instead. ### War on Two Fronts Even as plague tore through Rome, Gallus and Volusianus faced mounting dangers on the frontiers. To the East, King Shapur I of the Sasanian Empire launched a new offensive. Violating the treaty once arranged with Philip the Arab, Shapur seized Nisibis, forced Armenia’s ruler Tiridates II into Roman protection, and pressed into Mesopotamia. His *Res Gestae* boasts of a devastating victory at Barbalissos, claiming that 60,000 Roman soldiers were slain and more than thirty [cities](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) captured. Though such numbers may be inflated, they point to the scale of disaster. A controversial figure in this eastern struggle was Mariades, a Syrian notable who defected to the Sasanians. Ancient accounts describe him as betraying Roman lands to Shapur, providing both intelligence and leadership that aided the invasion. Whether exaggerated or not, his role underscored the vulnerability of Rome’s provinces when local elites turned against the imperial center. Meanwhile, the Goths renewed their raids across the Danube, pushing deeper into the empire. Macedonia, Greece, Asia Minor, and even Italy itself felt the pressure of their incursions. Ancient authors accused Gallus of negligence, claiming he remained idle in Rome once his rule was secure. Yet inscriptions and coinage suggest otherwise: both emperors were engaged in imperial duties beyond Italy, and Volusianus in particular may have been active in the East. Gallus relied on commanders such as Marcus Aemilius Aemilianus to hold the Danubian line, a decision that would soon bring fatal consequences. ![A gold aureus Roman coin of Emperor Volusianus ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/A-gold-aureus-Roman-coin-of-Emperor-Volusianus-.jpg) A gold aureus Roman coin of Emperor Volusianus. Photo courtesy of [Numista](https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces284030.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com), Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### Coinage and Imperial Image Although the reigns of Gallus and Volusianus left only a thin trail in written history, their coinage speaks in abundance. Struck in Rome, Mediolanum, and Antioch, their issues allow us to trace not only chronology but also the image they sought to project in the midst of crisis. The earliest coins reflect the uneasy compromise after Abrittus. Hostilian appears as Augustus alongside Gallus, while Volusian is presented as Caesar, and Herennia Etruscilla continues as Augusta. After Hostilian’s death from plague, Volusian’s promotion to Augustus is confirmed in the coinage, while Herennia disappears from the series. Themes of the reverses reveal how father and son attempted to reassure a shaken empire. Their coins proclaim *Concordia Augustorum* (harmony of the emperors), *Virtus and Victoria* (valor and victory), [*Pax*](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-pax-romana-was-rome-ever-a-peaceful-empire/) (peace), *Pietas* (piety), and *Felicitas Publica* (the happiness of the state). Apollo Salutaris and Salus feature prominently, invoking divine protection against the plague that was ravaging Rome. The pairing of types — such as Annona and Aequitas — suggests concern for stability of supply and fairness in distribution, key anxieties when famine threatened alongside pestilence. The imagery also highlights Volusian’s active role. Certain types depict him not merely as heir but as a full partner in rule, performing priestly duties or carrying the symbols of peace. This emphasis may reflect a deliberate effort to establish him as a co-emperor capable of acting on equal footing with his father. Even the use of the star symbol on some issues has been interpreted as a gesture toward the divinized memory of Decius and his family, further binding Gallus’ dynasty with that of his predecessor. (*The reigns of Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian and of Aemilian, by Harold Mattingly*) In sum, the coinage of Gallus and Volusian provides a striking counterpoint to their fragile political position. While their reign was brief and troubled, the coins paint a portrait of emperors striving to embody unity, piety, and resilience in an empire beset by calamity. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/An-engraving-in-medaillion-of-Roman-Emperor-Trebonianus-Gallus.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/09/Possible-Roman-bronze-portrait-of-Trebonianus-Gallus-1.jpg) Image #1: An engraving in medaillion of Roman Emperor Trebonianus Gallus. Public domain. Image #2: Possible Roman bronze portrait of Trebonianus Gallus. Credits: Dan Diffendale, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ### Revolt and Assassination While Gallus attempted to balance plague at home and invasions abroad, unrest brewed among the Danubian legions. The Gothic raids had resumed, and Rome’s soldiers longed to redeem their honor. When Gallus’ commander in Moesia, Marcus Aemilius Aemilianus, stopped paying tribute to the Goths and instead led the legions to victory beyond the Danube, their loyalties shifted swiftly. The army acclaimed Aemilian as emperor, and with momentum on his side, he marched toward Italy. Gallus and Volusianus responded by calling on reinforcements from the Rhine under the senator Valerian, but they never lived to see them arrive. In the summer of 253, as they prepared to confront the usurper, **their own soldiers turned against them**. Near Interamna — or possibly further north at *Forum Flaminii* — both emperors were murdered by their troops. Their deaths marked [yet another abrupt imperial turnover](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-shadow-of-the-dagger-assassinations-of-roman-emperors/) in an age defined by military acclamation and betrayal. (*Trebonianus Gallus and Volusianus (AD 251-253): Ruling the Empire in between the West and the East, by Lily Grozdanova*) --- The joint reign of Trebonianus Gallus and Volusianus was brief, troubled, and ultimately doomed. Caught between the hammer of the Goths and the anvil of the Sasanians, their authority was further weakened by plague and discontent at home. Yet their story is not merely one of failure: it reflects the impossible weight of governing an [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/) in crisis, when no victory could be decisive and no compromise secure. Their murder at the hands of their own men was less a personal downfall than a symptom of an age when emperors rose and fell with the shifting will of the [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-enigmatic-disappearance-of-the-9th-roman-legion/). In the aftermath, **power passed swiftly to another**. Valerian, then commanding in Raetia and Noricum, had been ordered by Gallus to bring reinforcements from Gaul and Germany. When word spread of the emperors’ deaths, his own men acclaimed him Augustus. Advancing into Italy, Valerian’s presence alone was enough to sway Aemilian’s soldiers, who deserted their commander and killed him. Thus, from the collapse of Gallus and Volusianus emerged a new emperor — one whose reign would bring the empire both fleeting stability and unprecedented humiliation. ### Sulla: Rome’s Reluctant Tyrant URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/sulla-rome-reluctant-tyrant/ Last updated: 2025-08-29T22:41:11.000Z Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix was the first Roman general to march on Rome at the head of his legions, the first to unleash proscriptions as a tool of political terror, and the first to hold the dictatorship without limit of time. Yet in a move that stunned his contemporaries, he later resigned his power voluntarily and retired to private life. Sulla’s career was a paradox of brutality and order, destruction and reform. He reshaped the Republic through bloodshed and legislation, leaving a legacy that paved the way for [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/) and [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/). To understand the collapse of Republican Rome, one must first reckon with the shadow of Sulla. ### No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy Corruption and greed were as entrenched in the Republic as in any other age, and men who genuinely put the state above their own interests were always in the minority. Sulla was one of those men, though the envy, opposition, and short-sightedness of rivals repeatedly drove him to decisions that would forever mark his name in infamy. Yet Sulla’s devotion to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) was sincere. Unlike those who loved her for the honors, wealth, and power she could bestow, Sulla revered Rome herself. To him, she was both mother to her citizens and mistress to be loyally served. When circumstances finally allowed, after years of struggle, he enacted legislation that blended practical common sense with reforms designed to restore prosperity after decades of war had drained Rome’s lifeblood. ![The bust of the consul - general Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/The-bust-of-the-consul---general-Lucius-Cornelius-Sulla-Felix.jpg) The bust of the consul - general Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ### Soldier and Statesman His early career was forged in those conflicts. He fought alongside Gaius Marius against the Germanic tribes still seeking a homeland, and in the Jugurthine War it was Sulla who engineered Jugurtha’s capture. He later confronted Rome’s Italian allies, who resisted her dominance and resented their unequal treatment, in a war that dragged on for years. During this struggle, he was awarded the *Corona Graminea*, the Grass Crown—the highest honor a Roman commander could receive—for saving his army outside Nola. He also subdued [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/), transforming it into *Colonia Cornelia Veneria Pompeianorum*, Sulla’s colony [dedicated to Venus](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/). But despite these triumphs, the Republic was financially exhausted and politically unstable. Sulla sought solutions but found his way blocked by rivals who cared more for their own gain than the recovery of the state. His hatred of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/)’s financiers was legendary. He despised the [bankers and moneylenders](https://romanempiretimes.com/credit-loans-and-risk-how-ancient-rome-handled-money-without-a-central-bank/) who had grown exceedingly rich while the Republic teetered, yet refused to fund his campaigns in the East. They preferred to send him away, hoping to profit from new conquests, but left him to find ships, men, and supplies on his own when he turned [toward Greece](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/). It is worth remembering that before [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) crossed the Rubicon and later assumed the dictatorship—and before he earned the *Corona Civica*—Sulla had already marched on [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) and held an open-ended dictatorship, having earlier won the *Corona Graminea*. Unlike the temporary six-month dictatorships granted in emergencies, Sulla seized the position for as long as he thought necessary to rebuild the Republic’s foundations. His reliance on extreme measures has since overshadowed his achievements, but to him they were essential to restore order. ![Sulla is sacking Rome, a gravure by Conrad Ermisch](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Sulla-is-sacking-Rome--a-gravure-by-Conrad-Ermisc.jpg) Sulla is sacking Rome, a gravure by Conrad Ermisch. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times Foremost among his enemies was the equestrian order, whose opposition defined much of his career. By the time of his return to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/), the Republic was collapsing, and Sulla was determined to end the self-interest of the knightly class, refill the treasury, restore temples, and revive the state. He cut down those who stood in his way, convinced they valued only their own wealth while he labored for Rome’s survival. His constitutional reforms reflected this conviction. Critics attacked him for strengthening the Senate and weakening the tribunes, but these measures targeted real abuses. The [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) needed renewed authority to govern an expanding empire, while the [tribunes’ veto power](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-a-tribune-in-ancient-rome/)—so easily bought—paralyzed reform. By curbing these corrupt practices, Sulla cleared the way for genuine restoration. His assault on the equestrian class was also pragmatic. They had thrived under Marius, Cinna, and Carbo, and now their fortunes financed Rome’s recovery. Their estates were confiscated, their wealth poured into the empty treasury. Unlike others who might have seized such riches for themselves, Sulla redirected the spoils to the state. Though never rich by the standards of his peers, he refused to indulge personal gain, channeling resources instead into Rome’s renewal. Caesar, in contrast, would later raid the treasury for his own ambitions. ![A painting commissioned by Vittorio Emanuele II, of Gaius Marius victorious over the Cimbri tribes](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/A-painting-commissioned-by-Vittorio-Emanuele-II--of-Gaius-Marius-victorious-over-the-Cimbri-tribes.jpg) A painting commissioned by Vittorio Emanuele II, of Gaius Marius victorious over the Cimbri tribes. Public domain ### The Dictator Who Let Go In little more than two years, Sulla remade the Republic. Then—as already mentioned—in a move no one anticipated, he laid down his dictatorship and retired. No Roman had ever voluntarily abandoned such absolute power. [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/) could not; knowing his enemies waited to destroy him, he declared himself dictator for life and was ultimately cut down. Sulla, however, kept his word. Once his reforms were complete, he returned to private life, accompanied by those who loved him despite years of turmoil. Sulla had begun his life with **striking beauty**, though in Rome such looks were as much a liability as a gift. Attractive boys were suspected of being prey to older men; handsome men were envied as rivals in love. Yet Sulla defied the stereotype. He proved himself anything but a lightweight: a soldier, a commander, and a man of immense charm who collected friends easily and kept them for life. He was no mad despot surrounded only by flatterers, but a leader with genuine loyalty from those who knew him well. Later in life, illness marred his once-admired face. Ancient writers described his complexion as resembling “*mulberries sprinkled with oatmeal*,” possibly from scabies, shingles, or another untreatable condition. The pain drove him to drink, hastening his decline. Yet even then, his motto rang true: > “No better friend, no worse enemy.” ![Portrait of Lucius Cornelius Sulla at a later age, perhaps from a Roman workshop](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Portrait-of-Lucius-Cornelius-Sulla-at-a-later-age--perhaps-from-a-Roman-workshop.jpg) Portrait of Lucius Cornelius Sulla at a later age, perhaps from a Roman workshop. Public domain He was merciless toward those who opposed him but steadfast toward those who stood by his side. Many of his closest companions were outsiders—actors, dancers, and the poor—friends he had made in youth when he lacked money to move in [aristocratic circles](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). They remained loyal to the end, following him into retirement. These associations, along with his rumored affairs with both men and women, long tarnished his image among traditional historians, who painted him as immoral or decadent. Today, however, it is easier to see beyond those labels to the complex man beneath: a ruthless reformer, a charming friend, a dictator who rebuilt Rome and then relinquished absolute power. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/A-sketch-of-Lucius-Cornelius-Sulla--with-a-map-of-the-Roman-Empire-in-the-background.jpeg) ## Sulla lived in an age of turbulence, alongside some of the Republic’s most formidable figures, and left behind a legacy that was both admired and feared. **A sketch of Lucius Cornelius Sulla, with a map of the Roman Empire in the background. Credits: Andrew\_Howe from Getty Images Signature, Vintage Illustrations, Composition by Roman Empire Times* ### Consulship, Marriage, and the First March on Rome By 88 BCE, Sulla had climbed into Rome’s ruling elite. He sealed his social position by marrying Caecilia Metella, the widow of the Princeps Senatus, a match that cemented his standing but also forced him to divorce his previous wife. That same year, he gained the [consulship](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-consuls-in-ancient-rome-a-pillar-of-republican-governance/) and was awarded command of the lucrative eastern war against [Mithridates of Pontus](https://romanempiretimes.com/mad-honey-warfare-how-king-mithridates-poisoned-pompeys-legions/). Yet politics in Rome turned against him. Marius and his allies maneuvered to strip him of command and grant it to Marius instead. Outraged, Sulla marched his loyal legions into Rome itself — the first general to do so. The city was seized in chaos, setting a precedent of military intervention in Roman politics. This act stained Sulla’s name forever, but it also ensured he retained command and set him on a collision course with Marius and his supporters. ### The Eastern Campaign and the War Against Mithridates Sulla inherited a desperate situation in the East. Mithridates VI had overrun Asia Minor, and the Romans, drained by the [Social War](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-gracchi-brothers-visionaries-or-socialist-revolutionaries/), lacked funds and manpower. Sulla, resourceful but perpetually short of money, fought brilliantly nonetheless. He defeated Mithridates’ forces in Greece, stormed Athens after a brutal siege, and destroyed Mithridatic armies at Chaeronea and Orchomenus. These victories not only restored Rome’s dominance in the East but also filled Sulla’s coffers with the wealth he needed for his eventual return to Italy. The campaigns hardened him: ruthless toward enemies, confident in his destiny, and certain that only strong leadership could save the Republic. ![Gaius Marius prisoner in Minturnae, a painting by Jean-Germain Drouais](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Gaius-Marius-prisoner-in-Minturnae--a-painting-by-Jean-Germain-Drouais.jpg) Gaius Marius prisoner in Minturnae, a painting by Jean-Germain Drouais. Public domain ### Civil War and the Battle for Rome By 82 BCE, Rome was again in flames. Sulla returned from the East to find Marius dead but his faction still powerful under leaders like Carbo. The campaign was bitter, marked by battles across Italy. At the River Aesis, Sulla’s ally Metellus and the young [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/) won decisive victories. Later, Sulla crushed the Marian forces at the Colline Gate outside Rome in one of the bloodiest battles in Roman history. These triumphs left Sulla master of Rome. With enemies destroyed and legions at his back, he assumed supreme power. It was in this crucible of civil war that his reputation as both savior and butcher was sealed. ([*Sulla: A dictator reconsidered*](https://amzn.to/3JV1M50?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Lynda Telford*) ### Sulla’s Dictatorship: Reform, Terror, and the Shadow of a Twisted Romulus When Lucius Cornelius Sulla seized absolute power in Rome, he envisioned himself as more than a temporary strongman. He acted as a refounder of the Republic, a figure who would restore order through laws and institutions. His contemporaries recognized this ambition: [Sallust](https://romanempiretimes.com/sallust-details-on-the-historian-of-roman-elite-and-the-republic-decline/) later sneered at him as a “twisted [Romulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-and-remus-the-legendary-founders-of-rome/)” (*scaevos iste* [*Romulus*](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-romulus-kill-remus-the-tragic-tale-of-the-founders-of-rome/)), mocking his claim to be a second founder of Rome. The office he claimed was not the traditional, short-term dictatorship but one formally designated dictator *legibus scribundis et rei publicae constituendae*—a dictator empowered to make laws and “reconstitute” the state. Sulla’s constitutional plan was coherent. By strengthening the Senate, imposing legal checks on magistrates, and curbing the influence of popular assemblies, he sought to place power firmly in the hands of what he considered the “right” class of men. In practice, this meant excluding opponents, silencing the people’s voice, and stripping away avenues for ambitious individuals to challenge the senatorial elite. His reforms enlarged the Senate to about 450 members (with later automatic increases through quaestors), a body large enough to dilute rival cliques but still functional as a deliberative council. For Sulla, this was a way to restore stability and prevent corruption; for his enemies, it was the architecture of tyranny. The darker side of his dictatorship was most visible in the Forum, the symbolic heart of Rome. There, Sulla ruled through fear. Proscription lists were posted in public, and the severed heads of his enemies decorated the rostra as grim trophies. Appian and [Dio ](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/)describe a city in terror, where each Roman weighed whether to appear in public or remain at home, knowing either choice could be fatal. The Forum became Sulla’s stage: he rebuilt the Curia, placed his equestrian statue on display, and turned the rostra into his tribunal. 🏛️ The ****Curia** in Rome was the ****Senate house** — the building where the Senate met. Sulla physically reconstructed the Senate house as part of his reforms, both to restore prestige and to stamp his name on Rome’s political center. ![Sulla has the list of outlaws displayed in Rome, an engraving by Silvestre David Mirys](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Sulla-has-the-list-of-outlaws-displayed-in-Rome--an-engraving-by-Silvestre-David-Mirys.jpg) Sulla has the list of outlaws displayed in Rome, an engraving by Silvestre David Mirys. Public domain From this seat he distributed rewards to loyalists, ordered forced marriages among the elite, and presided over brutal punishments. The execution of Lucretius Afella, cut down in the Forum for defying Sulla’s will, showed how arbitrary power had replaced civic freedom. Even the most powerful men were not immune. Pompey was compelled to divorce his wife and marry Sulla’s stepdaughter Aemilia, who was herself torn from her previous husband. [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/) resisted pressure to abandon his wife and barely escaped with his life. Whether or not every story is fully reliable, their survival in ancient accounts proves the climate of intimidation was real. Romans remembered this era as one where Sulla’s physical presence in the Forum meant domination, fear, and the bending of private lives to his will. By 81 BCE, Sulla stepped down from the dictatorship, passing into the consulship of 80 with Metellus Pius as colleague. He presented this as a return to normality, even boasting of the harmony between himself and Metellus as proof of his lifelong *felicitas*, or good fortune. But to contemporaries, this “normality” felt hollow. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)’s speech [*Pro Roscio Amerino*](https://amzn.to/4fYze6V?ref=romanempiretimes.com), delivered during this year, illustrates the tension: it outwardly avoided direct attacks on Sulla, but its hints and silences evoked the unsayable truths everyone knew. Romans lived in uncertainty, unsure whether Sulla would behave as a statesman or a tyrant. His settlement, moreover, did not outlast him. After Sulla’s death in 78 BCE, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus openly challenged his system. Lepidus courted the urban plebs, proposed recalling exiles and undoing Sulla’s confiscations, and even threatened to march on Rome. Though ultimately defeated, his revolt revealed how unstable Sulla’s reforms had been. Later generations—Pompey, [Crassus](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/), and above all [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/)—would overturn or bypass his institutions. Sulla’s dictatorship, then, left behind a paradox. On the one hand, he crafted a vision of order and law, binding Rome’s governance to the authority of the Senate. On the other, he ruled through terror, exclusion, and violence, imprinting on Rome the lesson that brute force and political murder could dictate constitutional change. His contemporaries remembered the severed heads, the forced marriages, and the auctions of the proscribed. His enemies called him a tyrant, his supporters a restorer of the Republic. **History remembers both**. ![A gravure by Haarlem, depicting the famous and infamous rich men, Crassus alongside Midas, Croesus, Sulla, Pithyus and Lucullus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/A-gravure-by-Haarlem--depicting-the-famous-and-infamous-rich-men--Crassus-alongside-Midas--Croesus--Sulla--Pithyus-and-Lucullus.jpeg) A gravure by Haarlem, depicting the famous and infamous rich men, Crassus alongside Midas, Croesus, Sulla, Pithyus and Lucullus. Public domain ### The Uncertainty of 80 BCE Between Sulla’s decisive victory at the Colline Gate in 82 BCE and the end of his consulship in 80, just over two years passed in which his position evolved in ways difficult to define. Official markers—the end of the proscriptions, his assumption of the consulship with Metellus Pius—suggested transitions, yet ancient sources were more fascinated by the drama of his final abdication than by the gradual stages of his power. For Romans, what mattered was not the technical shift from dictator to consul, but the astonishing fact that Sulla eventually laid down supreme authority and returned to private life. [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/) and Appian, our most detailed sources, blur the lines between dictatorship and consulship. Plutarch depicts Sulla as equally tyrannical in both roles, collapsing distinctions to emphasize his illegitimacy as a ruler. Appian, meanwhile, presents Sulla’s consulship of 80 as a façade of republican government, assumed to maintain appearances while he continued to rule by fear. Neither author dwells on the nuances of 80 BCE itself, and both are colored by later experiences of autocracy. Their accounts remind us that even in antiquity, the precise contours of Sulla’s power during this year were difficult to grasp. > *"\[Sulla\] … remained in arms for ten years together, making himself now consul, and now dictator, but always being an *usurper*."* Plutarch, [*Lysander and Sulla*](https://amzn.to/41xjPEt?ref=romanempiretimes.com), section 2.1 Plutarch portrays Sulla as shifting between consul and dictator — but always remaining *an usurper*. > “Sulla made himself consul for the following year, in order that he might appear to be quitting the dictatorship voluntarily.” Appian [*Civil Wars*](https://amzn.to/4g0CuhR?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 1.103 Appian meanwhile, presents Sulla’s consulship of 80 as a façade of republican government, assumed to maintain appearances while he continued to rule by fear. As aforementioned, Cicero’s *Pro Roscio Amerino*, delivered in 80 BCE in defense of Sextus Roscius against a charge of parricide, provides our sharpest window into this elusive period. The speech, one of Cicero’s earliest, now dominates modern understanding of the year. Yet it also reflects the uncertainty of its own time. Romans were unsure whether Sulla’s authority was softening into something like constitutional normality, or whether tyranny still ruled unchecked. The atmosphere was one of fear and guesswork: no one knew what behavior Sulla might tolerate, or how he would respond to defiance. Figures like Pompey, who dared to show independence, became focal points of fascination. In this environment, Cicero’s words had to tread carefully—his oratory gestured toward the unsaid as much as to what could safely be spoken. The year 80 BCE thus remains shadowed in ambiguity. It was neither a clear end to dictatorship nor a true return to republican government, but an interlude defined by uncertainty, when Rome lived under a ruler whose intentions and limits no one could confidently predict. ![Consul Lucius Cornelius Sulla, a general well known during the Social War, forced by a mob led by the tribune of the plebs Sulpicius, seeking shelter in the house of Gaius Marius, painting by Benjamin Ulmann](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Consul-Lucius-Cornelius-Sulla--a-general-well-known-during-the-Social-War--forced-by-a-mob-led-by-the-tribune-of-the-plebs-Sulpicius---seeking-shelter-in-the-house-of-Gaius-Marius--painting-by-Benjamin-Ulmann.jpeg) Consul Lucius Cornelius Sulla, forced by a mob led by the tribune of the plebs Sulpicius, seeking shelter in the house of Gaius Marius, painting by Benjamin Ulmann. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### The Forum of Fear Sulla’s authority after the Colline Gate was maintained less by loyalty than by terror. The proscriptions, the massacre of thousands of war captives in the Campus Martius, the execution of Lucretius Afella in the Forum, and Sulla’s own speeches demanding obedience created an atmosphere where defiance seemed unthinkable. Ancient writers like [Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) and Appian describe a forum silenced by fear. Yet even as Sulla stepped back from the dictatorship into the consulship at the end of 81 BCE, his presence still dominated Rome. Military unrest lingered. In Italy, cities like Nola and Volaterrae continued to resist, harboring proscribed men until they were expelled and killed. These deaths showed that the trauma of the proscriptions extended beyond the closing of the lists in 81 BCE; the stigma of being proscribed was still lethal. Abroad, Rome’s attention turned to Spain, where Sertorius emerged as a formidable opponent after defeating Roman governors. The Republic, though outwardly restored, was still unsettled. In this tense climate, ordinary politics resumed, but with unease. Routine senatorial decrees and building projects, such as the restoration of the Capitol and the Curia, gave an impression of stability, yet they were also visible reminders of Sulla’s supremacy. Even elections betrayed the ambiguity of the moment. When the people elected Sulla consul again for 79 BCE, he declined, but the gesture revealed that Romans themselves did not know whether his rule was meant to end. Fear drove them to demonstrate loyalty, unsure of the consequences of not doing so. This uncertainty bred fascination with those who dared to resist. Pompey secured a triumph despite Sulla’s reluctance, and stories circulated of his bold remark that more men worship the rising sun than the setting one. Others, like Lentulus Sura, defied Sulla in the Senate and lived to tell the tale, though the risk gave their actions a notoriety of their own. Romans were captivated by these moments, not because they changed policy, but because they tested the limits of what Sulla might tolerate. At the heart of this atmosphere was Sulla’s reputation for unpredictability. He could order the massacre of thousands without warning, yet spare offenders of greater crimes. This volatility was the very essence of tyranny as described in Greek and Roman thought, and it magnified the fear that governed [Roman life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/) in 80 BCE. The senators’ chilling experience of hearing the screams of slaughter outside the Temple of Bellona during one of their meetings epitomized this uncertainty: they knew something horrific was happening, but not what. The year 80 BCE was thus marked less by formal offices than by the psychology of fear. Romans lived in a haze of uncertainty, never sure what words or actions might cost them their lives. It was in this context of terror and ambiguity that Cicero delivered his Pro Roscio Amerino, a speech that tested how far one could speak in Sulla’s Rome—and hinted at the unspeakable realities that everyone knew but few dared to voice. ([*Rome after Sulla*](https://amzn.to/4oYFK1v?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by J. Alison Rosenblitt*) ![Bust of Lucius Cornelius Sulla](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Bust-of-Lucius-Cornelius-Sulla.jpg) Another bust of Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Public domain ### Sulla’s Image, Abdication, and the Fragile Legacy of His Republic Sulla was not only a general and dictator—he was also his own historian. In his lost *Autobiography*, he worked hard to shape how posterity would remember him. He presented himself as a man of *felicitas* (good fortune), chosen by the gods to save the Republic. His narrative emphasized victories, reforms, and his voluntary abdication, casting his dictatorship as a noble restoration rather than a reign of terror. This self-fashioning, however, contrasted sharply with how contemporaries and later historians remembered him: as the butcher of the proscriptions and the tyrant who ruled Rome through fear. His abdication remains one of the most debated aspects of his career. Officially, he stepped down from the dictatorship around the end of 81 BCE and assumed the consulship of 80 with Metellus Pius. Ancient writers, however, rarely distinguish between dictatorship and consulship in these years. Modern scholars argue that contemporaries themselves were uncertain—what mattered was not the technical office Sulla held, but the extraordinary reality of his power and the shock when he finally returned to private life. Yet even in retirement, the structures he created proved brittle. The reforms that were meant to stabilize the Republic—strengthening the Senate, curbing the tribunes, restraining individual ambition—collapsed almost immediately after his death in 78 BCE. Marcus Aemilius Lepidus openly challenged the Sullan order, rallying the [urban plebs](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/) and promising to restore property to the dispossessed. Though his revolt was crushed, it revealed how shallow the foundations of Sulla’s settlement were. Within a generation, Pompey and Caesar would draw upon his example, marching armies into Rome and surpassing the precedents he had set. In the end, **Sulla’s attempt to control his legacy failed**. He wished to be remembered as a founder, a new Romulus, the man who restored Rome’s greatness. Instead, he was recalled as a tyrant whose terror scarred Roman memory and whose constitution disintegrated with startling speed. His autobiography vanished, but the severed heads on the rostra and the proscriptions remained engraved in Rome’s collective consciousness. Sulla’s life and career remain a paradox. He was the first Roman to march on Rome, the first to use mass terror as a tool of politics, and yet the only dictator to lay down absolute power voluntarily. He claimed to have restored the Republic, but in truth he taught Romans that constitutions could be bent by violence and that armies could decide politics. His reforms collapsed almost as soon as he died, but the example he set endured. In Sulla’s shadow, Caesar, Pompey, and the emperors who followed learned that power seized by the sword could never again be returned unchanged. ### Purple Pollution: How Rome’s Lust for Luxury Stained the Ancient Seas URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/purple-pollution-how-rome-lust-for-luxury-stained-the-ancient-seas/ Last updated: 2025-08-27T19:13:44.000Z Rome loved its symbols big and bold. Arches that swallowed [avenues](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/); forums that choreographed power in marble and shadow; colors that announced status before a word was spoken. Of those colors, none mattered more than purple. It was not a dye so much as a claim—on rank, on wealth, on the right to be seen. In the Senate House, the broad stripe of the latus clavus carried the prosaic weight of law inside its narrow band. On the triumphal route, a general’s purple shimmered like a visible oath that Jupiter smiled upon Rome. Later, when emperors cocooned themselves in it, [purple turned from accent into aura](https://romanempiretimes.com/tyrian-purple-the-royal-dye-of-the-ancient-world-and-the-secrets-of-murex-extraction/). Children born near the imperial porphyry were said to be “[born in the purple](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/),” as if the stone itself conferred legitimacy. But prestige has a provenance; and prestige, in Rome’s case, **smelled**. [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/), a meticulous gleaner of facts and gossip alike, praised the finest tone of the dye as “*the colour of congealed blood, blackish at first glance but gleaming when held up to the light*” ([*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/3JBte84?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 9.135). No modern publicist could frame a luxury better. Then Pliny did the unthinkable and pulled back the curtain: those costly shells, he wrote, “*have an unhealthy odour.*” In two strokes, he gave us the whole economy of imperial glamour—radiance at a distance, rot at the source. What recent archaeology has added is not a new metaphor but a floor plan. On Israel’s northern coast, at Tel Shiqmona, [researchers have excavated the most telling site yet](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0321082&ref=romanempiretimes.com#pone-0321082-g020) for the way purple was really made: a cluster of specialized installations, permanently stained by dye, used and reused across centuries. The team’s plain-spoken summary lands with unusual force: Shiqmona is “*a specialized facility for large-scale and long-term production (\~1100–600 BCE) of the lucrative purple dye*,” and “*the first time that unequivocal large-scale production sustained for half a millennium is recognized in the Mediterranean*” Before [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/), before the emperors’ wardrobes, before satire made Tyrian cloth a shorthand for excess, the industry that would drape the Empire was already humming here—stinking, staining, and reshaping a shoreline. ![Location map of Tel Shiqmona and other sites mentioned in the recent paper](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Location-map-of-Tel-Shiqmona-and-other-sites-mentioned-in-the-recent-paper.jpg) Location map of Tel Shiqmona and other sites mentioned in the recent paper. Credits: PLOS, Map by Sapir Haad ### The Color of Empire—and Its Smell Historians sometimes introduce purple as if it simply “became” the imperial color, a natural step in Rome’s escalator of spectacle. That’s tidy, but it flattens the labor and hides the waste. Purple took work: thousands of marine snails cracked in a specific way to free a tiny gland; fermentation in brine to coax out the precursor; controlled heating to turn the mess into miracle. Most of the animals involved never saw the light Rome later cast on them; they were wrenched from reefs, mangled, and dumped, their shredded shells rising in heaps that outlived their makers. Roman writers knew the signal that purple sent. They rarely described the production, which by design stayed out of view. That is perhaps why Pliny’s pair of comments still sting: a line for the showroom, a line for the factory floor. The showroom line—“*the colour of congealed blood*”—makes the dye feel like destiny, the captured essence of victory itself. The factory-floor line—“*unhealthy odour*”—refuses to let the world forget what the essence costs. Both, together, tell us what purple really did in Rome: transform the labors and leavings of distant coasts into the bright shorthand of supremacy. Rome codified that shorthand. Sumptuary habits—and eventually laws—fenced off purple for certain bodies and certain days. [Senators](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/) wore a stripe, magistrates a broader mark, [generals](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) a cloak, and [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) the color entire. Restriction heightened desire; desire hardened the value; value justified restriction. The cycle fed on itself, like a myth of origins told over and over, more potent with each retelling. Yet beneath the theatre of scarcity, someone, somewhere, was boiling up the smell. ![Hexaplex trunculus shell collected near Tel Shiqmona, 400 such shells were identified by two free-style divers within 90 mins at a depth of one to two meters on October 20, 2020](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Hexaplex-trunculus-shell-collected-near-Tel-Shiqmona--400-such-shells-were-identified-by-two-free-style-divers-within-90-mins-at-a-depth-of-one-to-two-meters-on-October-20--2020.jpg) Hexaplex trunculus shell collected near Tel Shiqmona, 400 such shells were identified by two free-style divers within 90 mins at a depth of one to two meters on October 20, 2020\. Credits: PLOS, Photo by Ayelet Gilboa, Composite by Roman Empire Times ### A Factory Before Factories Enter Shiqmona. Long before textile mills made smoke a skyline feature, this low hill above the Carmel coast ran a quiet, pungent industry for centuries. The PLOS ONE team does not hedge: as aforementioned, the site can be “*unequivocally… identified as a specialized facility for large-scale and long-term production (\~1100–600 BCE) of the lucrative purple dye*,” and it offers “*the first time that unequivocal large-scale production sustained for half a millennium is recognized in the Mediterranean*.” These aren’t superlatives for a press release; they are a sober rerouting of how we think about ancient economy. What do “*large-scale and long-term*” look like in the ground? Vessels with rims so saturated by purple that the color is still embedded in the fabric; distinctive heavy bases that match those rims; stone tools with dye ghosts on their broken faces; stained pebbles that served as hammers; and, crucially, a count. In one layer alone, the team calculated **a minimum number of at least sixteen vats**; then they put a conservative bookend on use: “*about 20 vats were active at some point during a phase lasting approximately 50 years.*” Anyone who has ever toured an early modern manufactory will recognize the signatures—standardized kit, work surfaces marked by process, and a tempo of operation measured not in seasons but in generations. The language we reach for—“proto-industrial,” “factory”—can feel anachronistic, but Shiqmona earns it. Between the eleventh and sixth centuries BCE, the installations here didn’t dabble in purple. They made it, again and again, until the places that made it became purple too. And that, in turn, feeds a larger truth about the world Rome inherited: when the city moved to the center of consumption, it did not invent a luxury; it conscripted one that already had its own geography, technology, and costs. ![Aerial view of Tel Shiqmona and its surroundings](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Aerial-view-of-Tel-Shiqmona-and-its-surroundings.jpg) Aerial view of Tel Shiqmona and its surroundings. Credits: Michael Eisenberg, with permission from the Hecht Museum, University of Haifa ### The Anatomy of a Dirty Miracle There is a reason purple’s process rarely shows up in triumphal rhetoric. No one wanted to imagine a pearl of color inside a coil of glands. At Shiqmona, the archaeology refuses squeamishness. One of the most quietly devastating lines in the report sits in a list of tools: > “*About 5% of the Iron Age stone artifacts at Shiqmona bear purple stains*.” Five percent is not a splatter here and there; it’s a workplace where **the chemistry of prestige has soaked into the implements of labor**. Hammers, grinding stones, bowls—the dye is on them all, not as ornament but as residue. Ceramics tell an even tighter story. The team highlights “*conspicuous rims with purple residues*,” paired with “*unique bases*” that together define a powerful silhouette: the workhorse vat of the trade. They are, as the authors put it, “*unparalleled uniform massive industrial vessels*.” When you hold a rim and a base that match across contexts and decades, you aren’t holding a pot; you’re holding a system. Beneath the microscope, the chemistry cooperates: > *“The HPLC analysis revealed that all 28 artifacts examined… were stained with ‘true’ purple dye produced from Muricidae species. All the samples contain at least one of the two molecules that are principal markers of this dye, namely MBI and DBI.”* The jargon hides a simple certainty—this is the real stuff, the dye that would become the Empire’s most talked-about color. And then there is the sentence that should sit above the door of any museum gallery that tries to make purple pretty: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/A-possible-representation-of-a-freshly-painted-Tyrian-purple-cloak.jpg) ## “Large-scale purple dye manufacture was a messy business. Shiqmona clearly reveals that large-scale dye manufacturing and dyeing generated significant waste.” **A possible representation of a freshly painted Tyrian purple cloak. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney* **You can feel the authors restraining themselves.** The shells that gave up their glands did not dematerialize when the cloth left the coast. They piled up—smelly monuments to appetite. The brine that coaxed the molecules into life didn’t cease to exist when the tone was right. It soaked the ground. The vats didn’t wipe themselves clean for the next elite commission. They hardened into instruments whose very bodies testified to what they did. ### The Luxury Economy as a Machine for Inequality We are used to saying that luxury “signals status,” as if the signal were a neutral technical matter—power choosing a frequency and turning up the volume. Shiqmona invites a different lens. Luxury is also a machine, one that translates concentrated labor and concentrated waste into concentration of prestige. In the Iron Age, that prestige attached to royalty and cult. Shiqmona’s authors open their study by stressing how purple sat at the apex of social and sacred dress from “*the 2nd millennium BCE to the fall of Constantinople*,” worn by “*royalty, elites, and serving cultic purposes*.” It was never common; it was never meant to be. By the time Rome comes into view, the machine is merely scaled and formalized. The Republic and [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-engineering-the-backbone-of-an-empire/) don’t invent the exclusivity; they anthem it. Senatorial stripes, magistrates’ markings, the triumphal robe, and at last the emperor’s total claim—the ladder grows taller as it narrows. In sumptuary practice and then in edict, purple becomes a fence you can see. On one side, the few who may wear it; on the other, the many who must live with its costs. Shiqmona visualizes that side of the fence. The people who fed the vats could not reap their social yield. The snails were local; the aura traveled. Roman satire twitches with that tension, even when it doesn’t say so outright. The joke only works if everyone recognizes the code. That is why a throwaway Roman line about Tyrian cloth needs no explanation—the city was fluent in luxuries it would never touch. It understood that certain colors came freighted, like a seal on a letter you were not allowed to open. ![Photo of body sherds of purple dye vats with purple dye remains](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Photo-of-body-sherds-of-purple-dye-vats-with-purple-dye-remains.jpg) Photo of body sherds of purple dye vats with purple dye remains. Credits: PLOS, Photo by Moshe Caine ### Global Color: Networks Beneath the Shine Shiqmona also clarifies a different kind of map. It’s tempting to tell the story of purple in Roman terms—Tyre and Sidon as glamorous brand names on a product the capital monopolized. The truth is both simpler and more interesting. Before Rome was Rome, there was a Levantine shoreline dotted with places like this one: skilled labor wrapped in standardized kit, local reefs harvested to feed distant wardrobes. The dye itself was the hard-won prize of a niche ecological knowledge; the textiles were the vehicles of that knowledge through a sea of markets. Even Roman literature, which prefers the city as a stage for everything, preserves the foreignness of purple in its very nicknames. One poet teases a patron about garments “*dyed twice in the shellfish blood of Tyre*,” and the audience understands both the sneer and the cost. Another treats “*Tyrian wraps*” as a hallmark of people with more money than sense. Under those lines are old routes and older habits: Phoenician sailors, Cypriot ports, Greek brokers, Italic buyers—all riding a current of color that began in places that smelled like work. By the imperial period, the current is deeper. Rome has the appetite and the administrative muscle to make scarcity an article of policy, and purple obliges, because its bottlenecks are built-in. You can’t rush a gland; **you can only crush more snails**. You can’t fake the chemistry; **you can only guard it**. The more the city desires, the more coastlines are conscripted into making the desire visible. From Sidon to Carthage to Spain, the proof is the same: shell hills, stained soils, tools that forgot they were tools and became evidence. ![Dino-Lite digital microscope photos of purple-dye residue on miscellaneous pottery vessels](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Dino-Lite-digital-microscope-photos-of-purple-dye-residue-on-miscellaneous-pottery-vessels.jpg) Dino-Lite digital microscope photos of purple-dye residue on miscellaneous pottery vessels. Credits: PLOS, Photos by Golan Shalvi and Maria Bukin ### From Sacred Cloth to State Skin One of the most human things about purple is how it slid so easily between the language of gods and the language of government. The Shiqmona study notes what temples and offerings long suggested: in the Iron Age, dyed textiles belonged as much to ritual as to rank. A robe could make a body look more like a statue; a hanging could make an altar look more like a throne. [When Rome absorbed the cultic grandeur of earlier Mediterranean worlds](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/), it also absorbed the dye’s double life. Triumph made the merger complete. A general in his purple stood at the axis where [soldier](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/), priest, and actor fused. The city watched him become a version of Jupiter’s favorite, briefly draped in a color that visually translated favor into fact. Later, emperors made the garment permanent, or pretended to. The robe that once marked a day became a skin that marked a dynasty. In Byzantium, purple chambers midwifed metaphors into birth certificates; dynastic prose turned a dye into a womb. And yet—and always—the source remained what Pliny would recognize if he could walk the Carmel coast now and see the purple still inside the rims, again remembering his already mentioned passages: “*The colour of congealed blood*,” he’d mutter, approving the shade; “*an unhealthy odour*,” he’d add, wrinkling his nose. It is the paradox that made purple so useful to empires and so clarifying to archaeology: a thing holy and base at once, because human hands made it so. ![Above, basalt grinding stone tool with purple dye residue, below, the Dino-Lite digital microscope photos of the purple dye residue on it](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Above--basalt-grinding-stone-tool-with-purple-dye-residue--below--the-Dino-Lite-digital-microscope-photos-of-the-purple-dye-residue-on-it.jpg) Above, basalt grinding stone tool with purple dye residue, below, the Dino-Lite digital microscope photos of the purple dye residue on it. Credits: PLOS, Photos by Maria Bukin ### Waste as Archive If Shiqmona had yielded lovely fragments of cloth alone, we would have admired them and moved on. The site’s power lies in its refusal to curate away the costs. Vats do not lie, and neither do stains. The report’s line is not rhetorical but literal: > “Large-scale purple dye manufacture was a messy business. Shiqmona clearly reveals that large-scale dye manufacturing and dyeing generated significant waste.” Waste is not a footnote here; it is a method. It allows a modern reader to stand inches from the residue of a process that ancient writers were happy to summarize but reluctant to display. The distribution of that residue lets us scale without romance: > “Counting MNI, the artifacts represent a minimum of 38 production vats from the Iron Age.” > > “In Stratum 11… a MNI of 16 vats… about 20 vats were active… approximately 50 years.” > > “About 5% of the Iron Age stone artifacts… bear purple stains.” Each measure pushes us past the picturesque shell heap toward a recovered industrial landscape: not a one-off “factory” but a sustained way of making that turned years into work and work into marks. And because Shiqmona is early, it forces us to widen the frame on Rome. The Empire’s taste did not invent the processes it loved. It concentrated them, regulated them, priced them, and—above all—wore them. When triumphators stepped into the forum wrapped [like divinity](https://romanempiretimes.com/ascending-to-the-divine-the-practice-and-meaning-of-apotheosis-in-ancient-rome/), they were wearing standardized vats, brined glands, stained tools, reef ecologies, and labor they would never smell. Whatever we mean by **“globalization” in antiquity**, Shiqmona gives it a texture: distant waste in the service of local shine. ![Stone tools with purple dye residue](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Stone-tools-with-purple-dye-residue.jpg) Stone tools with purple dye residue. Credits: PLOS, Photo by Maria Bukin ### What Purple Tells Us About Power So much of Roman history, even at its most intimate, is about distance—between capital and province, between law and life, between spectacle and source. Purple collapses those distances into something you can hold and something you can see. Hold a Shiqmona rim and you are holding the same process that made a senator a senator at a glance. Watch a dyed stripe pass between colonnades and you are watching the afterlife of a reef. It also returns an old moral vocabulary to its proper scale. “Luxury” in Roman invective often reads like a private sin with public consequences, a story about appetites unworthy of office. Shiqmona lets us flip the lens. Luxury is not just appetite; it is apparatus. It requires an infrastructure that makes appetite legible across space. It makes waste a constant and turns smell into the price of seeing. Pliny tried to square the circle for his readers—“*mad lust*” on one side, “*unhealthy odour*” on the other—and he left us a neat pair of sentences to quote in perpetuity. The archaeology gives us the third line the ancient texts never wrote: this is where the smell lived, and this is how long it stayed. The Carmel coast began it; Rome finished the story. The Empire’s most legible color, the densest symbol in its wardrobe, was born not just in glands or in myths, but in places like this one—places that were purple long before the cloth was. ![Schematic plan with spatial distribution of finds related to purple-dye production](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Schematic-plan--with-spatial-distribution-of-finds-related-to-purple-dye-production.jpg) Schematic plan with spatial distribution of finds related to purple-dye production. Credits: PLOS, Illustration by Sapir Haad ### Coda: The Stain That Lasts The lesson that matters most for Roman history is simpler and older. Purple is what happens when a society invests meaning in a material so hard to make that the making becomes invisible. Shiqmona makes it visible again. It shows us vats with color trapped in their clay, tools with work etched into their breaks, and numbers that smell like scale. The site does not diminish Rome’s theatre; it adds a backstage and leaves the door ajar. There is a temptation, when writing about Rome’s grandeur, **to imagine that the grandeur has nothing to do with us**. Shiqmona won’t allow it. The paper pauses to note that along this same coastline today, mollusk communities have been “*decimated… by global warming, salinization and pollution*,” with some recovery in recent years where Muricidae remain relatively abundant. It is a sober reminder that **seas have long carried the burden of our symbols**, and still do. (*Tel Shiqmona during the Iron Age: A first glimpse into an ancient Mediterranean purple dye ‘factory’, by Shalvi et al., 2025*). ### Juvenal: The Poet Who Held a Mirror to Rome URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/juvenal-the-poet-who-held-a-mirror-to-rome/ Last updated: 2026-04-28T23:00:19.000Z In the shadow of [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/the-year-of-the-four-emperors/) and under the weight of imperial excess, Juvenal emerged as [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s fiercest satirist. His sixteen satires, composed in biting hexameters, turned indignation into art, exposing hypocrisy, corruption, and moral decay with an irony so sharp it still cuts across centuries. To read Juvenal is to encounter a voice both enraged and enduring, one that forced Romans to confront the vices they preferred to ignore. ### The Shadowed Life of Juvenal The life of Juvenal is shadowed by uncertainty. What survives of him comes only in fragments—hints from his poems and scattered traditions—leaving much of his biography obscure. From [*the Satires*](https://amzn.to/4mznYQD?ref=romanempiretimes.com), his later years can be traced with some certainty, yet their focus on the Domitianic age suggests a hidden trauma in his early life. According to the scholiasts, that shadow was exile—imposed by [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/) after Juvenal penned a lampoon against the actor Paris, accusing him of manipulating equestrian promotions. The inscription, if genuinely his, implies that Juvenal himself once began an equestrian career. His failure to advance within it may have fueled the biting satire that provoked his banishment and left a lasting mark on both his fortunes and reputation. ![A fictitious portrait of Juvenal from the 19th century, by S. H. Gimber](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/A-fictitious-portrait-of-Juvenal-from-the-19th-century--by-S.-H.-Gimber.jpg) A fictitious portrait of Juvenal from the 19th century, by S. H. Gimber. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### The Poet Revealed Through Satire Juvenal’s career is difficult to trace from external testimony. Only a single contemporary mentions him, and for more than a century after his death, references are rare and contradictory. As the last voice of the Silver Age, his biography remains uncertain, but his [poems](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/) make up for the silence of history. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Roman Innovations in Medicine: Genius Discoveries and Dangerous Missteps URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-innovations-in-medicine-genius-discoveries-and-dangerous-missteps/ Last updated: 2025-09-23T13:34:44.000Z Medicine in the Roman Empire was a complex mix of practical observation, cultural tradition, and experimentation. Roman physicians borrowed heavily from the Greeks’ Hippocratic principles. The Hippocratic principle of either to help or at least do no harm continues to be the foundational ethos of the patient-physician relationship. According to a ScienceDirect study, it encapsulates the principles of “beneficence” and “non-maleficence.” The idea is to remind doctors that they should act to benefit patients and not to harm them. However, they blended Hippocratic principles with their own understanding of anatomy and public health. They were quick to apply what worked, whether it came from herbal remedies, surgical techniques, or simple sanitation practices. At the same time, their eagerness to experiment sometimes led them into dangerous territory, where cures could cause more harm than the illness itself. This article discusses Roman innovations in medicine. ## The Drive for Healing and Experimentation Roman doctors often had to treat soldiers, gladiators, and citizens exposed to harsh living conditions. This urgency pushed them to refine surgical instruments, perform amputations, and even develop early forms of cataract surgery. For their time, these achievements were impressive, showing that Roman medicine was not entirely stagnant but was willing to push boundaries. Yet, those same boundaries sometimes blurred the line between medical advancement and reckless trials. The historical record makes clear that even respected physicians were capable of serious errors. Consider the example of [Galen](https://romanempiretimes.com/galen-of-pergamon-rome-most-famous-physician-galenus/), one of the most influential doctors of antiquity. According to Britannica, dissecting human corpses was a taboo during his time. Therefore, many of his theories are based on animal dissections. This led him to make several errors, which were recognized later. The Romans lacked the benefit of modern scientific testing. However, it was not solely because of the lack of scientific testing and advancements. Consider the Depo Provera injections, which are an effective contraceptive. However, as TorHoerman Law notes, they are linked to increased risk for brain tumors. This led to[ ](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.torhoermanlaw.com/depo-provera-lawsuit/depo-provera-brain-tumor-lawsuit/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1755865123522731%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1Jc1X1XCXo1Th4Wn4spHZI&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1755865123532651&usg=AOvVaw2H4Yu0jNshMCSP3%5FE816hT)[Depo shot linked to brain ](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.torhoermanlaw.com/depo-provera-lawsuit/depo-provera-brain-tumor-lawsuit/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1755865123522857%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2O9cc3%5FB06t1Hi7pKvMKwk&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1755865123532771&usg=AOvVaw3nvFiAIDUFkagCbf%5FlR0te)[tumors](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.torhoermanlaw.com/depo-provera-lawsuit/depo-provera-brain-tumor-lawsuit/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1755865123522952%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3R2BCEJioGfJxaX6fHGL4x&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1755865123532850&usg=AOvVaw37LeQAtszmuscxpku%5F-05Q)[ legal action](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.torhoermanlaw.com/depo-provera-lawsuit/depo-provera-brain-tumor-lawsuit/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1755865123523045%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3Vv54Z77UA7HDsXZBj1cjl&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1755865123532926&usg=AOvVaw0RwWAxekoqZtaZhF%5F1x-SY), which is a reminder that even with advanced research, some treatments go wrong. Much like Roman society, today’s medical field walks a delicate line between innovation and accountability. ### How did Roman citizens view experimental treatments from their doctors? Most Roman patients accepted risky treatments because the alternative was often suffering or death. Medicine was seen as a hopeful, if uncertain, solution, and physicians carried authority. However, wealthy families sometimes distrusted overly experimental doctors, preferring traditional remedies or Greek-trained physicians with established reputations. ## The Role of Public Health One of the Romans’ greatest contributions to medicine lay not in individual cures but in public health measures. According to National Geographic, the Romans built aqueducts for transporting fresh water to populated areas. Although they were also a part of the early civilizations of Egypt and India, the Romans improved the structure of aqueducts. They were built over a period of 500 years, ranging from 312 B.C.E. to C.E. 226. The Romans also built sewers to reduce waste and public baths to offer opportunities for hygiene. These innovations did more to prevent disease than many of the remedies physicians prescribed. However, even here contradictions existed. While public baths promoted cleanliness, overcrowding also spread infections, and water channels could carry pollutants as well as fresh water. The emphasis on sanitation reveals a Roman awareness of environmental health, even if they lacked an understanding of germs. They noticed that cleaner living spaces often meant fewer outbreaks of illness, and this observational approach shaped policy decisions. Yet, the reliance on lead pipes in their aqueduct systems created hidden dangers, exposing many to slow poisoning. Their greatest success in public health was thus shadowed by an unseen hazard. In fact, [The Guardian](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/jan/06/roman-empires-use-of-lead-lowered-iq-levels-across-europe-study-finds%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1755865123525360%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0DVxctThOSMuEXr%5FmD66LA&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1755865123533463&usg=AOvVaw0RDF9yz5HEZosDCNtETi3W) mentions a study about the use of lead in the Roman Empire. It states that their use of lead reduced IQ levels across Europe. ### How did the Romans handle outbreaks of disease in crowded cities? When plagues struck, Romans attempted a mix of religious rituals and practical measures. Temples might host purification ceremonies, while city officials ordered the cleaning of streets and water supplies. Though lacking modern science, these steps sometimes slowed contagion, showing how civic response worked alongside spiritual practices. ## Dangerous Missteps and Questionable Cures Alongside their successes, Roman physicians experimented with treatments that now appear reckless. Mercury, lead-based concoctions, and opium were used in doses that could easily become poisonous. Consider the example of black henbane used by physicians of ancient Rome. According to a [Science.org article](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.science.org/content/article/roman-era-bone-container-holds-potent-hallucinogenic-medicine%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1755865123526712%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2AH4fWLPo7sv6CkJSpCdAi&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1755865123533791&usg=AOvVaw3Bjm2A5Gb9Hv3X1aA4VEVu), it was a source of both fascination and fear for them. It was used as a narcotic, which helped relieve pain and discomfort. However, ingesting an inappropriate amount of it could lead to severe consequences. Some surgeries, performed without adequate sanitation, resulted in death rather than recovery. The tension between progress and misjudgment shaped Roman medicine in ways that still resonate. Even the use of charms and amulets shows the thin line between science and superstition. A soldier might carry a protective stone to ward off fever while also being treated with herbal brews. These overlapping methods reflected both the desperation of the patient and the limited tools available to the physician. In practice, a Roman could never be sure whether a cure was a genuine solution or a dangerous experiment disguised as treatment. ### Were poisons ever used deliberately as medicine in Rome? Yes, substances we consider poisons today were often prescribed in controlled doses. For instance, hellebore and mercury were used in attempts to treat various conditions. The danger lay in the difficulty of controlling dosage, since a slight excess could turn a supposed cure into a fatal mistake. The Roman Empire’s medical legacy is one of both brilliance and error. Their infrastructure laid the foundations for modern public health, while their physicians demonstrated that the pursuit of healing often requires boldness. Yet, their failures remind us that even the best-intentioned innovations carry risks. ### Marcus Terentius Varro: The Polymath who catalogued the Roman Civilization URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-terentius-varro-the-polymath-who-catalogued-the-roman-civilization/ Last updated: 2025-08-24T22:39:03.000Z He marched with [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/), governed estates, and wrote more books than most Romans ever read. Marcus Terentius Varro (116–27 BCE) was called the most learned of the Romans by Augustine, a man whose vast scholarship sought to catalogue every facet of Roman life—from language and religion to farming and history. Though most of his works are lost, the fragments that remain reveal a restless intellect determined to preserve [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/mistress-of-rome-servilia-caesar-and-the-politics-of-passion/)’s memory at the very moment its Republic was unraveling. ### The Life of Marcus Terentius Varro Marcus Terentius Varro was born in 116 BCE at Reate in the [Sabine](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-truly-happened-with-the-sabine-women/) country, where his equestrian family held large estates. He first studied under L. Aelius Stilo Praeconinus, a scholar deeply versed in [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) and Latin letters and especially devoted to Rome’s history and antiquities. Later he pursued philosophy at [Athens](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrian-gate-in-downtown-athens-below-acropolis-a-gateway-to-history/) under Antiochus of Ascalon, sharpening the intellectual interests that would define his life. Although drawn to scholarship, Varro did not avoid public duty. He served in Spain during the campaign against Sertorius in 76 BCE, and later fought under Pompey in the war against the Cilician pirates and in the campaign against [Mithridates](https://romanempiretimes.com/mad-honey-warfare-how-king-mithridates-poisoned-pompeys-legions/). When civil war broke out, he stood with Pompey, first in Spain and then in Epirus and Thessaly. After Pompey’s defeat, Varro was pardoned by [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/), who entrusted him with organizing a great public library of Greek and Latin works. Yet following [Caesar’s assassination](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-are-the-ides-of-march-why-are-they-important/), his fortune turned again: [Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/) placed him on the proscription lists, his villa at Casinum was seized, and his personal library was destroyed. Varro himself escaped execution only thanks to loyal friends who hid him until [Octavian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/)’s protection could be secured. The final years of his life were spent in peace, devoted entirely to writing, until his death in 27 BCE at the age of eighty-nine. Over his long career, Varro wrote tirelessly. Ancient sources credit him with seventy-four works amounting to some six hundred and twenty books, covering almost every field of knowledge: agriculture, grammar, Roman history and antiquities, geography, law, rhetoric, philosophy, mathematics, [astronomy](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-astronomy-how-did-romans-see-the-planets/), education, literature, drama, satire, poetry, oratory, and letters. ![A gravure of the encyclopedist Marcus Terentius Varro](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/A-gravure-of-the-encyclopedist-Marcus-Terentius-Varro.jpg) A gravure of the encyclopedist Marcus Terentius Varro. Public domain Of this vast output, only one work has survived complete — the three books of [*On Agriculture*](https://amzn.to/46601ur?ref=romanempiretimes.com). His [*On the Latin Language*](https://amzn.to/47HjOl9?ref=romanempiretimes.com), originally twenty-five books, survives only in part, with Books 5–10 extant and even these with many gaps. The rest of his writings reach us only in fragments scattered through later authors. Among his linguistic works were [*On the Antiquity of Letters*](https://amzn.to/45Qm2fK?ref=romanempiretimes.com), dedicated to the poet Accius; *On the Latin Language*, addressed to Pompey; and several technical treatises on orthography, poetic meters, and the principles of analogy and anomaly in Latin usage. He also compiled the *Disciplinae*, an encyclopedic account of the liberal arts in nine books, beginning with grammar. ([*Varro on the Latin language*](https://amzn.to/45QlhmL?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Roland G. Kent, edited by T.E Page, E. Capps, W., H., D., Rouse)* > “Varro was a philosopher and a historian, a fine soldier and a fine general, and perhaps for these reasons was proscribed as an enemy to monarchy. > > His intimates were ambitiously seeking to take him in and contending with one another to do so, \[but Q. Fufius\] Calenus won out and kept him in a country house, where Antony used to stop when he would travel. > > Yet no slave of Varro himself or of Calenus revealed his presence. Appian, [*Bella Civilia*](https://amzn.to/4oOIbn4?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 4.6.47 ### Varro’s Works and Intellectual Legacy Varro, lived through one of the most transformative periods of Roman history: the late Republic, its collapse, and the rise of the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/). A large portion of his long life was dedicated to scholarship, producing an extraordinary body of work. Ancient sources attribute to him hundreds of volumes and dozens of titles, covering both prose and poetry. His writings-as already mentioned- extended across genres and subjects, from satire and literary criticism to studies on language, history, and antiquarian themes, as well as technical treatises on agriculture, geography, law, philosophy, medicine, architecture, and the seven Greek liberal arts. Varro’s vast productivity made him an essential reference for later authors of the imperial and late antique periods, including Gellius, [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/), Charisius, Augustine, Nonius, and Servius. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Marcus-Terentius-Varro-and-his-thoughts.jpg) ## Yet only a fraction of his writings survive, most of them in fragmentary form. **Marcus Terentius Varro and his thoughts. Credits: Alessandro Fornara, CC BY-SA 4.0* For several works, however, enough remains to reconstruct approximate dates of composition, which in turn allows scholars to link specific texts to the political and historical circumstances of their time. These connections suggest that Varro’s intellectual output was shaped by the challenges of his era. His historical, antiquarian, and linguistic writings, in particular, can be seen as contributions to an ongoing debate about the identity of the [Roman people](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/), reflecting his effort to situate Roman culture within a broader ideological framework. He didn’t see antiquarianism and linguistics as separate pursuits. To him, the study of language was inseparable from the study of Rome’s culture. When he investigated the origin of words, he wasn’t just being pedantic: he was digging into the roots of Roman identity. He described etymology as a kind of archaeology — “unearthing” what had been buried by time. Time, he said, brings *vetustas* (age), which obscures meaning like dust over an inscription. Yet with effort, the truth can be recovered, unlike *oblivio* (forgetfulness), which erases it completely. ### The Weight of Crisis Why did Varro suddenly devote himself to these massive works in the 40s BCE? Maybe it wasn’t just because he finally had the leisure after years of campaigning with Pompey. Maybe It was because Rome itself was unrecognizable. Varro once imagined a man in his satire, *The Sixty-Year-Old*, who fell asleep as a child and woke up half a century later: > “When I returned to Rome, I found nothing there of what I had left fifty years before.” Varro’s [*Menippean satire*](https://amzn.to/47H8aqw?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Sexagessis **The city had changed so much that even its morals seemed foreign.** Varro’s generation had lived through the Social War, when Italy’s allies turned against [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) demanding citizenship. They had witnessed Sulla’s dictatorship, [Caesar’s wars](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/), and the chaos of rival strongmen. Rome itself seemed fractured, its identity unclear. Who was Roman now? Who belonged? These were not abstract questions. They pressed on the daily politics of citizenship, belonging, and loyalty. Varro’s answer was radical for his time. He argued that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/mistress-of-rome-servilia-caesar-and-the-politics-of-passion/) had always been mixed. The Romans were not a pure people but [a blend of many](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/). In his great [*Antiquities*](https://amzn.to/4lEUz6n?ref=romanempiretimes.com), he wrote that the earliest Romans descended from different stocks — Pelasgians, Aborigines, Aeneas’ Trojans — and were bound together in “*brotherly kinship*.” He gave special weight to the Sabines, his own people from Reate, insisting that many [Roman gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) and customs came from them. The word *multa* (a fine), he said, was Sabine. So were deities like Feronia, Minerva, Salus, Fortuna, and Fides. Everyday words too, from *crepusculum* (twilight) to *supparus* (a woman’s dress), showed Rome’s Sabine roots. But he did not stop at Italy. He admitted that Latin carried Greek, Etruscan, and even Gallic words. > “Not all words in our language come from the vernacular,” he explained; some are: > “foreign or hybrid, coined here from a foreign model.” He gave examples: *sagum* (a cloak) from Gaul, *miles* (soldier) from Etruscan, and many others. Latin was, in his eyes, the product of centuries of exchange. ![Varro pointing at his 'Antiquitates' (Antiquities), divided in Human Matters and Divine Matters, he is kneeling before an emperor and pontifex, counsellors and priests](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Varro-pointing-at-his--Antiquitates---Antiquities---divided-in-Human-Matters-and-Divine-Matters--he-is-kneeling-before-an-emperor-and-pontifex--counsellors-and-priests.jpg) Varro pointing at his 'Antiquitates' (Antiquities), divided in Human Matters and Divine Matters, he is kneeling before an emperor and pontifex, counsellors and priests. Public domain Varro was not ashamed of this. Quite the opposite: he stressed that Romans took from others through *imitatio* — not slavish copying, but adopting, adapting, and improving. He described Roman ancestors dining sitting down, a custom borrowed from Greeks and Cretans. Far from weakening Rome, this capacity to absorb and reshape was the secret of Roman greatness. For Varro, then, the Latin language itself was a mirror of Roman identity. It was not pure or untouched but layered, mixed, and evolving. He even imagined that from the very founding of the city, Rome had welcomed outsiders. Some believed he hinted at the asylum of [Romulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-and-remus-the-legendary-founders-of-rome/), where refugees and wanderers were gathered into the first citizen body. Rome began as a mixture — and that mixture was a source of vitality, not corruption. He did not do this work only for curiosity’s sake. He openly said he feared that Rome’s gods and traditions might: > “perish, not by the attack of enemies, but by the neglect of its citizens.” He described his books as a shelter for them: > “rescuing them as if from a collapsing building, and giving them refuge in memory.” His scholarship was a civic duty: to save Rome’s culture from decay, to record its traditions before they were lost. [Cicero ](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)praised him for this. In one dialogue, he has a character say that Varro’s books made Romans feel at home again, no longer: > “wandering like foreigners in their own city.” Through his antiquarian and linguistic studies, Varro gave his fellow citizens a map of who they were. ### The Mirror of Rome Varro’s scholarship was not backward-looking nostalgia. It was a present project, a way of redefining Roman identity when the Republic was collapsing. He held up a mirror to his people, showing them that they had always been a mixture — Latins, Sabines, Etruscans, Greeks, Gauls — and that their strength lay in this layered heritage. By preserving this truth in writing, he hoped Romans might recognize themselves again. (*Rome in the mirror: Varo's quest for the past, for a present goal, by Federica Lazzerini, University of Oxford*) Varro turned scholarship into civic service. He wasn’t cataloguing the past for its own sake, but to remind Romans of who they were — not a pure lineage, but a people born of many traditions, bound together by memory. ![Varro in His Study by Master of the Oxford Hours](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Varro-in-His-Study-by-Master-of-the-Oxford-Hours.jpg) Varro in His Study by Master of the Oxford Hours. Public domain ### Varro and the World of Agriculture In the final years of the Republic, when civil war and political chaos seemed to uproot everything, Varro turned to the land. His three-book *On Agriculture* is often described as a farming manual, but it is much more than advice on [vines](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/), [olives](https://romanempiretimes.com/olive-oil-in-the-roman-empire-how-the-romans-discovered-the-liquid-gold/), or livestock. Beneath its surface, the work reflects on Rome’s political struggles, its cultural identity, and even its survival. The treatise is framed as conversations held on country estates, far from the turmoil of the Forum. Different voices debate topics like crop rotation, cattle breeding, or [villa](https://romanempiretimes.com/villa-jovis-the-secret-lair-for-the-dark-pleasures-of-an-old-emperor/) management, but woven into their exchanges are reflections on civic life. Farming is never only about farming. To cultivate the land is also to cultivate the state. Just as fields must be cleared, planted, and tended, so too must a community be educated, disciplined, and ordered. Again and again, agriculture becomes a metaphor for civic virtue. Weeds are like corruption, irrigation like wise government, a balanced estate like a balanced society. To neglect the land is to invite sterility; to neglect the Republic is to invite decay. The soil, Varro reminds his readers, responds only to those who work it with diligence: > “The land does not betray those who care for it.” At times the dialogue borders on satire. The speakers are not ideal philosophers but real landowners, with their quirks and biases. Their conversations carry humor, irony, even complaint. Yet behind the laughter lies something serious: a warning that Rome itself risks ruin if it forgets the lessons of agriculture — moderation, patience, and respect for tradition. ![Varro's aviary at Casinum, gravure by Pirro Ligorio](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Varro-s-aviary-at-Casinum--gravure-by-Pirro-Ligorio.jpg) Varro's aviary at Casinum, gravure by Pirro Ligorio. Public domain By the time *On Agriculture* was written, Varro had already endured exile, proscription, and the bloody rivalries of Rome’s leaders. He had seen libraries burned and estates confiscated. The choice to write about farming was not accidental. It was an attempt to find stability in a world where politics had turned destructive. Farming was Rome’s oldest foundation, the work of the ancestors. To write about it was to remind Romans that their strength lay in the countryside, in the toil of fields and the order of estates. In Varro’s hands, the farm becomes more than an economic unit. It is a moral model, where household order reflects civic order, and rural labor embodies the values that made Rome strong. The [villa](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/) is almost a miniature Republic: the master as leader, the workers as citizens, the land as the common good. If Rome was to survive, it had to be managed like a well-run estate — with foresight, fairness, and discipline. So while the text does offer practical instructions — how to prune vines, when to sow grain, how to raise poultry — these are never the whole story. Behind every piece of advice is a larger message: Rome must learn to cultivate itself as carefully as it cultivates the land. Agriculture is a mirror for politics, and the farmer’s diligence is the model of the citizen’s duty. (*Varro the agronomist: Political Philosophy, Satire, and Agriculture in the Late Republic, by Grant A. Nelsestuen*) ### Varro’s Lists: Preserving Complexity Varro’s way of writing often took the form of catalogues — long lists of gods, words, and disciplines. On the surface they seem neat and orderly, but they reveal just how unruly Roman tradition really was. In religion, for instance, his Antiquities laid out a dizzying number of deities, each responsible for a stage of life or labor, from planting seeds to harvesting crops. ![Cover from 1623 of all the known works of Marcus Terentius Varro, by Claes Jansz Visscher](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Cover-from-1623-of-all-the-known-works-of-Marcus-Terentius-Varro--by-Claes-Jansz--Visscher.jpg) Cover from 1623 of all the known works of Marcus Terentius Varro, by Claes Jansz Visscher. Public domain Later generations mocked this excess as confusion, yet for Varro it was an honest reflection of reality: Roman life was complex, so its gods were too. The same pattern appears in his *Disciplinae*, a survey of the nine liberal arts. Grammar, rhetoric, [mathematics](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-ancient-romans-calculate/), and astronomy were neatly lined up, yet within each field knowledge spilled over with variety and contradiction. Rather than hide this disorder, Varro preserved it, showing Romans that their heritage was layered, plural, and worth remembering in all its tangled detail. (*Varro and the disorder of things, by Katharina Volk*) ### Varro and the Life of the Roman People Among Varro’s many lost works was one especially precious: [*De vita populi Romani*](https://amzn.to/3HKt5yq?ref=romanempiretimes.com) — On the Life of the Roman People. Unlike the historians who told of wars, triumphs, and the rise and fall of leaders, Varro set out to capture something different: the everyday fabric of Roman culture. His subject was not the march of armies but the habits, morals, and traditions that gave shape to Roman life. Fragments show his fascination with the ordinary and the ritualistic. He described [how the Roman day began](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/), what customs marked the turning of the seasons, and which practices bound citizens together. This was history as memory: a cultural record of who the Romans were, not just what they did. One surviving line conveys his aim clearly: > “The life of the Roman people is best known through its customs.” Religion and morality formed a large part of this project. Varro catalogued rites and ceremonies that governed [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/), [death](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/), agriculture, and civic duty. He paid attention to the rhythms of [festivals](https://romanempiretimes.com/saturnalia-the-roman-festival-that-inspired-the-spirit-of-christmas/), the laws that regulated family and property, and the rituals that maintained the bond between people and gods. These details may have seemed small, but for Varro they were the true essence of Rome. The work also carried a moral undertone: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Closeup-of-a-statue-of-ancient-Roman-scholar-Marcus-Terentius-Varro-in-his-birthplace--Rieti.jpg) ## Varro was not only preserving customs for their antiquarian charm; ***he was holding them up as a mirror.** **Closeup of a statue of ancient Roman scholar Marcus Terentius Varro in his birthplace, Rieti. Credits: Alessandro Antonelli, CC BY 3.0* Romans could look back at these traditions to measure how much they had changed — or strayed. His antiquarian method, assembling fragments of language, ritual, and law, was in service of cultural memory. He was recording not just for curiosity but for identity. Most of *De vita populi Romani* is lost, but later authors hint at its richness. Nonius preserves references to old Roman words and expressions, Augustine cites Varro’s observations on morality and religion, and scattered fragments suggest that he traced practices back to the earliest days of the Republic. Through these glimpses, we see a vast project that must have stood as a companion to his Antiquities — one treating the gods, the other the people who worshipped them. (*The Annals of Varro, by H. A. Sanders. The American Journal of Philology*) ### Varro and Slavery: The “Talking Tools” Debate One of the most quoted lines linked to Varro is the unsettling description of slaves as *instrumenta vocalia* — “talking tools.” In *On Agriculture*, he divides the equipment of a farm into three types: mute tools like wagons and ploughs, semi-vocal tools like oxen, and vocal tools like [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/). On the surface, it sounds brutally dismissive, reducing human beings to objects. Yet the context shows something more complicated. The remark is part of a neat classification scheme, likely adapted from [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) sources, that sorted everything on the farm into categories. It was not a moral reflection but a practical shorthand. Still, the fact that [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) could be grouped with animals and implements at all reveals how deeply slavery was woven into Roman life. Even a man of Varro’s learning could speak of human beings primarily in terms of their usefulness. And yet, elsewhere, Varro acknowledges the skills and individuality of enslaved workers, suggesting he did not see them as mere tools in every respect. The “talking tools” line may not tell us what Varro truly believed about slavery, but it tells us a great deal about the world he lived in — a society where the humanity of slaves was easily obscured by the demands of agriculture and estate management. (*Did Varro Think that Slaves were Talking Tools?, by Juan P. Lewis*) --- Marcus Terentius Varro was more than a scholar; he was Rome’s archivist. In a world torn by war and political collapse, he set down in writing the language, customs, gods, and practices that defined his people. Much of it is lost, but what survives shows his vision: that Rome’s greatness was not a matter of purity or power, but of memory — the ability to gather, preserve, and make sense of a complex past. Through Varro, **Rome learned to see itself**. ### Stoic in the Sauna: Why a Baiae Bathhouse Linked to Cicero is Deliciously Ironic URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/stoic-in-the-sauna-why-a-baiae-bathhouse-linked-to-cicero-is-deliciously-ironic/ Last updated: 2025-08-22T21:52:07.000Z The Bay of Naples is a place where the ground itself has never stood still. Volcanic activity has made whole cities rise and sink in slow motion, and none more dramatically than Baiae. ### Baiae Rises from the Waves *Bradyseism* — the gradual up-and-down breathing of the earth — eventually drowned vast swathes of its marble villas and colonnaded streets beneath the Tyrrhenian Sea. Divers now swim through what was once the Republic’s most notorious resort town, where gilded mosaics and soaring arches are reduced to fish-haunted ruins. The latest discovery, [announced by Italian archaeologists](https://www.facebook.com/parcoarcheologicodeicampiflegrei/posts/pfbid0QR6g7ZLYz9k7in2MXYhkdPkepwRUwBTyRTC1pzsPBM71Tj5r3LwQjEemQXXpQcmql?%5F%5Fcft%5F%5F[0]=AZWISfyRZMl8xgu2HK%5FD8y0x2w75Obw7U2ROAXEZLrxnpux5yuRSX23zDURRu8D2b0qtQ18pItbzI%5FDBPMPnpa0Bt7oZ2x1FUEwR8WxgGEBmWVy58p%5FD7SO0zM5oePxLo0THlvC9WIezCkNM%5FGinAj0pksNE-z1IqBPPVWltcrBoUQ&%5F%5Ftn%5F%5F=%2CO%2CP-R) in mid-August 2025, is a [hypocaust-heated chamber](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/) — a *laconicum*, or dry sweating room — with traces of mosaic still intact and the suspended pillars of the heating floor standing like a miniature forest beneath the waves. The chamber belonged to a villa complex associated in ancient sources with [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/), who is known to have owned property at Baiae. Suddenly, one of Rome’s loudest moralists has been swept into the story of the Empire’s “sin city.” [Ancient Rome’s sinful city at the bottom of the seaBaia was the Las Vegas of the Roman Empire – the place where the rich and powerful came to carry out their illicit affairs.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/icon/apple-touch-icon.png)BBCAdrienne Bernhard![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/thumbnail/p05ss9n4.jpg)](https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20180104-ancient-romes-sinful-city-at-the-bottom-of-the-sea?ref=romanempiretimes.com) BBC’s article on Baiae and their vivid description as a sinful city of the Empire ### Rome’s Playground of Vice If [Capri](https://romanempiretimes.com/villa-jovis-the-secret-lair-for-the-dark-pleasures-of-an-old-emperor/) was a jewel and [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/) a trading hub, Baiae was something else: a pleasure capital. Hot springs bubbled naturally from volcanic fissures, feeding a sprawl of terraced pools. Villas poured down the hillside toward the water, each with its own harbor, banqueting halls, and panoramic dining spaces that opened onto the bay. [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) kept a retreat here. So did [Lucullus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-unknown-lucullus-far-more-than-just-lucullan-meals/), the gourmet whose name became a byword for luxury. Later, [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-caligula-mad-or-just-sick/) built a floating bridge across the harbor to parade his power, and [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) ordered [lavish feasts](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/) here that made the place infamous. Ancient writers were scathing. Propertius warned that Baiae was “*fatal to chaste girls*” ([*Elegies*](https://amzn.to/47znKEv?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 1.11), a shoreline where fidelity dissolved as quickly as salt in water. [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/) sneered in his [*Moral Letters*](https://amzn.to/4fG7p2U?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (51.11): > “I left Baiae because the place was a show of vice… luxury is never far from disgrace.” For Juvenal, it was a shorthand for excess, a place where fortunes were squandered on baths and banquets rather than virtue and civic duty (Satires 4.141). Even [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/), who enjoyed witty indulgence, called Baiae “*a harbor of vice.*” To imagine Cicero’s name attached to this town is to set irony in stone. Cicero, the man who wrote page after page on temperance, moderation, and the moral duties of the citizen, soaking in a sweating chamber in the very place his peers condemned as Rome’s gilded cesspit. ![Mosaic niche from Baiae with a garden scene, a peacock on a fence with other birds and leafy plants](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Mosaic-niche-from-Baiae-with-a-garden-scene--a-peacock-on-a-fence-with-other-birds-and-leafy-plants.jpg) Mosaic niche from Baiae with a garden scene, a peacock on a fence with other birds and leafy plants. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 ### Cicero’s Moral Universe Cicero’s texts are saturated with the language of duty and virtue. In [*De Officiis*](https://amzn.to/41PrApg?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (1.22), written for his son, he declared: > “We are not born for ourselves alone. Our country, our friends, have a share in us.” Here was a vision of Roman life as an interlocking web of obligations — not to indulgence but to justice, courage, temperance, and wisdom. In the [*Tusculan Disputations*](https://amzn.to/4mTL7NJ?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (5.18), he dismissed pleasure as fleeting: > “What is sweeter than virtue itself? What is stronger, what more lasting? All other pleasures vanish, but virtue alone stands firm.” Again and again, he framed true happiness as rooted not in luxury but in decorum — the fitting behavior of a Roman citizen who balanced public service with self-control. Even when Cicero tempered his [Stoicism](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/) with Academic skepticism, the message was the same: virtue comes first. In [*De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum*](https://amzn.to/3HmlTIJ?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (2.35), he insisted: > “We are called away from pleasure by the dignity of virtue.” This was the man who despised the moral collapse he saw in figures like Catiline, who linked luxury and political corruption in fiery speeches from the rostra. That such a voice should echo from a sweating chamber at Baiae is what makes this archaeological find more than just another mosaic under the sea. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Joseph-Mallord-William-Turner---s-painting-of-Caligula---s-Palace-and-Bridge.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/A-painting-by-Joseph-Mallord-William-Turner--depicting-the-Bay-of-Baiae--with-Apollo-and-the-Sibyl.jpg) Image #1: Joseph Mallord William Turner’s painting of Caligula’s Palace and Bridge in Baiae. Credits: Gandalf's Gallery, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0\. Image #2: A painting by Joseph Mallord William Turner, depicting the Bay of Baiae, with Apollo and the Sibyl. Public domain ### The Bathhouse as a Stage The chamber itself, the laconicum, was an architectural marvel. Heated by a hypocaust system, it allowed air to circulate beneath the floor and up through terracotta flues in the walls. Roman engineers created an atmosphere of controlled heat, dry and penetrating, designed to open the pores and cleanse the body. [Mosaics](https://romanempiretimes.com/asarotos-oikos-mosaic-unswept-floor-roman-elite/) on the floor provided both beauty and grip, while the suspended pilae created a miniature underworld where [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) stoked fires day and night. This was not the rough bath of a soldier, nor the grand *frigidarium* of [Caracalla’s later baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/). It was an intimate, villa-sized chamber for private comfort, refinement, and display. Cicero, if indeed this was his, would have stepped from his study — where he drafted speeches against [Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/) or mused on the Republic — straight into a heated sanctuary designed for bodily ease. The irony is not in the technology, which Romans prized as part of civilized life, but in the location. A bath at Tusculum could be restorative. A bath at Baiae — the city of vice — **carried an entirely different resonance**. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Divers-in-the-Bath-of-Cicero-in-Baiae.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Bath-of-Cicero-in-Baiae--an-underwater-photo-from-user-naumacos.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Bath-of-Cicero-in-Baiae--a-photo-from-user-naumacos.jpg) Divers in the Bath of Cicero in Baiae. Credits: Parco Archeologico Campi Flegrei, naumacos ### Virtue on the Shoreline Cicero himself acknowledged the temptations of leisure. In his letters, he often contrasted *otium* (rest, leisure) with *negotium* (public business). For him, otium was acceptable when filled with study and philosophy, dangerous when filled with indulgence. In [*De Officiis*](https://amzn.to/3JmDHEc?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (3.1), he cautioned that: > “nothing is more shameful than to take delight in pleasure when the state is in distress.” And yet, Cicero’s presence at Baiae suggests he lived this tension in real time. He may well have justified his [villa](https://romanempiretimes.com/domus-romana-the-roman-villa-of-rabat-malta/) as a place to write, to correspond, and to host select guests. He did draft philosophical works in his retreats. But to own property in Baiae — to have a sweating room there — was to place himself amid the very associations of corruption he condemned in principle. It was a delicate balancing act. The Roman elite often accused one another of indulgence as a political weapon. Luxury was not just a lifestyle choice but a moral category, one that defined fitness for office. Cicero himself deployed it in his prosecution of Catiline’s followers. If his own villa strayed close to indulgence, it exposed him to the same charge. ### The Literature of Hypocrisy Seneca’s attacks on Baiae sharpen the irony further. He wrote ([*Epistle 51*](https://amzn.to/3HGd38z?ref=romanempiretimes.com)): > “If you are wise, you will avoid all resorts which invite a multitude of people… there is no retreat at Baiae, for luxury is never far away.” ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/A-statue-of-Cicero-at-the-Ashmolean-Oxford.jpg) ## Reading that line with Cicero’s name attached to the town feels like a dagger. **A statue of Cicero at the Ashmolean Oxford. Credits: Les Haines, CC BY 2.0* Juvenal, sarcastic and biting, linked Baiae with women of fortune and political manipulation, where senators “*melted in baths*” while Rome’s business was neglected. Propertius went further, casting Baiae as lethal to chastity: > “Baiae \[…\] that shore fatal to chaste girls” [*Elegies*](https://amzn.to/47znKEv?ref=romanempiretimes.com), (1.11.27) For him, the place itself corrupted. All three authors painted Baiae as the antithesis of civic virtue. To stand Cicero in that frame is to see him through their eyes — not as a philosopher in his study, but as a senator in hot water, literally and figuratively. ### Archaeology Meets Irony The find also deepens our understanding of Baiae’s physical culture. Submerged structures show how private villas mimicked the grandeur of public baths, bringing hypocaust engineering into personal leisure. The new discovery joins the long list of Baiae’s submerged marvels: mosaic-lined nymphaea, colonnaded courtyards, private harbors cut straight into the rock. For archaeologists, every find is another piece of the puzzle — proof of Baiae’s fusion of engineering brilliance and decadent purpose. But for cultural historians, attaching Cicero’s name adds a twist. It forces us to reckon not just with mosaics and mortar, but with moral texts and irony. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Mosaic-in-the-Bath-of-Cicero-in-Baiae.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Mosaic-detail-in-the-Bath-of-Cicero-in-Baiae--a-photo-from-user-Nuccia-Filomena-Lucci.jpg) Mosaic detail in the Bath of Cicero in Baiae. Credits: Parco Archeologico Campi Flegrei, Nuccia Filomena Lucci ### Cicero in Hot Water and ***Why* This Discovery Matters** If confirmed, the bathhouse becomes a symbol of the contradictions that ran through Cicero’s life. He championed the Republic yet compromised with strongmen. He preached temperance yet lived amid luxury. He exalted virtue above pleasure yet owned a sweating chamber in the most notorious pleasure town in Italy. **The discovery does not reduce Cicero’s moral writings to hypocrisy**. Instead, it makes them more human. Roman virtue was never a matter of flawless consistency but of negotiation between ideals and circumstances. Cicero in Baiae is Cicero as Roman: moralist and man, philosopher and property-owner, balancing virtus against the pull of otium in a place that symbolized the tension between the two. The underwater bathhouse at Baiae is not just an archaeological curiosity. It is a reminder that moral philosophy is always tested against life itself. Cicero, who urged his son to prize virtue above all, also needed respite, warmth, and retreat. That he found it in Baiae, of all places, is a historical irony too sharp to ignore. As archaeologists brush away the silt of centuries, they reveal not just tesserae and marble but the contradictions of Rome’s greatest voices. The Stoic in the sauna, the prophet of duty in the harbor of vice — Cicero’s bathhouse captures the essence of Roman life, where ideals and indulgence always mingled in uneasy steam. ### Rethinking Lucius Verus through Sources and Historiography URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/rethinking-lucius-verus-through-sources-and-historiography/ Last updated: 2025-08-18T21:45:49.000Z He dined in silk, amused himself with actors, and rode in gilded carriages—hardly the image of the Roman emperor forged in marble and sweat. And yet, Lucius Verus ruled an empire. Crowned not alone but beside [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/10-things-you-did-not-know-about-marcus-aurelius/), the philosopher-king, Lucius has been cast as the indulgent shadow to his co-emperor’s [stoic light](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-marcus-aurelius-meditations-survive/). But was he truly so unworthy? Behind the rumors of luxury and pleasure lies a man entrusted with war, celebrated in triumph, and mourned by Rome; the story of an emperor history chose to forget. People remember Marcus Aurelius as the philosopher-emperor, the Stoic ideal, a ruler of discipline and thought. At his side, however, [stood Lucius Verus](https://romanempiretimes.com/beyond-marcus-aurelius-lucius-verus-the-shadowed-emperor-of-romes-golden-age/)—Rome’s first official co-emperor, a man celebrated in his own time but largely forgotten by posterity. Eclipsed by the moral gravity of his adoptive brother, Lucius has often been dismissed as a mere companion to greatness: indulgent, ornamental, and idle. But a closer look reveals a figure far more complex—a prince of ease thrust into war, a ruler whose reign deserves more than footnotes and faint judgment. ## Reconstructing Lucius Verus: Sources, Shadows, and the Story of a Co-Emperor When it comes to Lucius Verus, the historical record is fragmented and often filtered through moral judgment or [imperial propaganda](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/). There is no rich archive of letters or detailed chronicle from a major historian devoted to him. Instead, our understanding must be pieced together from diverse and often contradictory sources: the [*Historia Augusta*](https://amzn.to/4fGx23H?ref=romanempiretimes.com), [*letters*](https://amzn.to/4mpsy46?ref=romanempiretimes.com) from Marcus Cornelius Fronto, Cassius Dio's fragments, later Roman historians like Eutropius and Festus, archaeological and epigraphic evidence, [coinage](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/), and even legal and Christian texts. Each offers glimpses, sometimes distorted, of an emperor remembered as much for his pleasures, as for his power. ![Colossal head of Lucius Verus mounted on a modern bust](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Colossal-head-of-Lucius-Verus--mounted-on-a-modern-bust.jpg) Colossal head of Lucius Verus mounted on a modern bust. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 ### A Patchwork of Sources The most substantial literary account comes from the Historia Augusta, particularly the biography dedicated to Verus and related ones on Marcus Aurelius and [Antoninus Pius](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-quiet-power-of-antoninus-pius-stability-and-prosperity-2/). Its reliability varies wildly, ranging from precise details to imaginative embellishment. Still, it's clear the work had a propagandistic aim, appealing to a popular audience. This slant is particularly visible in how Verus is portrayed: his lifestyle and personal habits consistently color assessments of his reign. INSIGHT [![CTA Image](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/IMG_2677.jpeg)](https://amzn.to/4mMotXg?ref=romanempiretimes.com) The Historia Augusta is widely debated among scholars. Today’s consensus holds that it was the work of a single fourth-century author writing under multiple pseudonyms. [Read it ](https://amzn.to/4mMotXg?ref=romanempiretimes.com) For a more personal and sympathetic view, we turn to the letters of Marcus Cornelius Fronto, a rhetorician who taught both Marcus and Lucius. Cassius Dio offers select, though fragmented, details, and Christian writers like Eusebius and Orosius preserve later interpretations. Archaeology, art history, and coinage add texture and context, while even legal compilations like the Code of Justinian preserve traces of imperial administration. ### Family and Early Life Lucius Verus, born Lucius Ceionius Commodus in December 130, was the son of Lucius Aelius Caesar—[Hadrian's](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-four-journeys-of-hadrian-the-globetrotter-emperor-of-the-roman-empire/) original successor. After Aelius Caesar died on January 1, 138, Hadrian adopted Antoninus Pius, who in turn was required to adopt both Marcus Aurelius and young Lucius. Lucius was betrothed to Hadrian's daughter [Faustina](https://romanempiretimes.com/faustina-the-younger-from-imperial-daughter-to-deified-empress/), a plan later undone when Antoninus came to power. Lucius received a thorough education in Latin and Greek, under grammarians and later more advanced tutors, including Fronto, as well as philosophers like Apollonius of Chalcedon and Sextus of Chaeronea. He was well-liked, described as charming and strikingly handsome. His name changed over time, eventually becoming Lucius Aurelius Verus after Marcus gave him the name Verus in 161 to establish a familial connection. Despite being reared with Marcus, Lucius was often treated as inferior—his status underscored by protocol in public appearances. Still, he was fast-tracked through political offices: quaestor in 153 (a year early), [consul](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-consuls-in-ancient-rome-a-pillar-of-republican-governance/) in 154 (nine years early), and again in 161 alongside Marcus. ![Lucius Verus as a child, bust made from Luna marble, from the Cardo Maximus, close to the Porta Laurentina in Ostia Antica, Italy](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Lucius-Verus-as-a-child--bust-made-from-Luna-marble--from-the-Cardo-Maximus--close-to-the-Porta-Laurentina-in-Ostia-Antica--Italy.jpg) Lucius Verus as a child, bust made from Luna marble, from the Cardo Maximus, close to the Porta Laurentina in Ostia Antica, Italy. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 ### Co-Emperorship and the Parthian War When Antoninus died in 161, Marcus became emperor and insisted that Lucius be made co-emperor—a historic first. Officially they ruled as equals, but Marcus, holding the title of pontifex maximus, clearly held greater authority. Their joint rule began at a time of floods, famine, and war in the East. Marcus arranged for Lucius to marry his daughter, Lucilla, and shortly after, Lucius departed for the Parthian front. According to the Historia Augusta, his journey to Syria was marked more by indulgence than urgency. He became ill in southern Italy, prompting Marcus to visit him, but Lucius recovered and continued east. He lingered in cities like Corinth and Athens, enjoying entertainment, and eventually set up his base in coastal Syria—away from the frontline. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Bust-of-Emperor-Marcus-Aurelius-1.jpg) ## Marcus had the foresight to appoint Avidius Cassius and other capable generals to handle the actual fighting. **Bust of Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Credits: Nickmard Khoey Historical Archive, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0* Cassius Dio and Eutropius both credit Lucius with wisely delegating authority and ensuring supplies, even if he remained at a distance. Fronto praised his efforts to maintain troop morale. In the end, the Parthian War was a Roman success, and both emperors celebrated a joint triumph in October 166, parading alongside their children and in full view of the public. ### Life in Rome and the Germanic Threat Upon returning, Lucius brought his Syrian entourage of actors and entertainers back with him. His lifestyle—parties, taverns, disguises, and [gambling](https://romanempiretimes.com/fortunes-favors-exploring-the-gambling-culture-of-ancient-rome-romans-gamble/)—shocked conservative Roman sensibilities. According to the Historia Augusta, **he had a tavern built in his home** and indulged in [lavish entertainments](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/). Marcus disapproved but remained tolerant, even accepting an invitation to stay at Lucius's villa, where the two shared little in terms of daily routine. Despite this excess, Marcus continued to support Lucius, even taking him to the northern front when Germanic tribes began pressing into Roman territory. Marcus had learned that **Lucius left unsupervised was a political liability**. In 169, as they returned from the Danubian front, Lucius fell seriously ill near Altinum. After being bled and carried into the town, he died within three days at age 38\. Rumors of poisoning circulated—some implicating Faustina, others Marcus himself—but these have **no basis in reliable evidence**. [Marcus mourned his brother deeply](https://roman-emperors.sites.luc.edu/lverus.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com). He brought the body back to Rome, oversaw the [funeral](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/), ensured the care of Lucius's family and household, and had him [deified](https://romanempiretimes.com/ascending-to-the-divine-the-practice-and-meaning-of-apotheosis-in-ancient-rome/) as *Divus Verus*. Despite his reputation for excess, Lucius Verus was not discarded by history; he was given imperial honors, enshrined in memory, and, in his own way, held fast to the Roman ideal of public image, family legacy, and shared power. ![Marble bust portraits of Marcus Aurelius & Lucius Verus, the Co-emperors of Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Marble-bust-portraits-of-Marcus-Aurelius---Lucius-Verus--the-Co-emperors-of-Rome.jpg) Marble bust portraits of Marcus Aurelius & Lucius Verus, the Co-emperors of Rome. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ## The Adoption that wasn’t: Hadrian, Lucius, and the Imperial Succession When Emperor Hadrian named Lucius Ceionius Commodus as his heir in 136 AD, it appeared to follow a familiar Roman pattern: an aging ruler adopting a successor to secure the future of the empire. And yet, as historian T.D. Barnes argues in his article "*Hadrian and Lucius Caesar*" (1967), what Hadrian did was far less clear-cut. Despite the widespread assumption that Lucius was formally adopted, the historical record tells a different story—one of symbolism, politics, and image rather than law. ### Hadrian's Heir: More Designation than Adoption As Hadrian's health declined in the mid-130s, the need for a successor became urgent. In 136 AD as aforementioned, he chose Lucius Ceionius Commodus, later renamed Lucius Aelius Caesar. Many historians have long claimed this involved a formal legal adoption. But Barnes carefully examines the language of imperial titles, inscriptions, and coinage and finds **no evidence for such a legal move**. In fact, [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrians-wall-the-roman-empires-enigmatic-frontier/) never used the formal language associated with Roman adoption. Lucius was given the title of "Caesar" and referred to as "son" in an honorific sense, but not in the precise legal framework used when, for example, Antoninus Pius was adopted. Barnes distinguishes between designation (naming someone as heir) and adoption (making them legally your child), arguing that Lucius was the former, not the latter. ### Titles, Coins, and what they tell us Barnes points to imperial coinage and official inscriptions. When [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrian-gate-in-downtown-athens-below-acropolis-a-gateway-to-history/) later adopted Antoninus Pius, the language on coins and monuments was exact: Antoninus was called "*filius Augusti*" (son of the emperor) and adoption was clearly stated. Lucius, on the other hand, was never referred to with such legal terminology. The titles he held were imperial and prestigious, but politically symbolic—not legally binding. > “Antoninus Pius is explicitly named as Hadrian’s adopted son — filius Augusti — in both inscriptions and coinage, whereas Lucius is not.” T.D. Barnes This suggests that [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/antinous-and-hadrian-love-devotion-or-divine-ambition/) intended to signal his choice of Lucius as heir publicly, but without undergoing the formalities of adoption. It was a move designed to influence perception more than fulfill legal obligations. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Roman-Aureus-Gold-Coin-depicting-co-Emperor-Lucius-Verus--notice-the-absence-of-the-Filius-Augustus--AUG--on-the-top-left-.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Roman-Aureus-Gold-Coin-depicting-Emperor-Antoninus-Pius--with-the-Filius-Augustus--AUGFI--on-the-top-left-.jpg) Image #1: Roman Aureus Gold Coin depicting co-Emperor Lucius Verus, notice the absence of the Filius Augustus (AUG) on the top left. Image #2: Roman Aureus Gold Coin depicting Emperor Antoninus Pius, with the Filius Augustus (AUGFI) on the top left Credits: Roman Empire Times, Marina Fischer, CC BY-NC 2.0 ### An Unusual Candidate Lucius himself was a surprising choice. He lacked significant military or political experience and was viewed as an unremarkable figure. Barnes notes that Lucius's father had been a close associate of [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrians-arch-of-triumph-in-ancient-jerash-a-gateway-to-the-past/), which may have influenced the decision. Ancient sources, such as Cassius Dio, indicate that Hadrian’s choice was unexpected and controversial. Some even believed [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-emperor-hadrians-vengeance-led-to-modern-palestine/) was mentally unstable at the time. > “It was thought by many that Hadrian was not in his right mind when he selected Ceionius.” Dio, [*Roman History*](https://amzn.to/45lwc92?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 69.21 ### Enter Antoninus and the Dynastic Workaround Lucius Aelius Caesar died suddenly in 138 AD, just months before Hadrian himself. In response, Hadrian adopted Antoninus Pius as his new heir. But to preserve the symbolic dynastic line, Hadrian required Antoninus to adopt two young men: Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, the biological son of Lucius Aelius Caesar. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/A-sketch-of-a-portrait-of-Roman-Emperor-Hadrian--from-Arturo-Espinosa.jpg) ## This political maneuver shows that Hadrian was deeply invested in the appearance of dynastic continuity. **A sketch of a portrait of Roman Emperor Hadrian, from Arturo Espinosa. CC BY 2.0* Even if Lucius had not been formally adopted, his bloodline would continue in the imperial office through his son. Barnes challenges earlier historians, such as Mommsen, who had assumed a legal adoption based on inference rather than evidence. He insists on paying close attention to the actual language in coins, inscriptions, and Roman law. His conclusion is clear: **Hadrian did not legally adopt Lucius Ceionius Commodus**. Instead, he granted him honorific titles and publicly designated him heir. The distinction, though subtle, has major implications for how we view succession politics in the Roman Empire. Ultimately, Barnes reveals a Rome where public image and imperial symbolism often outweighed strict legal procedures. Hadrian’s actions were about crafting a vision of stability and continuity for an empire that prized both tradition and adaptability. In naming Lucius, Hadrian sent a message to the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/), the [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/), and the Roman people. But the fine print of that message—as Barnes shows us—was far more nuanced than we once believed. > “In short, my achievements, whatsoever their character, are no greater, of course, than they actually are, but they can be made to seem as great as you would have them seem”. Lucius to Fronto, Ad Verum Imp. 2.3 ### In the Shadow of a Philosopher To modern readers, Marcus Aurelius’s decision to share imperial rule with Lucius Verus may seem unusual, perhaps even puzzling. Was this a strategic choice by a wise emperor who understood the challenges of ruling a vast empire? Or a philosopher-emperor delegating military burdens, so he could focus on higher ideals? Neither extreme fully explains the situation. While circumstance played a part, the most likely reason lies in trust—Marcus had known Lucius since childhood and believed in his capacity to govern. Regardless of whether he wanted to avoid military matters or saw real talent in Lucius, Marcus clearly judged him fit to rule. When we move past the exaggerated portrayals found in sources like the Historia Augusta, a different image of Lucius emerges. He appears not as a caricature of luxury and indulgence, but as a capable administrator with a penchant for [the good life](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-unknown-lucullus-far-more-than-just-lucullan-meals/). The sharp contrast often drawn between Marcus and Lucius may be less reflective of reality than of the biases of later writers who benefited from simplifying their dynamic into a moral tale of virtue and vice. ![A closeup of a bust of Lucius Verus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/A-closeup-of-a-bust-of-Lucius-Verus.jpg) A closeup of a bust of Lucius Verus. Credits: Mary Harrsch, CC BY 2.0 Lucius did not lead the Parthian campaign like [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/), hands-on and in the thick of battle. Nor did he remain entirely removed like Antoninus Pius had in earlier conflicts. He was present in the East, surrounded by skilled generals like Avidius Cassius, and played a logistical and administrative role that contributed meaningfully to Rome's success. In his correspondence with Fronto, Lucius expresses confidence, gratitude, and strategic awareness. He valued the commanders under him and supported efforts to record the campaign for posterity. Roman coinage, public titles like Armeniacus, Parthicus, and Medicus, and public enthusiasm all attest to the importance of his contribution. Fronto himself once praised Antoninus Pius with these words: > "Although he had committed the conduct of the campaign to others while sitting at home himself in the Palace at Rome, yet like the helmsman at the tiller of a ship of war, the glory of the whole navigation and voyage belonged to him." *From the Speech on the War on Britain* This analogy could apply just as well to Lucius, who was in the region, managing the campaign while letting his generals handle the fighting. If that kind of remote leadership earned Antoninus glory, surely Lucius’s role deserved no less. **The Historia Augusta mocks him as a hedonist**, yet contemporary sources suggest he was celebrated at the time. The key difference is one of narrative: Marcus was remembered as Rome's final 'good' emperor, while Lucius was cast as the foil who made him shine brighter. But Marcus’s own writings contradict this binary. In the [*Meditations*](https://amzn.to/47CdTxN?ref=romanempiretimes.com), he wrote: > "Lucius Verus... was able by his moral character to rouse me to vigilance over myself, and pleased me by his respect and affection." ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Relief-frieze-of-the-Parthian-monument-depicting-the-Apotheosis-of-Lucius-Verus--Lucius-Verus-is-represented-on-Helios----chariot-being-driven-by-Nike--Victory--who-leads-him-by-the-hand.jpg) ## His apotheosis of Lucius after death further reinforces that esteem. **Apotheosis of Lucius Verus, on Helios’ chariot driven by Nike. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0* So where did the negative portrayal originate? Possibly from later authors who wanted to elevate Marcus further, using the contrast with Lucius to frame him as near-perfect. The Historia Augusta, like a tabloid, trafficked in oversimplification and melodrama. Or perhaps the attacks came later still, during [Commodus’s reign](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-commodus-truly-the-megalomaniac-gladiator-emperor/), when Lucius’s widow Lucilla was caught in a failed conspiracy. Smearing her late husband may have been part of the political fallout. Whatever the source, Lucius became a victim of historical distortion. His enjoyment of life, oratorical skill, and competent management were spun into vices. His logistical role in warfare was dismissed as laziness. His absence from battlefronts was framed as cowardice, while Marcus's similar choices were accepted as prudence. Some have even suggested that Lucius’s flamboyance stemmed from resentment: Antoninus Pius had favored Marcus, and Lucius may have sought identity through his birth father, Aelius Caesar, rather than the adoptive father who seemed to overlook him. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Busts-of-Lucius-Verus-1.jpg) ## This sense of alienation may have shaped his personality and public image, down to the distinct style of beard worn in homage to his real father. **Busts of Lucius Verus. Credits: Oscan Anton, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0* The legacy of Lucius Verus deserves better. When we set aside the stylized hagiography of Marcus and strip away the theatrical criticisms of Lucius, we see two men who ruled effectively together, at a time of serious threats to Rome. The Parthian conflict was quelled. A Germanic incursion was held at bay. And though Lucius died before the worst of the Marcomannic Wars unfolded, he was never seen by his brother or his people as unworthy. He was, in his lifetime, respected and celebrated. That later generations chose to tell his story as a moral contrast says more about their values than about Lucius Verus. In truth, he and Marcus were not opposites, but partners; Rome’s first true co-emperors. And it’s time history remembered them that way. ([*Lucius Verus and the Roman defense of the east*](https://amzn.to/4mNhn4Q?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by M.C Bishop*) --- Lucius Verus did not leave behind a philosophical legacy. But he left behind victories, reforms, and an empire that remembered him with honor. If history has veiled him in shadow, it is time **we allowed his own light to shine**. ### Emperor Titus, “Darling of Mankind” URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-titus-darling-of-mankind/ Last updated: 2025-08-16T23:15:36.000Z When Titus Flavius Vespasianus succeeded his father in 79 CE, Rome gained a ruler celebrated for his generosity, military skill, and personal charm. Yet his short reign was overshadowed by calamities of almost biblical scale—[the eruption of Mount Vesuvius](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/), a devastating fire in the capital, and a deadly plague. Known as the conqueror of Jerusalem and the patron who completed the [Colosseum](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/), Titus became a symbol of imperial benevolence in the face of disaster. Ancient historians like [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) called him *deliciae* *generis humani*—the “darling of mankind”—a reputation that has endured for nearly two millennia, even as modern scholarship revisits the politics and [propaganda](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/) behind his image. ### Heir, Protector, and Enigma of the Flavian Age Titus Flavius Vespasianus the Younger—known simply as Titus—holds a special place in Flavian history. As the first Roman emperor to follow his own father on the throne, he was, until the time of [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/10-things-you-did-not-know-about-marcus-aurelius/), arguably the most thoroughly prepared successor. For nearly a decade, he served not only as heir-apparent but also, in Suetonius’ words: > “From that time on he never ceased to act as the emperor's partner and even as his protector. > > He took part in his father's triumph and was [censor](https://romanempiretimes.com/guarding-the-word-speech-censorship-and-power-in-ancient-rome/) with him. > > He was also his colleague in the tribunicial power and in seven consul­ships. > > He took upon himself the discharge of almost all duties, personally dictated letters and wrote edicts in his father's name, and even read his speeches in the senate in lieu of a quaestor.” Suetonius, [*The Life of Titus*](https://amzn.to/4lwvz1c?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Yet this role had a darker aspect: as [praetorian](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/) prefect—an almost unheard-of appointment for a senator—he acted as his father’s chief of security, displaying an arrogance and ruthlessness that made many fear the moment of his accession. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Roman-Emperor-Titus-portrayed-as-a-Roman-general.jpg) ## Much about his life remains uncertain, from his year of birth and the timeline of his two marriages, to the identity of Julia’s mother, his surviving daughter. **Roman Emperor Titus portrayed as a Roman general. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC 2.0* Questions linger over his celebrated liaison with the foreign-born Berenice, his stance toward his brother [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/), and the circumstances of his sudden death after a short reign marked by catastrophe: the eruption of Vesuvius, a major fire in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/), and a mysterious epidemic. These gaps and ambiguities continue to draw historians, offering fertile ground for fresh interpretations, new evidence, and even entirely new theories. ### Courtly Education, Marriages, and the Making of an Heir Suetonius opens his [*Life of Titus*](https://amzn.to/4lwvz1c?ref=romanempiretimes.com) by recording that Vespasian’s eldest son was born on December 30, 41 CE, in a modest house likely located in the Campus Martius. This detail suggests [Vespasian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/)’s finances were strained at the time—something not unusual in his life. Yet the date is almost certainly wrong: later in the same work (Tit. 11), Suetonius notes that Titus died on September 13, 81, two years, two months, and twenty days after Vespasian, and in the forty-second year of his life. This means he had already turned forty-one, placing his birth at the end of 39 CE. Cassius Dio (66.18.4; 66.26.4), generally reliable for such chronology, supports this earlier date. > “He was born on the third day before the Kalends of January, in the year memorable for the death of Gaius, in a mean house near the Septizonium and in a very small dark room besides; for it still remains and is on exhibition.” > “He died in the same villa as his father, on the Ides of September, two years, two months, and twenty days after succeeding him, in the forty-second year of his age.” Suetonius, [*The Lives of the Twelve Caesars*](https://amzn.to/3Uu9vJF?ref=romanempiretimes.com), The Life of Titus > “He had ruled two years, two months, and twenty days, as has been stated, and had lived thirty-nine years, five months, and twenty-five days.” Cassius Dio, [*Roman History*](https://amzn.to/4lBDvOP?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 66.26.1–2 ![A portrait of the Roman Emperor Titus Flavius Vespasianus by Peter Paul Rubens](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/A-portrait-of-the-Roman-Emperor-Titus-Flavius-Vespasianus-by-Peter-Paul-Rubens.jpg) A portrait of the Roman Emperor Titus Flavius Vespasianus by Peter Paul Rubens. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times By late 39, Vespasian’s senatorial career was advancing—he probably became praetor in 40—though it was marked by political hazards. A sycophantic speech in support of [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-caligula-really-declare-war-on-neptune/)’s reprisals for a 39 CE conspiracy in Germany earned him the lasting enmity of [Agrippina the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/agrippina-the-younger-the-first-empress-of-rome-in-a-male-dominant-society/). Despite this, he maintained good relations with Claudius and the influential freedman Narcissus, leading to his appointment in 42 to command *Legio II Augusta* in Germany, which in 43 joined the invasion of [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-leave-britain/). Vespasian distinguished himself in the conquest of southern and southwestern [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-life-really-like-in-roman-britain/) (43–47), and Titus, then seven years old, was educated at court alongside Claudius’ heir Britannicus. Suetonius’ account of their close friendship may be somewhat embellished, but, as Levick notes, it was verifiable and thus likely accurate. > “He was brought up at court in company with Britannicus and taught the same subjects by the same masters. > > At that time, so they say, a physiognomist was brought in by Narcissus, the freedman of Claudius, to examine Britannicus and declared most positively that he would never become emperor; but that Titus, who was standing near by at the time, would surely rule. > > The boys were so intimate too, that it is believed that when Britannicus drained the fatal draught,⁠ Titus, who was reclining at his side, also tasted of the potion and for a long time suffered from an obstinate disorder. > > Titus did not forget all this, but later set up a golden statue of his friend in the Palace, and dedicated another equestrian statue of ivory, which is to this day carried in the procession in the Circus, and he attended it on its first appearance.” Suetonius, *The Lives of the Twelve Caesars*, The Life of Titus ![Equestrian statue of Titus, seen three-quarters to the right, Mount Vesuvius erupting at left in the background, from Roman Emperors on Horseback](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Equestrian-statue-of-Titus--seen-three-quarters-to-the-right--Mount-Vesuvius-erupting-at-left-in-the-background--from-Roman-Emperors-on-Horseback.jpg) Equestrian statue of Titus, seen three-quarters to the right, Mount Vesuvius erupting at left in the background, from Roman Emperors on Horseback. Public domain Suetonius also praises Titus’ precocious talents—an exceptional memory, mastery of civil and military arts, fluency in Latin and [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/), and musical skill—though he also notes a more dubious ability: expertise in shorthand and forging handwriting. > “Even in boyhood his bodily and mental gifts were conspicuous and they became more and more so as he advanced in years. > > He had a handsome person, in which there was no less dignity than grace, and was uncommonly strong, although he was not tall of stature and had a rather protruding belly. > > His memory was extraordinary and he had an aptitude for almost all the arts, both of war and of peace. > > Skilful in arms and horseman­ship, he made speeches and wrote verses in Latin and Greek with ease and readiness, and even off-hand. > > He was besides not unacquainted with music, but sang and played the harp agreeably and skilfully. > > I have heard from many sources that he used also to write shorthand with great speed and would amuse himself by playful contests with his secretaries; also that he could imitate any handwriting that he had ever seen and often declared that he might have been the prince of forgers.” Suetonius, *The Lives of the Twelve Caesars*, The Life of Titus After Claudius’ marriage to Agrippina in 49, Vespasian’s career slowed, but Titus appears to have remained at court until Britannicus’ death in 55\. His activities between then and 67 are obscure, though Suetonius states that he served as a military tribune in Germany and Britain (ca. 57–60 or 60–63), winning praise in both theaters. He later entered the legal profession and married Arrecina Tertulla, daughter of the former praetorian prefect M. Arrecinus Clemens, likely of Julian descent. Their daughter, Flavia Julia, may have been born shortly before Tertulla’s death in late 64. ![Vespasian rescued by his son Titus in Britain, painted by Richard Caton Woodville](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Vespasian-rescued-by-his-son-Titus-in-Britain--painted-by-Richard-Caton-Woodville-2.jpg) Vespasian rescued by his son Titus in Britain, painted by Richard Caton Woodville. Public domain Titus then wed Marcia Furnilla, from a distinguished senatorial family, who bore him another daughter who died in infancy. When Furnilla’s uncle, Q. Marcius Barea Soranus, was condemned on false charges in 66, Titus quickly divorced her—almost certainly to preserve favor with [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/). Around this time, he held a quaestorship, officially entering the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/). Up to late 66, Titus’ career followed a conventional upper-class path. Notably absent from most accounts is his mother, Flavia Domitilla, mentioned only by Suetonius as a [woman](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) of humble origins who bore Vespasian two sons and a daughter. Both she and her daughter (born after Domitian in 51) had died before Vespasian’s accession in 69\. Domitilla’s father, Flavius Liberalis, was of modest status, though possibly distantly related to Vespasian. Unlike the forceful Vespasia Polla, whose caustic remarks drove her younger son into politics, Domitilla appears to have exerted no discernible influence, good or bad, on Titus’ life. ![Martia Fulvia (Marcia Furnilla), wife of Emperor Titus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Martia-Fulvia--Marcia-Furnilla---wife-of-Emperor-Titus.jpg) Martia Fulvia (Marcia Furnilla), wife of Emperor Titus. Credits: Wellcome Collection, CC BY 4.0 ### Titus and the Jewish War: From Privileged Legate to Flavian Heir The outbreak of the Jewish revolt in the spring of 66 CE presented an unexpected opportunity for the Flavians. Despite his known distaste for Nero’s artistic pursuits, Vespasian was chosen to lead [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s military response—a decision likely rooted in his proven record, political reliability, and humble origins. By the year’s end, Vespasian secured command in Judea and Syria, appointing his 27-year-old son Titus as legate of Legio XV Apollinaris. In the campaigns of 67 CE, Titus quickly emerged as the favored subordinate among [legion](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-mystery-of-the-lost-roman-legion-the-ninths-final-march/) commanders, leading key assaults at Jotapata, Japha, Tarichaeae, Gamala, and Gischala. His inexperience showed, however, when he was deceived by Gischala’s rebel leader, allowing a dangerous escape to Jerusalem. While bold and charismatic, he lacked his father’s caution and strategic restraint. In 68 CE, political upheavals in the West slowed military operations. Titus undertook a delicate diplomatic mission to reconcile Vespasian with C. Licinius Mucianus, governor of Syria—succeeding through tact and personal charm. When Galba replaced Nero, Vespasian sent Titus on another mission to win the new [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/)’s favor. This journey was cut short in Corinth upon news of [Galba’s assassination and the rise of Otho and Vitellius](https://romanempiretimes.com/69-ce-the-year-of-the-four-emperors/). According to Tacitus, Titus already considered the prospect of a Flavian bid for power, an idea he likely conveyed to Vespasian and Mucianus. The plan was postponed until the civil conflict in Rome resolved, but by mid-69 the “Mount Carmel conference” set the Flavian strategy in motion. Vespasian moved to secure Egypt’s grain supply, Mucianus advanced west, and Titus assumed supreme command in Judea. Returning to Jerusalem in spring 70 CE, Titus launched the siege that culminated in the city’s fall and the destruction of the Temple. While supported by the experienced Tiberius Julius Alexander as chief of staff, Titus’ leadership style—reckless personal bravery and severe reprisals—drew criticism for causing unnecessary casualties and displaying excessive brutality. His troops hailed him “Imperator” during the Temple’s destruction, but official inscriptions made clear he acted under Vespasian’s authority. ![The destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by Emperor Titus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/The-destruction-of-the-Temple-of-Jerusalem-by-Emperor-Titus.jpg) The destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by Emperor Titus. Credits: Lluís Ribes Mateu, CC BY-NC 2.0 Following the victory, Titus managed a tense diplomatic encounter with Parthian envoys at Zeugma, before returning to Rome in mid-71\. His shared triumph with Vespasian symbolized both military success and dynastic consolidation. Granted tribunician power from July 1, 71, Titus became the designated heir and, as Vespasian’s “partner and protector,” took on the regime’s less popular tasks—reinforcing his position at the heart of Flavian power while shaping the imperial image. ### Titus and Berenice: Passion, Politics, and Palace Scandal Julia Berenice, great-granddaughter of Herod the Great, was a powerful and controversial figure in the politics of the Eastern Mediterranean. Sister to King Agrippa II, she acted as his de facto consort and wielded influence in Rome’s eastern client network. By the time Titus met her in 67 CE at Caesarea Philippi, she was almost forty—beautiful, wealthy, and politically seasoned. Titus, then twenty-seven, was drawn to her allure and status. While his relationships, both with women and young male companions, reflected the sexual fluidity common in Rome’s elite circles, Berenice stood out as a partner of prestige and intrigue. Rumors of Titus’ tastes in [pleasure](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/)—lavish late-night parties, entertainers, eunuchs, and handsome [slave companions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/)—were recorded by Suetonius, while ancient gossip also speculated about his closeness to the influential governor Mucianus. But it was his bond with Berenice that became most visible. > “Besides cruelty, he was also suspected of riotous living, since he protracted his revels until the middle of the night with the most prodigal of his friends; likewise of unchastity because of his troops of catamites and eunuchs, and his notorious passion for queen Berenice, to whom it was even said that he promised marriage. > > He was suspected of greed as well; for it was well known that in cases which came before his father he put a price on his influence and accepted bribes. > > In short, people not only thought, but openly declared, that he would be a second Nero. > > But this reputation turned out to his advantage and gave place to the highest praise, when no fault was discovered in him, but on the contrary the highest virtues.” Suetonius, *The Lives of the Twelve Caesars*, The Life of Titus ![The Arch of Titus, a view from the Via Sacra in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/The-Arch-of-Titus--a-view-from-the-Via-Sacra-in-Rome.jpg) The Arch of Titus, a view from the Via Sacra in Rome. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC 2.0 [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) noted that during his 69 CE voyage to Rome, Titus was widely believed to have turned back east out of passion for her. Their association deepened after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, where Titus’ military triumph was paired with an increasing taste for luxury and self-indulgence. When Berenice and Agrippa arrived in Rome in 75 CE, their relationship reignited. She moved into Titus’ section of the imperial palace, and contemporaries assumed they lived together. The pairing echoed Nero’s earlier attachment to the glamorous Calvia Crispinilla—a union of political partnership, spectacle, and whispered scandal. In the eyes of Rome’s elite, Berenice was both an exotic queen and a potential empress, embodying the blend of passion and politics that defined this chapter of Titus’ life. ### From Heir to Emperor: Titus’ Final Years and Short Principate As already mentioned at the beginning, in the closing decade of Vespasian’s reign, Titus acted as his father’s closest partner without holding the title of co-emperor. Sharing consulships, imperatorial salutations, and the censorship, he also served as praetorian prefect, managing much of the imperial administration. While Vespasian retained ultimate control over policy, Titus gradually replaced Mucianus as chief aide, aligning with him in suppressing perceived political threats, including the “[Stoic](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/) opposition.” The controversy surrounding his relationship with Berenice persisted, culminating in her dismissal—either during Vespasian’s final years, as [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) suggests, or immediately after Titus’ accession, as Suetonius claims. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/A-bust-of-Titus-from-Utica.jpg) ## By 79 CE, the prospect of Titus succeeding his father was met with unease, some fearing “another Nero.” **A bust of Titus from Utica. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC 2.0* That summer, the conspiracy of Caecina Alienus and Eprius Marcellus underscored this apprehension. Vespasian’s death in June brought Titus to power without challenge, but he quickly adopted a more sober, Vespasian-like public image. He cultivated good relations with the Senate, promised to avoid treason trials and executions, and won popular favor through new public works and lavish spectacles, including the hundred-day games inaugurating the [Flavian Amphitheater](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-sail-above-the-sand-did-the-colosseum-really-have-a-retractable-roof/). Titus’ reign was defined by a series of disasters: the eruption of Vesuvius in 79, the great fire of Rome in 80, and a severe epidemic that followed. His personal involvement in relief efforts—refusing outside aid and spending lavishly on recovery—earned him praise as a caring and conscientious ruler. Yet, apart from these responses, little of note was recorded in the last year of his reign. By mid-80, sources suggest he appeared withdrawn or depressed, and in September 81, while traveling to the Flavian family estate, he was struck by sudden fever. Believing his end was near, he lamented that he did not deserve to die. Ancient rumor quickly cast suspicion on Domitian’s role in his brother’s death, a suspicion that has never been proven but has remained part of the enduring intrigue surrounding Titus’ final days. (*The Emperor Titus, by Charles Leslie Murison, in* [*A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome*](https://amzn.to/4mELPOy?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, edited by Andrew Zissos*) ![The Colosseum or Coliseum also known as the Flavian Amphitheatre](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/The-Colosseum-or-Coliseum-also-known-as-the-Flavian-Amphitheatre.jpg) The Colosseum or Coliseum also known as the Flavian Amphitheatre. Credits: Ania Mendrek, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 ### Reassessing Suetonius’s Titus: Panegyric, Paradox, and the Problem of Reputation > “Titus, of the same surname as his father, was the delight and darling of the human race; such surpassing ability had he, by nature, art, or good fortune, to win the affections of all men, and that, too, which is no easy task, while he was emperor; for as a private citizen, and even during his father's rule, he did not escape hatred, much less public criticism. > > He was born on the third day before the Kalends of January, in the year memorable for the death of Gaius, in a mean house near the Septizonium and in a very small dark room besides; for it still remains and is on exhibition.” Suetonius, *The Lives of the Twelve Caesars*, The Life of Titus ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/A-statue-of-Emperor-Titus.jpg) ## Ancient historians differed sharply in their verdicts, and later scholarship has continued to wrestle with the paradox of Titus’ reign. **A statue of Emperor Titus. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC 2.0* Suetonius’ Life of Titus has often been dismissed as one of the weakest of the Caesars, its panegyrical tone seemingly at odds with his usual structure. Critics have long noted its striking division into two halves: a record of Titus’ vices before becoming emperor, followed by unreserved praise of his principate. Yet the biography is more carefully constructed than it appears. Suetonius frames Titus within the Flavian narrative arc—Vespasian’s rise, Titus at the dynasty’s peak, and Domitian’s decline—while drawing thematic parallels with earlier emperors, especially Augustus. Central to Suetonius’ approach is the question of transformation: how did a man feared as another Nero at his accession win universal affection while reigning? This issue, shared with other imperial historians, was a point of contention well into late antiquity. Cassius Dio, for example, speculated whether Titus’ virtue was genuine or merely a short-lived effect of a brief reign. Defenders likened him to [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/)—both ruthless in youth but ultimately admired—while detractors claimed only his early death spared Rome from tyranny. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Franciszek-Smuglewicz---s-painting-of-Emperor-Titus-granting-rights-to-Rome.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Inscription-commemorating-the-restoration-of-Surrentum-s-horologium--town-s-clock--by-the-Emperor-Titus-after-the-earthquake-of-AD-79.jpg) Image #1: Franciszek Smuglewicz’s painting of Emperor Titus granting rights to Rome. Public domain Image #2: Inscription commemorating the restoration of Surrentum's horologium (town's clock) by the Emperor Titus after the earthquake of AD 79\. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 > *“His satisfactory record may also have been due to the fact that he survived his accession but a very short time, for he was thus given no opportunity for wrongdoing.* > > *For he lived after this only two years, two months and twenty days—in addition to the thirty‑nine years, five months and twenty‑five days he had already lived at that time.* > > *In this respect, indeed, he is regarded as having equalled the long reign of Augustus, since it is maintained that Augustus would never have been loved had he lived a shorter time, nor Titus had he lived longer.* > > *For Augustus, though at the outset he showed himself rather harsh because of the wars and the factional strife, was later able, in the course of time, to achieve a brilliant reputation for his kindly deeds; Titus, on the other hand, ruled with mildness and died at the height of his glory, whereas, if he had lived a long time, it might have been shown that he owes his present fame more to good fortune than to merit.”* Cassius Dio, *Roman History* 66.26.1–2 Suetonius rejects such cynicism entirely. He ignores the notion that a longer reign might have revealed darker traits, instead portraying Titus’ death as an irreparable loss for mankind. His explanation for the emperor’s popularity rests on the interplay of three classical categories—*ingenium* (natural disposition), *ars* (acquired skill), and *fortuna* (fortune)—a framework also reflected in Tacitus’ depiction of Titus as: > "capable of the highest fortune, able to reconcile rivals through nature and art, and more self-controlled as ruler than as heir." > “The report gained the more credit from the genius of Titus himself, equal as it was to the most exalted fortune, from the mingled beauty and majesty of his countenance…” Tacitus, [*Histories*](https://amzn.to/4mnpKo2?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Book 2, Chapter 1 In Suetonius’ telling, Titus’ reign required no redemption by premature death; his character and abilities alone secured his place as one of Rome’s most beloved emperors. (*Another look at Suetonius' Titus, by W. Jeffrey Tatum, in* [*Suetonius the Biographer: Studies in Roman Lives*](https://amzn.to/4oFrBGi?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, edited by Tristan Power & Roy K. Gibson*) ![Sextus kneels before Emperor Titus, behind them, Vitellia falls into Tullia's arms — before the people Titus shows his mild character and gives the two freedom after their betrayal, a print by Cornelis Ploos van Amstel](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Sextus-kneels-before-Emperor-Titus--behind-them--Vitellia-falls-into-Tullia-s-arms-----before-the-people-Titus-shows-his-mild-character-and-gives-the-two-freedom-after-their-betrayal--a-print-by-Cornelis-Ploos-van-Amstel.jpg) Sextus kneels before Emperor Titus, behind them, Vitellia falls into Tullia's arms — before the people Titus shows his mild character and gives the two freedom after their betrayal, a print by Cornelis Ploos van Amstel. Public domain Vitellia is a central character in Mozart's **La clemenza di Tito*, where a dramatic account of her life has her attempt to assassinate Titus, after he declares his love for the Jewish princess Berenice. The opera is set in 79. > “On his death, the common people, in their grief, likened him to the gods, and hailed him as ‘the delight and darling of the human race. > > He died in the same villa as his father, on the Ides of September, two years, two months, and twenty days after succeeding him, in the forty-second year of his age. > > He was so much lamented by the people that it was said he had been taken from them not for his own good, but for theirs.” Suetonius, *The Lives of the Twelve Caesars*, The Life of Titus --- Titus’ principate, brief yet eventful, remains one of Rome’s enduring paradoxes. To some, his reign’s brevity preserved his reputation; to others, it revealed his true nature at its best. Whether through innate character, cultivated skill, or sheer fortune, he emerged from suspicion to be mourned as *deliciae generis humani*—the “darling of mankind.” In Suetonius’ account, his death was not a reprieve from potential tyranny, but a loss for the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), sealing the image of a ruler whose short time in power left **a legacy outlasting the Flavian dynasty itself**. ### Numidia: Rome’s African Frontier and the Soldiers Who Changed an Empire URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/numidia-rome-african-frontier-and-the-soldiers-who-changed-an-empire/ Last updated: 2025-08-15T22:54:07.000Z They rode without saddles, bareback across the North African plains—swift, elusive, and deadly. These were the horsemen of Numidia, masters of the desert and unexpected architects of Roman victory and defeat. From Masinissa’s alliance with [Scipio Africanus](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-was-the-best-roman-warrior-scipio-africanus-a-man-who-never-lost-a-battle/) during the Punic Wars to Jugurtha’s ruthless guerrilla tactics that exposed the rot at the heart of the [Roman Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/), Numidia played a role far larger than its borders suggested. It was not merely a client kingdom or a rebellious province—it was a crucible in which the ambitions, contradictions, and vulnerabilities of the Roman Republic were laid bare. ![Numidia in 220 BC](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Numidia-in-220-BC.jpg) Numidia in 220 BC. Public domain ### The Rise of Numidia and Its Role in Rome’s Wars The Numidians were a tribal, largely nomadic people who inhabited the lands of North Africa corresponding to modern northern Algeria and western Tunisia during the final centuries BCE. To their east lay the [Carthaginian](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) hinterland, while to the west stretched the territory of the Mauri, a closely related nomadic group. On the southern fringe, bordering the desert, were the little-understood Gaetulians. Though largely absent from earlier [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) and Roman records, Numidia first entered the historical spotlight during the First Punic War (264–241 BCE), when [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/) briefly mentioned their cavalry. By the start of the Second Punic War in 218 BCE, formerly independent Numidian tribes had coalesced into two rival kingdoms. In the east, the Massyli, ruled by King Gaia, held sway from their capital at Cirta (modern Constantine). To the west, the more powerful Masaesyli were led by King Syphax, who ruled from Siga (near present-day Oran). Both kingdoms supplied their famed light cavalry to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) and Carthage at different times, and both shifted allegiances during the conflict. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/mistress-of-rome-servilia-caesar-and-the-politics-of-passion/), eager to win Numidian favor, supported Syphax with military training. Nevertheless, by 204 BCE, Syphax had aligned himself with Carthage, strengthening the alliance through marriage to Sophonisba, daughter of the Carthaginian general Hasdrubal. ![Sophonisba kneels before Masinissa, the king of Numidia, by Benjamin Wolff](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Sophonisba-kneels-before-Masinissa--the-king-of-Numidia--by-Benjamin-Wolff.jpg) Sophonisba kneels before Masinissa, the king of Numidia, by Benjamin Wolff. Public domain Gaia’s Massyli had initially supported Carthage as well, and his son Masinissa even led cavalry against [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) in Spain. After Gaia’s death in 206 BCE, Masinissa fought a series of internal battles to claim his father's throne. Though initially defeated by Syphax and forced to retreat to the mountains, Masinissa regrouped, led a guerrilla campaign, and eventually joined forces with [Scipio Africanus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-continence-of-scipio-a-legacy-of-clemency-in-roman-history-and-art/) and the Romans. He proved crucial in [Rome’](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)s African campaign. His cavalry helped destroy a joint Carthaginian–Numidian camp by fire, inflicting heavy losses. In 203 BCE, alongside [Roman forces](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/), he captured Syphax at the Battle of Cirta and swiftly took the city. According to Livy, Masinissa fell in love with Syphax’s wife, Sophonisba, and tried to marry her to spare her humiliation in Rome. When Scipio refused the union, he gave her poison to preserve her dignity, and she died in his arms. ![The Death of Sophonisbe, Queen of Numidia, by poison, wall painting by Benjamin Wolff](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/The-Death-of-Sophonisbe--Queen-of-Numidia--by-poison--wall-painting-by-Benjamin-Wolff.jpg) The Death of Sophonisbe, Queen of Numidia, by poison, wall painting by Benjamin Wolff. Public domain With Roman backing, he consolidated power over both the Massyli and Masaesyli territories. Following Scipio’s triumph over [Hannibal](https://romanempiretimes.com/hannibal-ad-portas-how-37-african-elephants-crossed-the-alps/) at Zama in 202 BCE, he emerged as Rome’s favored king in North Africa. His reign marked the birth of a unified Numidia under strong Roman patronage—a bulwark against any Carthaginian resurgence. Numidia flourished under Masinissa and his son Micipsa. While nomadic life endured, agriculture expanded, towns grew, and trade flowed through ports once controlled by Carthage. The Numidian kings earned Rome’s loyalty by providing grain and elite auxiliaries—light cavalry, infantry, and even war elephants—for the Roman legions. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Coin-depicting-Masinissa--the-first-king-of-Numidia.jpg) ## They also adopted aspects of Hellenistic culture: their coin portraits bore the royal diadem, and Greek-style architecture adorned their cities. **Coin depicting Masinissa, the first king of Numidia. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0* One of Masinissa’s sons even competed in the Panathenaic [Games](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-greek-glory-to-roman-spectacle-the-olympic-games-evolution/) in Athens. Upon Micipsa’s death in 118 BCE, Numidia was divided among his two sons, Hiempsal and Adherbal, and his nephew Jugurtha, a veteran of Rome’s Spanish campaigns. Jugurtha, ambitious and ruthless, assassinated Hiempsal and later executed Adherbal despite Roman attempts to broker peace. Rome declared war in 111 BCE, and after years of difficult fighting, finally captured Jugurtha in 106 BCE. Though a period of stability followed, Numidia’s independence came to an end during the civil wars of the late Republic. King Juba I sided with [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/) against [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/), and after his defeat at the Battle of Thapsus in 46 BCE, Numidia was dismantled. Juba’s suicide marked the end of the kingdom. Most of Numidia was absorbed into the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), becoming a new chapter in Rome’s African dominion. ### The Numidian Cavalry and Their Lasting Legacy in Roman Warfare The Numidian cavalry were among the most skilled and recognizable horsemen of the ancient world. Famed for their unmatched agility and precision, they rode without saddles or bridles, defended only by hide shields, and carried light javelins for rapid, harassing attacks. These barefoot riders, clad in simple tunics and astride small, resilient horses, became iconic thanks to their vivid depiction on [Trajan’s Column](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/)—“dreadlocked” and lightly armed, their image would define how Numidians were remembered. ![Roman Numidian cavalry under Lusius Quietus fighting in the Dacian wars, from the Column of Trajan](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Roman-Numidian-cavalry-under-Lusius-Quietus-fighting-in-the-Dacian-wars--from-the-Column-of-Trajan.jpg) Roman Numidian cavalry under Lusius Quietus fighting in the Dacian wars, from the Column of Trajan, clearly depicting their distinctive characteristics. Public domain Yet this common portrayal oversimplifies a more diverse and tactically sophisticated military tradition. Numidian forces also included infantry, missile troops like archers and slingers, elephants, and possibly even elite units of armored cavalry wielding ornate shields. A close analysis of literary and archaeological evidence reveals that the military apparatus of Numidia was far more complex than the narrow focus on cavalry might suggest. The Numidian cavalry, despite their rudimentary equipment, played a vital role in both Carthaginian and Roman military operations. Their horses—small, hardy, and adapted to long desert campaigns—formed the very foundation of Numidian power. Their contribution of expert riders became a strategic currency: Rome and Carthage both vied for Numidian alliances not only for diplomatic advantage, but to gain access to these exceptional troops. Numidian boys learned to ride from an early age, often spending much of their youth mastering equestrian skills while hunting. According to Strabo, the reins consisted of a single line attached to a simple collar made from fiber or hair. Riders guided the horses with gentle touches of a rod, developing such strong bonds that: > “Some would even follow their master around like a dog.” [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) reported that seasoned horsemen brought spare mounts into battle and could leap between them mid-fight to stay ahead of fatigue: > "Not all the Numidian horse, however, were on the right wing, but only those who were trained to manage two horses at the same time like circus-riders and, when the battle was at the hottest, were in the habit of jumping off the wearied horse on to the fresh one, such were the agility of the riders and the docility of the horses." Livy, [*Ab Urbe Condita*](https://amzn.to/4oxZLM1?ref=romanempiretimes.com), (History of Rome) Book 23, Chapter 29 ![An illustration depicting the differences between the Numidian light cavalry and the Roman equites](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/An-illustration-depicting-the-differences-between-the-Numidian-light-cavalry-and-the-Roman-equites.jpg) An illustration depicting the differences between the Numidian light cavalry and the Roman equites. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times The horses themselves were fast, enduring, and unpretentious. Aelian praised their stamina, noting that they thrived on grass and rarely required water—ideal traits for military service: > "Now the horses of the Numidians, a Libyan tribe, are small and not very good looking, but exceedingly swift and hard to tire; they are content with very little food and do not drink much." Aelian, [*On the Nature of Animals*](https://amzn.to/47tzxnS?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 3.2 He also observed their minimal upkeep: > “They were never washed or groomed, their hooves were never cleaned and their manes and tails were left unbrushed.” Livy described their appearance as “awkward, ungraceful,” with stiff necks and heads stretched forward—a depiction echoed in coinage of King Syphax and terracotta figurines from Canosa. > "...the horses without bridles, their very motion being the ugly gait of animals running with stiff necks and outstretched heads" Livy, [*The History of Rome*](https://amzn.to/47xsqe5?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*,* Book 35 Sculptors of Trajan’s Column appear to have deliberately emphasized the differences between Numidian and Roman cavalry horses. Scholars Dixon and Southern noted their “distinct head shape, long necks and manes” contrasted with the Roman horses’ “heavier bodies and more slender legs.” Tactically, the Numidian cavalry were not shock troops but skirmishers of rare finesse. As Polybius recounts, they harassed enemy lines with precision. At the Battle of the Trebbia (218 BCE), their: > “repeated attacks followed by swift, scattering retreats,” disrupted Roman formations. At Cannae, they prevented Roman cavalry from reaching the center of battle. Their javelins could strike from close range, but their lack of armor—entirely by design—ensured maximum mobility. They were almost impossible to trap in melee—combat fought at close range, often chaotic and without formation. These tactics originated in North African tribal warfare, where fast raids with minimal casualties protected the adult male population. Over time, they became formalized military doctrine—so effective that Carthaginian generals, observing Numidian raids, recruited them extensively. Hannibal relied heavily on them during the Second Punic War, where they performed reconnaissance, burned crops, and denied Romans vital supplies. But their numbers dwindled over time. In 210 BCE, Hannibal lost 500 Numidian riders at Salapia, a devastating blow. Livy noted that this loss cost Hannibal his cavalry superiority—more than the loss of the city itself. By Zama (202 BCE), Scipio had the advantage: he allied with King Masinissa, whose superior cavalry helped defeat Hannibal and end the war. ![The Dead King Syphax Carried from the Battlefield by Giulio Romano, in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/The-Dead-King-Syphax-Carried-from-the-Battlefield-by-Giulio-Romano--in-the-Los-Angeles-County-Museum-of-Art.jpg) The Dead King Syphax Carried from the Battlefield by Giulio Romano, in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art In the aftermath, Masinissa solidified his power and supplied Rome with cavalry and elephants in exchange for political support. Numidian units served Rome across the empire: 200 fought in Greece during the Second Macedonian War, more under Masinissa’s son Misagenes in the Third, and others in [Gaul](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/), Liguria, and Spain. Their tactics proved life-saving in several Roman campaigns. In 193 BCE, trapped by Ligurians in a narrow valley, the consul Quintus Minucius sent Numidians ahead. Pretending to fall off their horses and play games, they lulled the enemy into relaxing, then broke through the lines and torched farms, forcing the Ligurians to retreat ([*Frontinus*](https://amzn.to/4fCephc?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 1.5.16). > "When the army of the consul Quintus Minucius had marched down into a defile of Liguria, and the memory of the disaster of the Caudine Forks occurred to the minds of all, Minucius ordered the Numidian auxiliaries, who seemed of small account because of their own wild appearance and the ungainliness of their steeds, to ride up to the mouth of the defile which the enemy held. > > The enemy were at first on the alert against attack, and threw out patrols. > > But when the Numidians, in order to inspire still more contempt for themselves, purposely affected to fall from their horses and to engage in ridiculous antics, the barbarians, breaking ranks at the novel sight, gave themselves up completely to the enjoyment of the show. > > When the Numidians noticed this, they gradually grew nearer, and putting spurs to their horses, dashed through the lightly held line of the enemy. > > Then they set fire to the fields near by, so that it became necessary for the Ligurians to withdraw to defend their own territory, thereby releasing the Romans shut up at the pass." Frontinus, [*Strategemata*](https://amzn.to/46UlcAH?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Book I, Chapter 5, Stratagem 16 (1.5.16) A similar feat occurred in Thrace in 190 BCE, where Muttines and 400 cavalry, aided by elephants and a flanking maneuver from his son, routed 15,000 Thracians (Livy 38.41), protecting the Roman column. Even after Numidia was annexed in 46 BCE, Rome continued recruiting from the region. These light cavalrymen helped patrol African frontiers and supported imperial campaigns. Their gear, techniques, and tactical philosophy remained strikingly consistent from the days of Hannibal to the imperial legions centuries later. ([*The Numidians 300 BC–AD 300*](https://amzn.to/45w88iA?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by William Horsted*) ![The Numidian horseman, an oil painting on canvas by the Algerian artist Hocine Ziani, 1990, Private Collection](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/The-Numidian-horseman--an-oil-painting-on-canvas-by-the-Algerian-artist-Hocine-Ziani--1990--Private-Collection.jpg) The Numidian horseman, an oil painting on canvas by the Algerian artist Hocine Ziani, 1990, Private Collection While Numidian cavalry left their mark on battlefields across the empire, the Roman army faced a far more difficult challenge within Numidia itself. In the rugged highlands of the Aurès Mountains, Rome encountered not just military opposition—but an enduring spirit of resistance rooted in the land. ### Southern Numidia and the Roman War Machine: Rebellion, Fortresses, and the Frontier in the Aurès Mountains The southern region of ancient Numidia, dominated by the vast and rugged Aurès Mountains, held a unique and enduring position in the history of Roman North Africa. This highland terrain became a long-standing zone of conflict, known for its fierce resistance to Roman control. Even at the height of its imperial strength, Rome never fully subdued the Berber tribes of the region—particularly the Chaouia people—who made the Aurès a stronghold of rebellion. Despite this defiance, the region also hosted some of the most concentrated Roman military and urban development in Mauretania. Cities like Lambèse (Lambaesis), Zana (Diana Veteranorum), and Al-Kantara (Calceus Heraculis) emerged alongside major military installations. These settlements often grew from military roots, many founded by veterans of the Roman legions—particularly those from the Third Augustan Legion (*Legio III Augusta*). Important cities such as Timgad (Thamugadi), Khanchela (Mascula), and Markouna (Verecunda) stand as monuments to this process of military-led urbanization. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/The-New-Forum--a-late-antique-forum-constructed-between-AD-360-and-370-with-a-rectangular-piazza-and-a-Macellum--Thubursicum-Numidarum--Khamissa---Algeria.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/nscription-from-Lambaesis--Numidia--dedicated-to-Victoria-Augusta--AE-1916-0022--Marcus-Virrius-Diadumenus--veteran-of-the-Third-Legion-Augusta--erected-a-statue-to-Victory-using-his-own-money-Lambaesis--Numidia---Algeria.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/The-Cardo-Maximus--north---south-oriented-street---looking-towards-the-North-Gate--Thamugadi--Timgad---Numidia--Algeria.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/The-Theatre--cut-into-the-side-of-a-natural-hillock--it-had-a-capacity-of-3-500-4-000-spectators--Thamugadi--Timgad---Numidia--Algeria.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/The-Groma-at-the-centre-of-the-Hadrianic-legionary-base-of-the-Legio-III-Augusta--founded-shortly-before-Hadrian-s-visit-in-AD-128--Lambaesis--Numidia---Algeria.jpg) A collection of Roman monuments in Numidia. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 🏛️ Photo #1: The New Forum, a late antique forum constructed between AD 360 and 370 with a rectangular piazza and a Macellum, Thubursicum Numidarum (Khamissa), Algeria Photo #2: Inscription from Lambaesis (Numidia) dedicated to Victoria Augusta, AE 1916 0022, Marcus Virrius Diadumenus, veteran of the Third Legion Augusta, erected a statue to Victory using his own money Lambaesis (Numidia), Algeria Photo #3: The Cardo Maximus (north–south-oriented street), looking towards the North Gate, Thamugadi (Timgad), Numidia, Algeria Photo #4: The Theatre, cut into the side of a natural hillock, it had a capacity of 3,500-4,000 spectators, Thamugadi (Timgad), Numidia, Algeria Photo #5: The Groma at the centre of the Hadrianic legionary base of the Legio III Augusta, founded shortly before Hadrian's visit in AD 128, Lambaesis (Numidia), Algeria Modern historians often refer to this heavily fortified and militarized region as “Southern Numidia,” or metaphorically, “*Numidia Militiana*”—a term rooted in the presence of the [Roman legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-enigmatic-disappearance-of-the-9th-roman-legion/) rather than any formal provincial designation. This term appears only once in ancient records (on the Verona List, early 4th century CE), and was never a recognized administrative unit under the High Empire (27 BCE – 284 CE). Instead, it reflects the dense concentration of Roman military activity, particularly around the Legio III Augusta, which was headquartered at Lambaesis for over 300 years. Geographically, “Southern Numidia” extended from Theveste (modern Tebessa) in the east to the frontier area near Zarai (modern Zraya) and Kherbet al-Maghder (ancient Perdices) in the west. This corridor also marked the fluctuating boundary between Numidia and Mauretania Caesariensis. The exact dividing line between the civilian and military-controlled zones is difficult to reconstruct, but military centers were typically located along the key Roman road that ran from Theveste to Lambaesis and northwest toward Zarai. South of this axis, Roman control was clearly exercised through military authority rather than civilian governance. ![Roman provinces of North Africa, Numidia in the middle (pink)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Roman-provinces-of-North-Africa--Numidia-in-the-middle--pink--1.jpg) Roman provinces of North Africa, Numidia in the middle (pink). Public domain The Roman presence in Southern Numidia evolved out of necessity and imperial ambition. After [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/)’s victory at Thapsus in 46 BCE and the defeat of King Juba I, Rome began pushing southward to secure its African territories from the hostile Berber tribes in the Saharan Atlas and desert margins. [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), as Octavian, began integrating *Africa Nova* with *Africa Vetus* and established an expansive network of [roads](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/). This triggered localized resistance, notably by the Gaetuli tribes in the Aurès and western frontier zones, leading to imperial military intervention in 21–22 BCE. Renewed resistance arose during the reign of [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/). A Berber leader named Tacfarinas, of the Musulamii tribe, launched a sustained revolt in the early 1st century CE. Roman expansion into the Aurès intensified in response, with Rome aiming to pacify the region and incorporate it into a structured frontier. Many Musulamii were eventually settled and conscripted into Roman service, forming auxiliary units such as the Cohors I Flavia Musulamiorum. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Detail-from-a-map-of-Africa--mid-19th-century.jpg) ## At this time, during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, the boundaries between Numidia and Gaetulia remained vague. **Detail from a map of Africa, mid 19th century. Credits: Fondo Antiguo de la Biblioteca de la Universidad de Sevilla* “Gaetulia” itself lacked definition as a political unit and was used more generally to refer to southern territories beyond Tebessa. Over time, the Roman limes (frontier defense line) in the Aurès expanded, stretching east to the mountainous Nememcha block and westward into Belzma and Boutaleb. This frontier infrastructure would become known as the Aurès Limes Line. By the late 1st century CE, under the Flavian [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), a second phase of military consolidation began. Roman forces moved from Ammaedara to Theveste (AD 75–79), transforming it into a military base for further expansion into the western and southern Aurès. Emperor Titus established a permanent camp for Legio III Augusta at Lambaesis in AD 81, anchoring the limes line. Under the emperors [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/) and [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-four-journeys-of-hadrian-the-globetrotter-emperor-of-the-roman-empire/), this limes was pushed deeper into the semi-desert regions south of the Aurès. Forts and garrisons were established across a string of critical outposts, including: - Henchir Besseriani (Ad Maiores) - Tadart (Ad Medias) - Bades (Badias) - Tahouda (Thabudeos) - Henchir al-Kasbat (Gemellae) - Tobna (Tubunae), on the edge of the Hodna region The final and third phase of Rome’s southern expansion came during the [Severan](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-severan-marble-plan/) dynasty. The limes system reached its greatest extent, incorporating military installations in the Ziban region (southwest of Biskra/Vescera) and al-Hodna. These zones served both as surveillance points to monitor Saharan nomadic movement and as agricultural zones to supply Roman outposts. This frontier system was hierarchical and well-organized. It comprised permanent camps, forts, and smaller watchtowers operated by either the Legio III Augusta or auxiliary cohorts, all under central command based in Lambaesis. Roman patrols traversed strategic routes, controlling access to pasturelands and preventing nomadic incursions. The agricultural productivity of these fortified zones supported trade and communication between military and civilian settlements, ensuring Rome’s grip on this volatile but vital frontier. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Detail-of-a-Roman-Bath-mosaic-with-fish.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/The-Roman-provinces-of-Africa-left-their-mark-in-modern-Tunisia--a-Roman-bath.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Temple-of-Minerva-in-modern-Tunisia-1.jpg) The Roman provinces of Africa left their mark in modern Tunisia. Detail from a Roman mosaic, a Roman bath, and the Temple of Minerva. Credits: Dennis Jarvis, CC BY-SA 2.0 ### Conquest, Colonization, and Romanization The [Roman army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) served as the primary force behind the empire’s relentless expansion—and North Africa was no exception. In this vast region stretching from the Mediterranean coast to the outer reaches of the Sahara, military power was the key to imposing Roman control. Alongside the *Africa Proconsularis*, Numidia emerged as one of the most prosperous and urbanized provinces in Roman North Africa. To ensure security and lasting peace—not only within Numidia but also in its neighboring provinces—the Roman military established a carefully designed defensive system, with fortifications deployed along the southern frontier of the province. This network extended across the northern, southern, and western flanks of the Aurès Mountains, forming a barrier against incursions and a backbone for Roman dominance. Yet the army’s contribution in Numidia went far beyond warfare. Roman forces played a direct role in implementing the Romanization of the province, orchestrating the layout of the land, and overseeing the construction of infrastructure—towns, roads, [bridges](https://romanempiretimes.com/trajan-bridge-ancient-world-first-to-surpass-1km-kilometer-2000-years-ago/), [aqueducts](https://romanempiretimes.com/marvel-ancient-roman-aqueducts/), and other hallmarks of Roman civic life. These initiatives laid the groundwork for both Roman colonization and the integration of local communities. Veterans who completed their service were often granted land in the region, where they settled with families that frequently included local [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/). These mixed households helped knit Roman and Numidian societies together, creating a durable thread of cultural cohesion. While the indigenous population gradually absorbed aspects of Roman civilization, Roman veterans rooted themselves in the African landscape. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Funerary-inscription--Epitaph-of-Quintus-Iulius-Quinti--CIL-08--03151---soldier-of-the-Third-Legion-Augusta--lived-28-years.-Inscription-from-Lambaesis--Numidia-.jpg) Funerary inscription, Epitaph of Quintus Iulius Quinti (CIL 08, 03151), soldier of the Third Legion Augusta, lived 28 years. Inscription from Lambaesis (Numidia). Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 Through this dual mission of conquest and construction, the Roman army left a permanent imprint on Numidia, reshaping its geography, society, and identity—traces of which remain visible throughout the Aurès and beyond. (*The Roman Presence in Southern Numidia, by Mohamed lakhdar Oulmi, University of Guelma*) --- Numidia's story is one of paradox—of fierce warriors who became Rome’s most prized auxiliaries, and of mountain tribes who resisted even the might of the legions. From cavalry raids to frontier fortresses, the Numidians left their mark not only on Roman military strategy but on the very shape of empire in North Africa. The Romanization of Numidia may have transformed its cities and roads, but the land itself—harsh, proud, and untamed in places—remained unmistakably Numidian. In this meeting point of empire and resistance, the legacy of Rome was carved into stone, **but the spirit of Numidia endured**. ### Claudius the Unexpected: The Emperor They Never Saw Coming URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/ Last updated: 2026-02-03T12:54:50.000Z Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus **was never meant to rule.** Born into the Julio-Claudian dynasty, he lived much of his life in the shadows—dismissed by his own family as weak, mocked for his stammer and limp, and denied the public roles expected of a Roman noble. Yet in a twist that stunned the empire, Claudius became [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/the-year-of-the-four-emperors/) in 41 CE, plucked from hiding by the [Praetorian Guard](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/) after the assassination of [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-caligula-mad-or-just-sick/). Far from the puppet emperor imagined by ancient historians, Claudius would go on to govern with surprising skill, expanding Roman territory, reforming imperial administration, and reshaping what it meant to wield power in the early empire. ### Dismissed, Overlooked—Then Crowned Tiberius‘s father, [Drusus](https://romanempiretimes.com/drusus-the-elder-rome-most-successful-germanic-commander/), [had died young](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/); his brother Germanicus was a hero of Rome and presumed heir to the principate. But when Germanicus died in 19 CE, the question of succession passed not to Claudius but to Germanicus’s sons—among them, the future emperor Caligula. From the outset, Claudius was marked by what his contemporaries considered deformities: a limp, a stammer, and other physical traits that suggested to his family a mind unfit for public life. His own mother dismissed him with contempt, reportedly calling him “*a monster of a man, one that Nature had only begun to form*.” ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Emperor-Claudius--as-Jupiter-Capitoline.jpg) ## In a society that prized rhetorical eloquence, martial vigor, and political visibility, Claudius was kept away from military command and public office. **Emperor Claudius, as Jupiter Capitoline. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0* Augustus passed him over for promotion, and [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/) confined him to the margins of imperial life. Claudius spent these years in study, quietly composing histories of the Roman Republic, the Etruscans, and even [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), while being excluded from Rome’s most vital institutions. And yet, in 41 CE, following the dramatic assassination of Caligula, Claudius was thrust into power. Hiding in the palace, fearing for his life, he was discovered by a Praetorian Guardsman and declared emperor. The [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/) had not chosen him. Neither had the people. But through the power of the military and sheer dynastic presence, Claudius ascended to rule the Roman world. While ancient authors like [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/), [Tacitus,](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) and [Dio Cassius](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) portrayed Claudius as weak-willed, [easily manipulated by wives](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) and freedmen, and far from a commanding figure, other sources tell a different story. Inscriptions, [coinage](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/), official decrees, and monuments reveal an emperor deeply concerned with legitimacy, civic order, and imperial continuity. Through these materials, Claudius emerges not as the passive figure of literary caricature, but as a ruler who actively used public communication to reinforce his authority. Claudius’s rule cannot be understood solely through the lens of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/). His policies and public image extended deep into the provinces, particularly in [Gaul](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/) and [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-leave-britain/), where he sought to engage not just with the elite, but with local communities across the empire. His reign proved pivotal in the evolution of the Principate after [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/)—not as a passive continuation, but as a moment of reinvention. Claudius expanded [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/mistress-of-rome-servilia-caesar-and-the-politics-of-passion/)’s borders, reformed its institutions, and subtly redefined the image of imperial leadership. Far from being hindered by his physical impairments or unconventional path to power, Claudius may have succeeded precisely because he offered a different kind of authority—one rooted in stability, administrative clarity, and careful image-making. His story invites a deeper reflection on what truly counted as strength in the Roman imperial system—and on who, in the end, was best suited to govern it. ([*Claudius Caesar: Image and Power in the Early Roman Empire*](https://amzn.to/4oBi4QB?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Josiah Osgood*) ![Cameo portraying the Emperor Claudius as the God Jupiter](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Cameo-portraying-the-Emperor-Claudius-as-the-God-Jupiter.jpg) Cameo portraying the Emperor Claudius as the God Jupiter. Credits: Mary Harrsch, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ### From Madness to Order: Caligula’s Fall and Claudius’s Rise Throughout its long history, the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) saw emperors who were builders of order and vision—[Octavian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/), [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/antinous-and-hadrian-love-devotion-or-divine-ambition/), Constantine, and [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-stoic-emperor-how-marcus-aurelius-outwitted-death-in-the-germanic-wilds/) remain enduring names of military skill, philosophical depth, and political foresight. But alongside these titans stood others who became [infamous for their cruelty or indulgence](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/). Among them, none cast a darker shadow than Gaius—known to posterity as Caligula. When he came to power in 37 CE, expectations for the young prince were high. In his early months, he ruled with justice and dignity. But a sudden illness altered the course of his reign. What followed was a descent into extremes that shocked even Roman sensibilities: [public appearances dressed as deities](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-caligula-really-declare-war-on-neptune/), accounts of incest and ritualized violence, and a cult of personality that blurred the line between theatrics and tyranny. Though the Roman world had long tolerated eccentricity and excess, Caligula’s actions went far beyond. By 41 CE, the Praetorian Guard intervened—assassinating the emperor and casting uncertainty over the future of imperial power. In the wake of Caligula’s death, some factions even considered restoring the Republic. Yet it was the [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/), not the Senate, that determined the next step. In a move that startled many, Claudius—long dismissed as unfit for rule—was proclaimed emperor. As the last surviving adult male in the Julio-Claudian line, he was a politically convenient choice. But what followed defied all expectations. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Bartolomeo-Passarotti---s-painting--The-Emperor-Claudius--1.jpg) ## Claudius would be remembered not only for consolidating power after a time of crisis, but for expanding the empire’s borders. **Bartolomeo Passarotti’s painting, The Emperor Claudius. Public domain* Britain, which had remained out of reach since [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/)’s expeditions, was now firmly brought under Roman control. New provinces were added in North Africa and the East, and colonies were planted in frontier regions to strengthen imperial presence. He restructured Rome’s administration with remarkable efficiency, delegating key branches of governance—such as the treasury—to freedmen. His attention to infrastructure resulted in the construction of aqueducts, roads, and a crucial new harbor at Ostia. He also took aggressive steps to secure Rome’s grain supply, ensuring stability in a region still haunted by Caligula’s disruptions. While Claudius attempted to work with the Senate, the power balance shifted. The imperial office grew stronger; the Senate, weaker. This created lasting tension. His critics—most notably [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/), who authored [*The Apocolocyntosis*](https://amzn.to/3Jy0rks?ref=romanempiretimes.com)—portrayed him as foolish, dependent, and physically grotesque. Later writers like Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio repeated these judgments, accusing him of being a tool of palace intrigue, dominated by his wives and freedmen. Yet the accomplishments of his reign suggest a more capable ruler. Claudius governed with a mixture of caution, delegation, and reform. Though his path to power was unconventional and his image often scorned, the legacy he left behind was one of expansion, stabilization, and administrative maturity. ![Bust of Emperor Claudius, found in Sant’Antioco Island, Sardinia, displayed in the Cagliari Archaeological Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Bust-of-Emperor-Claudius--found-in-Sant---Antioco-Island--Sardinia--0Adisplayed-in-the-Cagliari-Archaeological-Museum.jpg) Bust of Emperor Claudius, found in Sant’Antioco Island, Sardinia, displayed in the Cagliari Archaeological Museum. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ### Marked by Nature: Claudius and the Burden of Perception Claudius, born on 1 August 10 BCE in Lugdunum, Gaul—modern-day Lyon—was the first Roman emperor born outside Italy. While his lineage placed him firmly within the Julio-Claudian dynasty, his physical condition set him apart from the expectations of [Roman nobility](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). Modern interpretations suggest that he may have lived with a congenital impairment consistent with what is now recognized as cerebral palsy, which would explain the difficulties he had with movement and speech. Lucius Annaeus Seneca mocked his speech in [*The Pumpkinification of Claudius*](https://amzn.to/3JexD0l?ref=romanempiretimes.com), describing how: > “\[...\] they did not understand his reply because his voice was disturbing and confusing to the ear \[...\] > > His tongue was not intelligible—not Greek was he, nor Roman, nor of any noted race \[...\]”. Roman society, steeped in ideals of physical perfection and eloquence, was often cruel in its judgment. According to Suetonius: > “\[...\] almost the whole course of his childhood and youth he suffered so severely from various obstinate disorders that the vigour of both his mind and his body was dulled, and even when he reached the proper age he was not thought capable of any public or private business.” ![A classical marble statue of the Emperor Claudius as the embodiment of Jupiter](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/A-classical-marble-statue-of-the-Emperor-Claudius--as-the-embodiment-of-Jupiter.jpg) A classical marble statue of the Emperor Claudius as the embodiment of Jupiter. Credits: Slices of Light, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Although he reportedly possessed a dignified appearance while seated or lying down, the same author recounts the traits that provoked mockery: > “He possessed majesty and dignity of appearance, but only when he was standing still or sitting, and especially when he was lying down \[...\] he would foam at the mouth and trickle at the nose; he stammered besides and his head was very shaky at all times, but especially when he made the least exertion \[...\]”. Cassius Dio offers further detail, writing: > “\[...\] physically he was in poor shape, and his head and his hands shook slightly. Because of this he also had a slight stammer, and so he himself did not read out all the measures that he introduced to the senate, but gave them to the quaestor to read \[...\] > > As for those measures he did read out for himself, he would generally do this seated. Furthermore, he was the first of the Romans to use a covered chair. > > This started a trend; for since that time right down to the present day not only emperors, but also ex-consuls have been carried on such chairs \[...\]”. Even within his own household, Claudius was viewed with contempt. His mother reportedly called him: > “a monster of a man, not finished but merely begun by Dame Nature,” while his grandmother showed him open disdain. His sister is said to have exclaimed that she hoped: > “the Roman people might be spared so cruel and undeserved a fortune” when she heard he might one day become emperor. Some modern analyses argue that the long-standing belief that Claudius suffered from polio was shaped by 20th-century preoccupations. However, others suggest that cerebral palsy, particularly a mild form involving spasticity, more accurately explains the symptoms described in ancient sources. These accounts, often colored by political hostility, may have exaggerated his impairments. Yet, Claudius himself seems to have been aware of how he was perceived and how that perception could impact his speech—especially in public, unprepared moments or debates. Reports suggest he could speak clearly when reading from a script, as both Augustus and Tacitus observed. From what can be inferred about his early development, his condition appears to have been present from birth—supporting the view that it was not a viral infection like polio, but likely cerebral palsy. Suetonius quotes his mother referring to him as: > "a man, not finished but merely begun by \[...\] Nature," This implied she recognized something was different shortly after his birth. This further distances his condition from polio, which is typically acquired after birth through exposure to contaminated water and is not hereditary. ![Equestrian statue of Claudius, print by Adriaen Collaert, after Jan van der Straet, called Stradanus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Equestrian-statue-of-Claudius--print-by-Adriaen-Collaert--after-Jan-van-der-Straet--called-Stradanus.jpg) Equestrian statue of Claudius, print by Adriaen Collaert, after Jan van der Straet, called Stradanus. Public domain Despite the limitations placed on him, Claudius received an exceptional education. His tutor was none other than the historian Livy. Claudius would later write prolifically: a twenty-book history of the Etruscans, an eight-book history of Carthage—both in [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/)—and a forty-one book account of Roman history from 31 BCE onward, alongside his own autobiography. None of these texts survive. One early work even defended the statesman [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/), a bold and politically risky move for the time, hinting that Claudius may have harbored republican sympathies. When he ascended to power in 41 CE, the empire was in crisis, including a severe grain shortage. Claudius moved swiftly to stabilize the situation. Suetonius recounts that: > “\[...\] there was a scarcity of grain because of long-continued droughts, he was once stopped in the middle of the Forum by a mob and so pelted with abuse and at the same time with pieces of bread, that he was barely able to make his escape to the Palace by a back door; and after this experience he resorted to every possible means to bring grain to Rome, even in the winter season. > > To the merchants he held out the certainty of profit by assuming the expense of any loss that they might suffer from storms, and offered to those who would build merchant ships large bounties, adapted to the condition of each.” Contemporary visual representations, such as statues, do not reflect his physical impairments. This is not unusual for the period, as imperial portraits were often idealized. Even centuries later, other heads of state—like Franklin Delano Roosevelt—took great care to conceal the visible signs of their disability from public view. In both cases, there remained a cultural discomfort with visible deviation from the ideal, despite their effectiveness as leaders. (*Emperor Claudius I: the man, his physical impairment, and reactions to it, by Keith Armstrong*) ![Bust of Emperor Claudius in the Vatican Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Bust-of-Emperor-Claudius-in-the-Vatican-Museum.jpg) Bust of Emperor Claudius in the Vatican Museum. Credits: Richard Mortel, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ### Claudius and the Senate: Cooperation, Control, and the Illusion of Balance When Claudius assumed power in 41 CE, he inherited not only an empire unsettled by Caligula’s tyranny but a Senate that viewed him with suspicion. His rise, orchestrated by the Praetorian Guard, came amid widespread unease, conspiratorial murmurs, and resentment among senators. Despite this, Claudius sought to mend relations. He extended amnesty to his political opponents, including those who had favored restoring the Republic or eyed the throne themselves, and allowed many of them to attain consulships. To further calm tensions, Claudius reversed some of Caligula’s unpopular policies and showed overt signs of respect toward the Senate. In a striking gesture, he would rise in the Senate House to address the [consuls](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-consuls-in-ancient-rome-a-pillar-of-republican-governance/)—a practice even [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) had failed to observe consistently, often citing health reasons for remaining seated. Claudius also made an effort not to flaunt his authority with excessive displays of triumphal attire and was attentive to the personal and ceremonial needs of individual senators. His participation in the Senate’s festivals and proceedings was earnest—he was more active in senatorial sessions than any emperor since Augustus in his prime. He involved the Senate in discussions and decision-making where possible, hoping to sustain a cooperative relationship. ![Lawrence Alma-Tadema’s painting of Gratus, a member of the Praetorian, draws a curtain aside to reveal the terrified Claudius who is hailed as emperor on the spot, with Caligula on the floor](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Lawrence-Alma-Tadema---s-painting-of-Gratus--a-member-of-the-Praetorian--draws-a-curtain-aside-to-reveal-the-terrified-Claudius-who-is-hailed-as-emperor-on-the-spot--with-Caligula-on-the-floor.jpg) Lawrence Alma-Tadema’s painting of Gratus, a member of the Praetorian, draws a curtain aside to reveal the terrified Claudius who is hailed as emperor on the spot, with Caligula on the floor. Public domain In public imagery, he projected himself not as a rebuilder of the Republic, but as a protector of *libertas Augusta*—the stable, structured liberty introduced by Augustus. Yet, the Senate’s authority waned under his rule. Claudius may have spoken as though the Senate remained the empire’s highest body, once remarking that the emperor was in effect a “committee of one” entrusted with refining and presenting matters to the full Senate. But in practice, the Senate’s influence paled in comparison to the centralizing power of the emperor. Claudius increasingly took it upon himself to bypass the Senate’s control over appointments, selecting men he deemed capable regardless of pedigree. Though his early clemency suggested a spirit of cooperation, a wave of conspiracies and assassination attempts early in his reign shifted his approach. [Punishments](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/) grew harsher, likely reflecting disappointment at the Senate’s refusal to embrace a more collaborative arrangement. As repression increased, so did hostility from the senatorial class. By the end of his reign, Claudius’s enemies claimed that he had overseen the executions of 35 senators and over 300 members of the equestrian order. One of the most contentious aspects of his Senate policy was his effort to expand its membership beyond Italy. Claudius advocated for the inclusion of provincial elites from Gaul, even from regions still viewed as culturally backward by Roman standards. In a rare surviving speech delivered in 48 CE, Claudius argued that Rome’s strength had always rested on its ability to absorb new peoples and reshape its constitution to meet the needs of empire. The Gauls he nominated were already Roman citizens and legally entitled to Senate representation, but they faced opposition purely on the basis of not being Italian. The senatorial class, proud and exclusive, resisted relinquishing its long-held monopoly on honors and office. When one of his Gallic candidates was rejected, Claudius resolved to institutionalize change. He revived the [long-neglected office of censor](https://romanempiretimes.com/guarding-the-word-speech-censorship-and-power-in-ancient-rome/), assuming it jointly with Lucius Vitellius between 47–49 CE. This role allowed him to restructure the Senate and population registers, officially assessing citizens by birth, property, and moral standing. Through this, he could legitimize new admissions and enforce his vision of an expanded, imperial Senate. Although the integration of provincial elites was controversial in Claudius’s lifetime—mocked as favoritism toward foreigners—it soon became a normalized policy. Just five decades later, a provincial Spaniard, [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/), would ascend to the throne. But in Claudius’s own time, his proposals triggered xenophobic resistance and sharpened his divide with Rome’s traditional aristocracy. ![Caractacus at the Tribunal of Claudius at Rome, engraving by Andrew Birrell of a painting by Henry Fuseli](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Caractacus-at-the-Tribunal-of-Claudius-at-Rome--engraving-by-Andrew-Birrell-of-a-painting-by-Henry-Fuseli-1.jpg) Caractacus at the Tribunal of Claudius at Rome, engraving by Andrew Birrell of a painting by Henry Fuseli. Public domain ### The Wives, the Heirs, and the Poisoned End: Claudius’s Final Act Before ascending the throne, Claudius had already married his third wife, [Valeria Messalina](https://romanempiretimes.com/messalina-was-she-really-the-most-dangerous-woman-of-the-roman-empire/), a politically advantageous union thanks to her lineage—she was the great-granddaughter of Octavia, sister of Augustus. Though significantly younger than Claudius, Messalina soon gave birth to a son, Britannicus, not long after Claudius became emperor. As the direct male heir, Britannicus represented dynastic stability, and his mother’s influence grew accordingly. Messalina did not remain idle in securing her son’s place. She eliminated political rivals and [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) she viewed as threats to her status. Claudius himself may have been complicit in some of these removals, particularly if the individuals posed danger to his rule. While Roman authors, especially Tacitus, vilified her for sexual excesses, describing her indulgence in “untried debaucheries,” it is now understood that she likely used sexuality as a political tool—to compromise men, manipulate outcomes, and strengthen her own position. The most dramatic episode came in 48 CE, when Messalina entered into a marriage with Senator Gaius Silius. Ancient sources present this either as the final act of an affair or as a calculated political move—perhaps a conspiracy to depose Claudius or a reaction to [Agrippina ](https://romanempiretimes.com/agrippina-the-younger-the-first-empress-of-rome-in-a-male-dominant-society/)and her son [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) rising in favor. Others suggest that Claudius’s powerful freedmen, now seeing Messalina as a threat, engineered her fall. Once the emperor was informed of the marriage, Messalina was executed. ![A Sardonyx cameo in three layers with enameled gold, depicting Emperor Claudius and his wife Messalina on a chariot drawn by winged snakes](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/A-Sardonyx-cameo-in-three-layers-with-enameled-gold--depicting-Emperor-Claudius-and-his-wife-Messalina-on-a-chariot-drawn-by-winged-snakes.jpg) A Sardonyx cameo in three layers with enameled gold, depicting Emperor Claudius and his wife Messalina on a chariot drawn by winged snakes. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Despite vowing never to marry again, Claudius reconsidered within months—likely under the influence of his inner circle. From a list of candidates presented by his freedmen, he chose [Agrippina the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/agrippina-the-younger-the-first-empress-of-rome-in-a-male-dominant-society/), his own niece. This required a change in Roman law, which was passed with senatorial approval, marking the marriage as a unifying political act. In 50 CE, Claudius formally adopted Agrippina’s son, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, who then became known as Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus Caesar. That same year, Agrippina received the title Augusta, a status no imperial consort had held since Livia. Though succession plans were never formally declared, Nero had the advantage of age—three years older than Britannicus—and gained office eligibility earlier. In 51 CE, Nero donned the toga of manhood and was quickly accepted as Claudius’s intended heir. He solidified his position in 53 CE by marrying Claudius’s daughter. The growing power of Agrippina and Nero stirred unease in certain circles, and this tension formed the backdrop to Claudius’s sudden death in 54 CE—believed by many ancient sources to have been murder. According to Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio, Claudius was [poisoned—possibly by mushrooms](https://romanempiretimes.com/locusta-of-gaul-the-imperial-poisoner-of-ancient-rome/), administered either directly or with the help of his physician. Upon his death, Nero was immediately acclaimed as imperator by the Praetorian Guard and swiftly confirmed by the Senate. ![Another depiction of proclaiming Claudius Emperor, by Lawrence Alma-Tadema](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Another-depiction-of-proclaiming-Claudius-Emperor--by-Lawrence-Alma-Tadema.jpg) Another depiction of proclaiming Claudius Emperor, by Lawrence Alma-Tadema. Public domain Suetonius noted that even if Nero was not the one who orchestrated Claudius’s death, he acknowledged his role and later mocked the episode. He reportedly called mushrooms “*the food of the gods*” and jested that Claudius had stopped “*playing the fool among mortals*,” twisting the Latin morari for comic effect. His mockery extended to disregarding many of Claudius’s decrees, which he labeled the products of a madman: > “…even if he was not the instigator of the emperor's death, he was at least privy to it, as he openly admitted; for he used afterwards to laud mushrooms, the vehicle in which the poison was administered to Claudius, as ‘the food of the gods,’ as the Greek proverb has it. > > At any rate, after Claudius's death he vented on him every kind of insult, in act and word, charging him now with folly and now with cruelty; for it was a favourite joke of his to say that Claudius had ceased ‘to play the fool among mortals,’ lengthening the first syllable of the word morari, and he disregarded many of his decrees and acts as the work of a madman and a dotard. > > Finally, he neglected to enclose the place where his body was burned except with a low and mean wall." Suetonius Though Claudius was deified soon after his death, the act was hollow in some quarters. Upper-class Romans ignored or ridiculed it, and Seneca’s biting satire *Apocolocyntosis divi Claudii* openly scorned the dead emperor. Even Nero’s accession speech criticized Claudius’s decisions and failures. Yet after Nero’s own fall and the rise of the Flavian dynasty, Claudius’s reputation saw a modest rehabilitation. The Flavians recognized the stability he had brought and honored his deification more sincerely. Though his legacy would again fade, modern historians in the 19th and 20th centuries began reevaluating his reign, identifying it as a pivotal moment that helped shape Rome’s future. Even if his rule was not universally admired in his lifetime, the simple fact of Claudius's competence—especially when viewed beside the chaos of Caligula and the cruelty of Nero—has helped preserve a legacy defined less by spectacle and more by function. ([*Claudius: The Life and Legacy of the Emperor Who Stabilized the Ancient Roman Empire after Caligula*](https://amzn.to/46Zr9wk?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, By Charles River Editors*) --- Claudius may never have commanded admiration through grandeur or charisma, but in many ways, his reign redefined what imperial success could look like. He did not inspire through oratory or battlefield heroics; instead, he stabilized an empire recovering from madness, introduced bureaucratic reforms that would shape governance for generations, and quietly expanded Rome’s frontiers. History tried to reduce him to a joke — a stammering accident of dynastic fortune. Yet in hindsight, Claudius stands as a reminder that effective leadership often comes not from the expected mold, but from those willing to build, revise, and govern when others collapse. The empire may have mocked him — **but it also endured because of him**. ### Polybius and the Architecture of Roman Power URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-and-the-architecture-of-roman-power/ Last updated: 2025-08-11T21:30:33.000Z A [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) by birth, a soldier by training, and a historian by conviction. Polybius of Megalopolis stood at the crossroads of two worlds—his native Hellenistic Greece and the ascendant Roman Republic. As a hostage in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) during the 2nd century BCE, he gained a front-row seat to the machinery of Roman power, observing its military triumphs, political structures, and imperial ambitions. Rather than mourn the fall of [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/) independence, he set out to understand the forces that had tilted the balance of history—and in doing so, wrote one of antiquity’s most remarkable works: [*The Histories*](https://amzn.to/3Un2fiw?ref=romanempiretimes.com). What began as a record of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/beauty-in-ancient-rome/)’s rise became a meditation on fate, governance, and the endurance of great states. **For a closer look at Polybius’s early life and his personal ties to Rome’s elite, see our earlier article:* [Polybius: The Greek True Admirer, of the Roman EmpireAlthough Greek, Polybius is best known for his work The Histories, which covers the rise of the Roman Republic and its domination over the Mediterranean world, particularly focusing on the period between 264 and 146 BCE.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/icon/Screenshot-2023-10-05-at-22.54.45-1-2.png)Roman Empire TimesChristina Athanasiou![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/thumbnail/Polybius-Greek-historian-roman-empire.jpg)](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/) ### Polybios the Historian: Method, Reach, and Authority He was not content to merely report what happened; he wanted to know why it happened. As a methodological heir to Thucydides and a critical reader of earlier historians, he set new standards for accuracy, verification, and interpretation. He traveled widely to observe events and geography firsthand—from Spain to Alexandria. Yet he was also critical, wrestling with his predecessors in what Strabo later described as the manner of Cercyon—leaving a powerful imprint on those who followed. He likened the ideal historian to Odysseus, compelled to journey, examine, and endure. That spirit guided him through his authorship of The Histories, which originally spanned [*forty books*](https://amzn.to/4ls7poD?ref=romanempiretimes.com) and chronicled Rome’s ascent to Mediterranean dominance from 264 to 146 BCE. Only Books 1–5 survive in full, with later ones fragmentary—but they remain central to any serious study of ancient historiography. Polybius did not write history with brevity in mind. His Histories, though framed around just over fifty years of Roman expansion, swell far beyond the political narrative to include philosophical reflections, ethnographic notes, and methodological treatises. Three full books are digressions—on Roman government (Book 6), historiography (Book 12), and geography (Book 34)—but many more passages wander into side topics: the fermentation of jujube wine, the décor of Alexandrian courtesans' homes, the dances of Arcadian youth. Often, he ends such digressions by explaining why he included them—and then stating that the digression is over. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Statue-of-Historian-Polybius--at-the-Austrian-Parliament.jpg) ## This expansiveness, a marked contrast to the disciplined reserve of Thucydides, helped shape his reputation as a self-conscious and deeply reflective historian. **Statue of Historian Polybius, at the Austrian Parliament. Credits: Amaury Laporte, CC BY 2.0* He openly debated how a historian should write about events in which he participated, whether he should use first or third person, and how interviews should be conducted and interpreted. For Polybius, even the act of questioning could reshape the past. He writes that without active engagement, an interviewer “is, though present in a certain sense, not present”. > “For how is it possible to examine a person properly about a battle, a siege, or a sea‑fight, … since the suggestions of the person who follows the narrative guide the memory of the narrator to each incident, and these are matters in which a man of no experience is neither competent to question … nor when present himself to understand what is going on; but even if present he is, though present in a certain sense, not present.” *Histories*, Book 12 This metahistorical gaze permeates the Histories. He constructs a layered field of perception—readers observe commanders who themselves are observers, interpreting terrain, public mood, and enemy intent. The audience becomes a kind of distant spectator in a [Roman arena](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/), analyzing events as combatants do. Vision is power, and interpretation becomes action. But this recursive structure also has a paradoxical effect. As generals anticipate perceptions and maneuver accordingly, war becomes stylized performance. History itself begins to resemble theater: filled with feints, second-guessing, and spectacle. He describes the sack of cities not just in military terms but as “shock therapy”, carried out for effect. Strategic decisions hinge on prevailing assumptions—one Roman general targets a supposedly impregnable city first to terrify others. Thus, for all his practicality, his account of action becomes a study in perception. *Πράξεις* (actions) become *μεταπράξεις* (reflections on action), and the narrative becomes a commentary on the gaze itself. His history is not just about politics, war, and constitutions—it is also about how power is seen, interpreted, and performed. In this, Polybius offers not only a handbook for statesmen, but a mirror for historians themselves. ![An illustration of the Pirseia system used in Ancient Greece to transmit messages, a system widely described by Polybius in volume II, book tenth of Histories](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/An-illustration-of-the-Pirseia-system-used-in-Ancient-Greece-to-transmit-messages--a-system-widely-described-by-Polybius-in-volume-II--book-tenth-of-Histories.jpg) An illustration of the Pirseia system used in Ancient Greece to transmit messages, a system widely described by Polybius in volume II, book tenth of Histories. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### The Constitution that Withstood Time: Book 6 and the Theory of Cycles In Book 6, he offered a model that shaped Western political thought for centuries. Drawing from Plato and Aristotle, he introduced the concept of anakuklosis (ἀνακύκλωσις), the cyclical degeneration of political systems: monarchy to tyranny, aristocracy to oligarchy, democracy to mob rule. But Rome, he argued, had temporarily escaped this cycle through a mixed constitution—blending monarchy (the consuls), aristocracy (the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/)), and democracy (the popular assemblies): > "Each element was watched and held in check by the others." This structure, he believed, granted Rome its unique resilience and meteoric rise. Later thinkers, from [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) and Machiavelli to Montesquieu, cited him as the originator of checks and balances—a legacy embedded in modern constitutional design: > "That threefold commonwealth... when held in moderation, seemed to be the most stable kind of state." Cicero*,* [*De Re Publica*](https://amzn.to/4ln5At6?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 1.69 > "And among these systems, the one that Rome maintained was without doubt the best, as Polybius testifies." Machiavelli*,* [*Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio*](https://amzn.to/3Jas2Ik?ref=romanempiretimes.com), I.2 ### A Greek Explains Rome: Cultural Transmission and Literary Influence Key ideas such as *Fortuna* (τύχη), moral exempla, and civic responsibility passed into Roman literature via Polybius’s work. His ideal of the *ἀνήρ πρακτικός*—a man of action and experience—became a Roman historical archetype. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Close-up-of-the-statue-of-Polybius-in-front-of-the-Parliament-building-in-Vienna.jpg) ## Yet he was not inventing these ideas alone; he was a conduit through which Greek intellectual habits were absorbed and reinterpreted by the Roman world. **Close up of the statue of Polybius in front of the Parliament building in Vienna. Credits: BrendanHunter from Getty Images Signature, by Canva* ### Arcadian Blood and Roman Myth: Evander and the Shared Past One of the most original contributions in his narrative is the invocation of shared mythological heritage. He embraced the Roman belief that their founders were Arcadians led by Evander, son of the nymph Carmentis. Evander named the Palatine Hill and introduced Greek rites, which Romans preserved as *ritus graecus.* He pointed to linguistic similarities and early Latin inscriptions to reinforce this cultural bridge. His own origin from Megalopolis, in Arcadia, likely played a role in lobbying for his stay in Rome—Evander was not just myth but politics. These mythological ties blurred lines between conqueror and captive. They symbolized the fusion that he, himself embodied: Greek intellect in Roman service, Greek memory in Roman ambition. ### The Historian as Mediator: Legitimizing and Questioning Empire Polybius’s role was not merely to chronicle but to mediate—between past and future, Greece and Rome, admiration and analysis. He justified Roman actions as reasonable responses to instability, casting imperialism as a stabilizing force. This allowed him to maintain favor among Roman elites while educating Greek audiences about the nature of power. But his tone shifts after 146 BCE, following the sack of Corinth and the fall of the Achaean League. His silence on these events hints at internal conflict. He does not fully defend Rome, nor does he condemn it outright. He interprets, explains, and sometimes rationalizes—a stance that made him both controversial and enduring. (*Polybius and Rome’s Eastern Policy, by F. W. Walbank*) ![An engraving showcasing Polybius as he carries Philopoemen's ashes to Megalopolis](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/An-engraving-showcasing-Polybius-as-he-carries-Philopoemen-s-ashes-to-Megalopolis.jpg) An engraving showcasing Polybius as he carries Philopoemen's ashes to Megalopolis. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### A Method for Judging Power: Truth, Usefulness, and Instruction Polybius stands apart from many of his predecessors for his insistence that history must serve a public function. He rejected the notion that aesthetic charm or rhetorical polish could ever substitute for factual integrity. In his view, history was to be judged not by its beauty, but by its truthfulness and its capacity to instruct. Historians who shaped narratives simply to dazzle or entertain were abandoning their responsibility. He condemned the use of invented speeches and decorative language, arguing that **only those present at events**—or those who consulted reliable witnesses—should attempt to reproduce dialogue at all. > “No further criticism of such writers is necessary. They rank in authority, it seems to me, not with history, but with the common gossip of a barber’s shop.” *Histories*, Book 12 He uses this sharp line to highlight his belief that accuracy, autopsy (eyewitness experience), and reliable testimony are the cornerstones of true historical writing. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/The-complete-5-books-of-Polybius---s-Histories-1-1-1.jpg) ## Invented speeches, in his view, had no place in serious historiography. **The complete 5 books of Polybius’s Histories. Credits: The Wolf Law Library, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0* This emphasis on utility and accuracy ran through every part of his method. History, to Polybius, was a practical tool, not a literary diversion. Its purpose was to train citizens and leaders in how to recognize patterns, assess causes, and act wisely. He viewed his work as a manual for navigating political life, not as an anthology of edifying tales or cultural memory. His distinction between *τέρψις* (delight) and *ὠφέλεια* (benefit) shows where he placed value: literature may please, but history must teach. He uses this distinction to emphasize that the goal of historiography is not *τέρψις* (entertainment or rhetorical pleasure), but *ὠφέλεια* (moral and practical instruction). This reflects his broader view that history should educate, not merely please. What distinguished Polybius further was his acute awareness of the historian’s own presence in the craft. He did not simply gather facts; he analyzed the process of gathering them. He asked what it meant to observe, to question, and to narrate truthfully. In his view, even the act of interviewing required discernment and judgment: a passive listener might be physically present, but “though present in a certain sense, not present” at all in the critical work of interpretation. The historian’s job, therefore, was not just to record but to interrogate, compare, and synthesize. In this way, Polybius approached what modern thinkers would call metahistory—an understanding that the writing of history itself shapes what is remembered, and how. He exposed the artificiality of rhetorical embellishment in historical prose and critiqued other historians who lacked either personal experience or methodological rigor. He believed that good history demanded not just intelligence but preparation, industry, and purpose. He saw the historian’s role as no less demanding than that of a general or statesman. Ultimately, he offered his readers not just a record of Rome’s rise but a framework for how to write—and read—history responsibly. He laid bare the mechanics of political power and historical narrative alike, instructing not only by example but through reflection on the very process of instruction. His history was nut merely a description of the world as it was, but a guide for what it could become—if studied with care, and understood with purpose.(*Polybius and the Legacy of Fourth-Century Greek Historiography, by John Marincola*) ![Polybius’s Ιστοριών τα Σωζόμενα (The Saved Histories), Book 2](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Polybius---s-----------------------------------------The-Saved-Histories---Book-2.jpg) Polybius’s Ιστοριών τα Σωζόμενα (The Saved Histories), Book 2\. Credits: The Wolf Law Library, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 ### From Cycle to Revolution: Polybius Anacyclosis and the Language of Political Change In his Book 6, with its famous theory of *ἀνακύκλωσις*—the cyclical degeneration and renewal of political constitutions—held a pivotal place in early modern political thought. Yet it was not just the content of his theory that endured; it was the way it was translated, interpreted, and embedded into new ideological frameworks that shaped the history of ideas. By tracing the evolution of how he was rendered in early English, French, and Latin translations, one can observe how the very word “revolution” was born not only as a mechanical or astronomical concept but as a political metaphor drawn from his constitutional cycle. Originally, he described a fixed pattern of political evolution: monarchy declines into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, democracy into ochlocracy or mob rule, before the cycle begins anew. > “The first constitution to arise is monarchy. > > This changes into its vicious form, tyranny. > > Then comes aristocracy, which degenerates into oligarchy. > > Finally, the people set up a democracy, which in turn lapses into mob rule (*ochlocracy*). > > And then, out of mob rule, monarchy once more emerges, as a kind of savior from chaos—and so the cycle begins anew.” Polybius *Histories*, 6.9–10, paraphrased translation based on the [*Loeb edition*](https://amzn.to/3Jb9O9J?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Each system contains the seeds of its own decay. But translators of Polybius—especially during the 16th to 18th centuries—began to use the term revolution to describe these transitions, not merely as repetitions of failure but as potential instruments of renewal and justice. The Greek anakyklōsis (ἀνακύκλωσις), which simply meant a turning again or recurrence, was increasingly rendered as *révolution* in French and revolution in English, especially in editions that came after Machiavelli and Montaigne had popularized Roman constitutional thought. This subtle change in terminology bore deep consequences. Instead of seeing constitutional shifts as unfortunate inevitabilities, some early modern thinkers began to regard them as moments of rupture with the past—openings through which liberty could be restored or tyranny overthrown. Polybius's mixed constitution, once admired as a temporary escape from the cycle, now became an ideal toward which societies might aim by revolutionary means. The ancient cycles were being reconceived not as fate, but as a call to arms. More than just a semantic curiosity, this linguistic evolution marked a shift in the conceptual history of the West. ![A depiction of Polybius’s famous Anacyclosis concept, monarchy descending into tyranny, aristocracy emerging, descending into oligarchy, democracy emerging, descending into ochlocracy, monarchy takes over and the vicious cycle repeats](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/A-depiction-of-Polybius---s-famous-Anacyclosis-concept--monarchy-descending-into-tyranny--aristocracy-emerging--descending-into-oligarchy--democracy-emerging--descending-into-ochlocracy--monarchy-takes-over-and-the-vicious-cycle-repeats.jpg) A depiction of Polybius’s famous Anacyclosis concept, monarchy descending into tyranny, aristocracy emerging, descending into oligarchy, democracy emerging, descending into ochlocracy, monarchy takes over and the vicious cycle repeats CREDITS: AFTER SKOOL Is Every Civilization Doomed to Fail? - Gregory Aldrete [Watch video ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqsBx58GxYY&ref=romanempiretimes.com) By the time of the Enlightenment, revolution had become a normative political goal. His theory, once a warning about the fragility of constitutions, now underwrote the very logic of their overthrow and re-foundation. When Montesquieu referenced him in his Spirit of the Laws, he too adopted the term revolution, thereby placing the ancient historian in a lineage that led to the American and French Revolutions. The cycle was now understood not merely as natural law but as historical opportunity. In this way, Polybius's Book 6 was reborn in the early modern imagination—not only as a template of balanced governance but as a cipher for revolutionary change. The republic he admired for its equilibrium became a reference point for those who sought to rebuild or reclaim political liberty. The rotation of power, once the domain of fate and Fortune (τύχη), was transformed into a human endeavor—intentional, moral, and often violent. In this transformation, **the political language of the West forever changed**. (*A ‘Revolution’ in Political Thought: Translations of Polybius Book 6 and the Conceptual History of Revolution, by Dan Edelstein in Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 83, No. 1, 2022*) --- Polybius’s Histories offer more than a chronicle—they offer a theory of history as a civic tool. He wrote not to entertain, but to equip statesmen and citizens with models of action, judgment, and restraint. From his unique vantage point as a participant-observer, his work continues to inform how we understand the architecture of empire, the fragility of power, and the enduring need for balance in governance. > “For who is so lightweight or lackadaisical, that he would not wish to know how and with what species of government the Romans managed to get nearly the entire inhabited world at their feet, subjected to their sole rule, in less than fifty-three years?” Polybius, *Histories*, 1.1 ### Vitruvius: The Roman Who Shaped Modern Architecture URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/vitruvius-the-roman-who-shaped-modern-architecture/ Last updated: 2025-08-13T19:30:48.000Z Vitruvius, a Roman architect and engineer writing in the 1st century BCE, offered more than a construction manual in his ten-book treatise [*De Architectura*](https://amzn.to/3Jbxv1w?ref=romanempiretimes.com). He laid down a philosophy: that buildings should stand firm (*firmitas*), serve their purpose (*utilitas*), and delight the senses *(venustas*). With this deceptively simple triad, he shaped not just Roman infrastructure but the entire Western architectural canon. From [aqueducts](https://romanempiretimes.com/marvel-ancient-roman-aqueducts/) to [domes](https://romanempiretimes.com/unveiling-the-eternal-things-about-the-pantheon-you-did-not-know/), Renaissance drawings to neoclassical facades, the fingerprints of Vitruvius are still everywhere—etched into stone, and into thought. ## Vitruvius, the Enigma The true shape of Vitruvius—his biography, chronology, and professional status—remains tantalizingly obscure. In his landmark study, “*The Date, Identity, and Career of Vitruvius*”, Barry Baldwin surveys the fragmented and often contradictory scholarship around this Roman architect, arguing that much of what is said about Vitruvius is either speculative or based on ambiguous internal evidence from De Architectura. Still, by examining the text alongside secondary sources, Baldwin reconstructs the most likely contours of Vitruvius’s life and intentions. ![Title page from De Architectura by Vitruvius Pollio, a version from Perugia, 1536](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Title-page-from-De-Architectura-by-Vitruvius-Pollio--a-version-from-Perugia--1536.jpg) Title page from De Architectura by Vitruvius Pollio, a version from Perugia, 1536\. Public domain ### Dating De Architectura There is no direct external evidence to pinpoint the exact date when De Architectura was written. However, scholars have tried to estimate its composition using indirect clues from within the text. Some believe the treatise was written over an extended period, but Barry Baldwin cautions against reading too much into Vitruvius’s internal cross-references as proof of that. For example, F. Granger, editor of the [*Loeb edition*](https://amzn.to/40XsHmB?ref=romanempiretimes.com), thought that Vitruvius published individual books one at a time. His argument relies on lines like: > “But if anyone wants to dispute the order of this book…” and: > “In this volume I have written… in the next volume I will explain”. But Baldwin argues these are likely just references between sections of a single cohesive work—not proof of staggered publication. A firm *terminus post quem* (earliest possible date) is provided by a reference to the Alpine kingdom of Cottius, which would have been inaccurate after [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) turned the area into a Roman province. Even more tellingly, the preface to Book I makes clear that [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) is already dead and deified, and that his adopted son, [Octavian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) (later known as [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/)), is now the uncontested ruler of the Roman world. Scholarly opinions differ widely: - E. Rawson believes most of the treatise was written in the early 30s BCE, with a final dedication to Augustus sometime in the 20s. - F. Granger argued that it must have been completed before 27 BCE, pointing to the fact that Vitruvius never uses the title “Augustus.” - Ronald Syme, by contrast, places its completion shortly after 27 BCE. - Teuffel-Schwabe dates the text to around 14–13 BCE but no later than 11 BCE. But this is not only a question of chronology—it’s also about ideology. Was Vitruvius a Republican in spirit, writing with nostalgia for the old order? Or was he fully part of the emerging Augustan age? Rawson tends to see him as a late Republican; Teuffel-Schwabe firmly places him among Augustan thinkers. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Sketch-with-the-capital-and-basement-of-a-Corinthian-column-after-Vitruvius.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Sheet-with-the-mapping--capital-and-basement-of-a-Corinthian-column-after-Vitruvius.jpg) Sheets with the mapping, capital and basement of a Corinthian column after Vitruvius. **Public domain* ### Style, Politics, and the Elision of the Triumviral Period Rawson bases her early dating partly on Vitruvius's reference to Faberius and Vestorius—two men active in the 40s BCE but with no clear mention of the Triumviral period. Faberius, mocked for his garish taste in home decoration, had also forged documents for [Mark Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/). Vestorius, the owner of a notable [dye](https://romanempiretimes.com/tyrian-purple-the-royal-dye-of-the-ancient-world-and-the-secrets-of-murex-extraction/) works in Puteoli, was a friend of [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/). Baldwin notes that these mentions may reflect Vitruvius’s desire to flatter Augustus or to erase awkward political memories. The absence of direct reference to the Triumvirate might well align with Augustus's own erasures of that divisive era. The idea that Vitruvius deliberately avoided using the title “Augustus” is probably overstated. Baldwin points out that Vitruvius’s tone of praise—especially in the opening of Book I—is fully in line with Augustan political language and may even have anticipated it. He begins with: > “Since your divine mind and spirit, Commander Caesar…”, echoing the kind of reverence we later see in Augustan propaganda. Baldwin also draws attention to the similarities with Horace’s Epistles, which opens: > “Since you alone shoulder so many burdens and so many affairs…”, and with Augustus’s [*Res Gestae*](https://amzn.to/45qq3Hl?ref=romanempiretimes.com), where he refers to gaining control: > “over the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) of the whole world”. As Baldwin puts it, > “Vitruvius may have helped set the tone for the Augustan poets.” ![Drawing by a Renaissance military architect showing city and port fortifications, linked to early printed editions of Vitruvius, created for a planned Italian edition of Ten Books on Architecture](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Drawing-by-a-Renaissance-military-architect-showing-city-and-port-fortifications--linked-to-early-printed-editions-of-Vitruvius--created-for-a-planned-Italian-edition-of-Ten-Books-on-Architecture.jpg) Drawing by a Renaissance military architect showing city and port fortifications, linked to early printed editions of Vitruvius, created for a planned Italian edition of Ten Books on Architecture. Public domain ### The Basilicas, the Provinces, and the Question of Date Another dating clue is found in passage 5.1.6, where Vitruvius claims to have built the basilica at *Fanum Fortunae*. Granger defends the authenticity of this passage, which some earlier critics had questioned. Since Fanum is probably an Augustan foundation, this activity reinforces a post-27 BCE context. Vitruvius’s statement that: > “the state was enlarged with provinces through you” may refer to the additions of Egypt, [Galatia](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/), or the reorganization of the Spanish provinces—all of which took place between 27 and 25 BCE. Baldwin treats this as further support for a late 20s BCE composition. Elsewhere, Vitruvius speaks of Lucretius, Cicero, and Varro as authors with more enduring authority than their contemporaries. Since Varro died in 27 BCE, the passage must have been written afterward. ![Illustration of the pseudodipteral temple type, connected to Renaissance studies of Vitruvius and the Sangallo family, whose members were deeply engaged in interpreting and illustrating his Ten Books on Architecture](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Illustration-of-the-pseudodipteral-temple-type--connected-to-Renaissance-studies-of-Vitruvius-and-the-Sangallo-family--whose-members-were-deeply-engaged-in-interpreting-and-illustrating-his-Ten-Books-on-Architecture.jpg) Illustration of the pseudodipteral temple type, connected to Renaissance studies of Vitruvius and the Sangallo family, whose members were deeply engaged in interpreting and illustrating his Ten Books on Architecture. Public domain ### Name and Identity of Vitruvius The full name “Vitruvius Pollio” is not securely attested in ancient sources. Manuscripts refer to him simply as “Vitruvius.” The name “Pollio” appears in the later epitome by Faventinus, who wrote “*Vitruvius Polio and other authors*.” Baldwin entertains Granger’s suggestion that “Polio” may refer instead to Asinius Pollio, suggesting that Faventinus might be listing two separate authors. Another fringe theory identifies Vitruvius with Mamurra, [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/)’s notoriously decadent *praefectus fabrum*. Baldwin finds this unconvincing: Vitruvius never claims any special intimacy with Caesar—only that he had been “notus”-known. Furthermore, the Mamurra of Catullan invective is hard to reconcile with the frugal, technocratic Vitruvius, who emphasizes cost-efficiency and modesty. ![An engraving of Vitruvius by Jacopo Bernardi (engraver) and Vincenzo Raggio (painter)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/An-engraving-of-Vitruvius-by-Jacopo-Bernardi--engraver--and-Vincenzo-Raggio--painter-.jpg) An engraving of Vitruvius by Jacopo Bernardi (engraver) and Vincenzo Raggio (painter). Public domain ### Was He African? Some inscriptions and grammatical oddities once led scholars to place Vitruvius in Africa, but Baldwin convincingly argues for an Italian origin. Vitruvius shows deep affection for the Italian landscape: [Pozzolana](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-concrete-stronger-self-healing-and-built-to-last-forever/) quarries, Appennine sands, Amiternum stone, and curative waters at Ardea and Velia all receive detailed attention. He praises Italian [wines](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/), discusses [Roman engineering](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-engineering-the-backbone-of-an-empire/), and rarely shows the same intimacy with foreign regions. While he recounts a conversation with Gaius Julius, son of Massinissa, and offers a memorable epigram—*Africa parens et nutrix ferarum bestiarum*— Africa, mother and nurse of wild beasts , his tone is detached, even ironic. Baldwin concludes that Africa was not Vitruvius’s homeland, and his knowledge of the East likely came from firsthand travel, especially to cities like [Ephesus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/). Despite the uncertainties around his life, Vitruvius does leave us one personal sketch. At the opening of Book II, Vitruvius presents himself as old, ugly, and frail: > “staturam non tribuit natura, faciem deformavit aetas, valetudo detraxit vires” > Nature did not grant me stature, age disfigured my face, and poor health took away my strength. He remembers his parents with affection, grateful for their provision of both literary and practical education. His admiration for Cicero, Lucretius, and Varro is evident throughout De Architectura. He echoes Lucretius on atoms and humanity’s evolution, and quotes Cicero directly in places. Despite his ambitions, Vitruvius never exaggerates his status. Of [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/) he writes only “I had been known \[to him\]”, and he attributes his career stability to the patronage of Augustus’s sister—likely Octavia, who died in 11 BCE. This suggests a terminus ante quem—the latest possible date. His duties, ambiguously described as “*recognitionem*”—the duty of inspection, may refer to surveying or military engineering. Baldwin emphasizes that we do not fully understand the job title—Latin dictionaries treat *recognitio* inconsistently—and we cannot determine whether Vitruvius held a civic or strictly military role. Baldwin closes with a note of intellectual humility. Despite the abundance of modern theories, “*Vitruvius ultimately remains an enigma*.” He occupies a space between practice and theory, Republican ideals and Augustan politics, artisan and rhetorician. What emerges from De Architectura is not a memoir, but the voice of a man who sought to raise architecture to a disciplined, dignified profession—one supported not by rank or spectacle, but by order, discourse, and memory. (*The Date, Identity, and Career of Vitruvius, by Barry Baldwin*) ![Leonardo da Vinci's famous Vitruvian Man, was created as a study of the ideal proportions of the human body, based on the writings of the Roman architect Vitruvius](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Leonardo-da-Vinci-s-famous-Vitruvian-Man--was-created-as-a-study-of-the-ideal-proportions-of-the-human-body--based-on-the-writings-of-the-Roman-architect-Vitruvius.jpg) Leonardo da Vinci's famous Vitruvian Man, was created as a study of the ideal proportions of the human body, based on the writings of the Roman architect Vitruvius. Public domain ## Vitruvius and the Invention of Architectural Discourse Vitruvius’s De Architectura, written around 30 BCE, stands as the oldest surviving treatise on architecture. Unlike other ancient technical writings, it was unique in grounding architectural practice in abstract, predominantly [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) metaphysical concepts. This philosophical ambition is likely what ensured its preservation into the modern era—while other architectural treatises were lost, Vitruvius’s survived. Ironically, in the actual field of architecture, its influence has been modest. During the Renaissance, more attention was given to the later and more narrowly technical writings of *Palladius Rutilius Taurus Aemilianus* (c. 400 CE), whose straightforward approach resonated more with the practical needs of the time. Architects, like writers of any craft, tended to prefer sources that reflected their own stylistic and intellectual priorities. Palladius's limited scope may have offered more appeal to Renaissance minds than Vitruvius’s philosophical complexity. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Vitruvius-de-Architectura-in-Rivius---s-richly-illustrated-German-edition--published-in-Gothic-script.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Illustration-of-ancient-Roman-hoisting-mechanisms---windlasses--pulleys--wheels--and-ropes---used-to-lift-heavy-building-materials--with-tools-for-hewing--hammering--and-chopping-scattered-in-the-foreground.jpg) 🏛️ Vitruvius de Architectura in Rivius’s richly illustrated German edition, published in Gothic script, with an illustration of ancient Roman hoisting mechanisms—windlasses, pulleys, wheels, and ropes—used to lift heavy building materials, with tools for hewing, hammering, and chopping scattered in the foreground. **Public domain* ### A Rhetorical Shift: Technology as Language, Not Law Vitruvius’s real legacy lies not in his impact on building techniques but in the literary form he gave to architecture. De Architectura stood out as a textual model—discursive yet occasionally systematic, formal and critically engaged. In this, it helped shape what would become the modern understanding of “technology”—not as a natural consequence of necessity, but as a mode of thinking governed by systems of justification and external criteria. Technology, as presented in Vitruvius’s text, did not emerge purely from practical knowledge or theoretical science. Instead, it took shape through the framing of making as a discursive subject, reliant on conventions and rhetorical structures. His work anticipated the idea of technical knowledge as something constructed through language, not simply discovered through experience. This approach challenged the assumption that technology is rooted in scientific autonomy. Vitruvius’s writing reveals that technology does not arise from immutable laws or metaphysical certainties but rather from the deliberate codification of practice through discourse. While such knowledge may seem grounded in practical understanding, it is often fragmented, borrowed, or indirect. His work implies that what we now call “technology” is not a body of objective knowledge but a cultural device shaped by human intention and expression. The systematization of technical activity was not about uncovering universal truths but about introducing these activities into the realm of language, argument, and evaluation. ![Frescoes from the Villa della Farnesina, now in the Palazzo Massimo. Triclinium C, a winter dining room, follows Vitruvius’s advice that dark colors be used to absorb and retain heat during the colder months](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Frescoes-from-the-Villa-della-Farnesina--now-in-the-Palazzo-Massimo.-Triclinium-C--a-winter-dining-room--follows-Vitruvius---s-advice-that-dark-colors-be-used-to-absorb-and-retain-heat-during-the-colder-months.jpg) Frescoes from the Villa della Farnesina, now in the Palazzo Massimo. Triclinium C, a winter dining room, follows Vitruvius’s advice that dark colors be used to absorb and retain heat during the colder months. Credits: Frederique Harmsze, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ### Architecture Enters the Latin World Critics of Vitruvius have long focused on his peculiar use of language. Even in the 15th century, Leon Battista Alberti noted that his Latin felt foreign to both Greek and Roman readers. Many historians have remarked that the Latin of De Architectura is at times barely Latin at all. Yet what his style lacked in elegance, it aimed to recover through purpose. His rhetorical strategy was not accidental. Following Cicero’s guidance on stylistic propriety, Vitruvius seems to have selected a register that matched the practical, grounded subject of architecture. One of his 20th-century translators we aforementioned, Frank Granger, observed that his language closely resembled everyday spoken Latin, similar to [graffiti](https://romanempiretimes.com/whispers-on-the-walls-graffiti-as-a-voice-of-ancient-rome/) found in [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/). Despite his repeated apologies for his lack of literary polish, Vitruvius demonstrates mastery over his content. His use of rhetorical structure and [Stoic moral concepts](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/)—like decor (appropriateness)—shows his intention to frame architectural judgment as a matter of ethical and stylistic choice. > Vitruvius did not merely compile a building manual. > > His inclusion of critical values reveals a more ambitious project. > > Earlier architectural texts, such as those by the Greek architect Hermogenes, were likely reference manuals—lists and diagrams designed for trained practitioners, often rooted in the scholarly traditions of the Alexandrian Museum. Vitruvius certainly inherited and borrowed from these Greek precedents, as shown by the [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-greek-glory-to-roman-spectacle-the-olympic-games-evolution/) terminology he retained and the evident presence of lecture-style passages in his work. But his goal was different. He sought to create a Latin architectural vocabulary and a coherent framework for practice. While his technical explanations were often inconsistent and sometimes obscure—leading many later historians to frustration—his primary innovation was not in providing precise geometric instructions but in establishing the rhetorical and conceptual scaffolding for architecture as a public discipline. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Illustration-for-timber-and-the-Species-of-Trees--reflecting-Vitruvius---s-interest-beyond-architecture--detailing-tree-species--their-qualities--and-uses---showing-his-broad-expertise-in-materials-and-natural-sciences.jpg) Illustration for timber and the Species of Trees, reflecting Vitruvius’s interest beyond architecture, detailing tree species, their qualities, and uses—showing his broad expertise in materials and natural sciences ### From Manual to Manifesto The significance of De Architectura lies not in its technical content but in its rhetorical strategy. Rather than guiding practical design in a direct way, Vitruvius set out to bring architecture into the sphere of public Latin discourse. Before him, architecture was largely excluded from mainstream Roman intellectual life. Its elements lacked proper terminology and theoretical structure. Without such language, Vitruvius argued, one could not form judgments based on decor or produce meaningful narratives—what he called *historia*. His treatise aimed to correct that absence. Only after establishing this new discursive framework did he turn to the more detailed concerns of proportion, measurement, and construction. His ambition becomes even clearer when considering the circumstances under which he wrote. In the introduction to De Architectura, as already mentioned, Vitruvius states that he as already an old man, formerly known to Julius Caesar and supported by Octavia, the sister of Augustus. He had worked in civil architecture and was financially secure in retirement. He wrote not for [money](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/), but to promote his name and to argue for higher standards in [Roman building practice](https://romanempiretimes.com/insulae-apartment-buildings-ancient-rome-romans/). His treatise was a polemic disguised as a technical guide—a contribution to Augustus’s civic reforms, framed as a formal intervention in the discourse of the age. To elevate Roman architecture, one did not simply list techniques; one needed a rhetorical intervention that could resonate with elite readers and shape the intellectual framework of civic life. ![View of the Olympeion in southern Athens, between the Acropolis and the Ilissos River—one of the greatest temples of Zeus and, as Vitruvius noted, among the most famous marble buildings ever built](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/View-of-the-Olympeion-in-southern-Athens--between-the-Acropolis-and-the-Ilissos-River---one-of-the-greatest-temples-of-Zeus-and--as-Vitruvius-noted--among-the-most-famous-marble-buildings-ever-built-1.jpg) View of the Olympeion in southern Athens, between the Acropolis and the Ilissos River—one of the greatest temples of Zeus and, as Vitruvius noted, among the most famous marble buildings ever built. Credits: lightups, CC BY-NC 2.0 ### The Real Legacy: Writing as Technology In this light, De Architectura emerges as a work not of architectural metaphysics, but of architectural language. Its true contribution to Western history lies in its transformation of building into discourse. The book’s significance does not reside in its metaphysical claims or technical rules—these were common enough in antiquity. What was truly innovative was its use of rhetorical and linguistic values to evaluate and organize the built environment. It was the creation of a new kind of **public, reflective architectural expression**. By opening the language of architecture to critique, judgment, and structured argument, Vitruvius invented the template for all future technical writing. He redefined architectural practice not through diagrams or dogma, but through the grammar of discourse. In doing so, he subverted the esoteric nature of earlier building knowledge. His rhetorical structure dissolved secrecy and invited participation, bringing technical practices into an elitist but visible public sphere. The criticism often aimed at the book’s loose structure—its shifts in topic, its lack of clear headings—misses the point. De Architectura was never meant to be a simple instructional text. It was a codification of how architecture might be made intelligible to reasoned debate. It echoed the structure of a rhetorical treatise, ascending in complexity and seeking to persuade not just through content, but through the very act of articulation. In this, Vitruvius did not merely record how buildings were made—he showed how building itself could become a way of thinking. (*What Vitruvius Said, by Richard Patterson*) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/From-Vitruvius-Scoticus--Hamilton-Palace-South--Court--Front.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/From-Vitruvius-Danske--Facade-of-Christiansborg-Castle-to-the-Main-Entrance.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/From-Vitruvius-Britannicus--the-Elevation-of-Wilberry-House-in-the-County-of-Wilt--the-Seat-of-William-Benson.jpg) 🏛️ Gallery featuring architectural sketches from Vitruvius Britannicus, Vitruvius Scoticus, and Vitruvius Danske — works inspired by Roman architect Vitruvius and his De Architectura, applying his classical principles respectively to British, Scottish, and Danish architecture, as an homage to his De Architectura. ****Image #1**: From Vitruvius Scoticus, Hamilton Palace South (Court) Front ****Image #2**: From Vitruvius Danske, Facade of Christiansborg Castle to the Main Entrance ****Image #3**: From Vitruvius Britannicus, the Elevation of Wilberry House in the County of Wilt, the Seat of William Benson **All images are Public domain* --- What eventually endures in Vitruvius is not a catalogue of construction techniques but a vision of architecture as a civic and intellectual discipline. He transformed building into something that could be argued, judged, and remembered—shifting it from the hands of artisans into the realm of cultural memory. De Architectura is not just the first architectural treatise we possess; it is the first to insist that **the act of building belongs in language**, that **the shaping of cities is inseparable from the shaping of thought**. In this way, Vitruvius did not simply write the rules—he invented the conversation. ### The Senate of Rome, Senatus Populusque Romanus: Backbone of a Republic, Shadow of an Empire URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-senate-of-rome-senatus-populusque-romanus-backbone-of-a-republic-shadow-of-an-empire/ Last updated: 2025-08-07T23:46:50.000Z It began as a council of elders — a gathering of wise men advising [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)'s earliest kings. Yet over the centuries, the Senate of Rome evolved into the Republic’s anchor and, later, the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/)’s echo. From fierce debates under the open sky of the *Comitium* to the hushed formality of imperial senatorial decrees, the Senate was both a stage for politics and a symbol of Roman identity. Revered, feared, manipulated, and at times ignored, it endured across regimes, wielding power or serving as ornament — always present, rarely powerless for long. 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in February 2024\. It was updated in August 2025.* ![Cicero Denounces Catiline, by Cesare Maccari, 1889](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/02/Cicer-n_denuncia_a_Catilina-_por_Cesare_Maccari.jpg) Cicero Denounces Catiline, by Cesare Maccari, 1889\. Public Domain ### How Rome Built Its Senate? The Roman Senate traces its legendary origins to the [founding of Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-and-remus-the-legendary-founders-of-rome/) in 753 BCE, traditionally established by [Romulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-romulus-kill-remus-the-tragic-tale-of-the-founders-of-rome/) with 100 noble members. This number was later said to have increased to 300 under the Tarquins, forming the foundation of a political body that, while evolving in role and power, endured in various forms for over a millennium. Initially, during the monarchy, the Senate served as an advisory council to the king, composed of elder statesmen (*senes*) whose wisdom guided decision-making in a preliterate society. During the Republic, senators were drawn from [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s elite families, typically after holding a magistracy. While the exact size of the Senate in the early Republic is unclear, by the Middle Republic it was around 300 members. The designation *patres et conscripti* reflects the early division between patrician founders and later appointees, including [plebeians](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/). The Senate played a dominant role in directing state policy, even though formal sovereignty lay with the Roman people. It issued senatus consulta—advisory decrees—upon being convened by a magistrate. These decrees, while not technically laws, often guided magistrates' actions or influenced legislative proposals brought before the people. ### A Council of Kings: The Roman Senate Between Prestige and Power When Cineas, the ambassador of King Pyrrhus, returned from Rome in 279 BCE after an unsuccessful diplomatic mission, he famously remarked that: > “the Senate appeared to him to be a council of many kings” Plutarch, [*Pyrrhus 19.5*](https://amzn.to/4mxFAfh?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ![Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, Roman copy of Greek original, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Pyrrhus-_king_of_Epirus-_Roman_copy_of_Greek_original-_Ny_Carlsberg_Glyptotek-_Copenhagen_-36283569631---1-.jpg) Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, Roman copy of Greek original, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen. Credits: Richard Mortel, CC BY 2.0 This comment, widely repeated in ancient literature, captured both the senators’ collective dignity and their political authority. It also underscored the paradox of describing a republican body with monarchical language, revealing how Roman political identity blurred traditional [Greco-Roman](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) categories of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Polybius, writing in the second century BCE, interpreted the Roman Republic as a mixed constitution, combining the three classical forms of government — a concept he adapted from Aristotle. He viewed the Senate as the stabilizing aristocratic element, central to Rome’s political resilience and imperial success. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) later echoed this view, praising the Senate as the Republic’s guardian: > “They wished that the magistrates should avail themselves of the authority of this order, and that they should be almost the servants of this most august council” Despite the lack of a formal constitution, institutional functions were documented through procedural laws and surviving accounts of political practice. Key legal texts, such as the *lex Publilia* of 339 and the *lex Cornelia* of 67, outlined the Senate’s role in the legislative process. Much of what is known, however, comes from narratives like [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/)’s detailed year-by-year accounts between 218 and 167 BCE, inscriptions like the *senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus*, and diplomatic decrees engraved in stone by Greek cities recognizing Senate decisions. The later Republican period, particularly from 70 BCE onward, is enriched by sources such as Cicero’s speeches and letters, procedural treatises like Varro’s for [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/), and historical works by [Sallust](https://romanempiretimes.com/sallust-details-on-the-historian-of-roman-elite-and-the-republic-decline/), [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/), and others. These reveal the Senate’s operational character—its procedures, internal debates, and influence—complementing earlier 19th-century institutional studies by scholars like Mommsen and Willems. ![Bronze tablet found 1640 in Tiriolo, Calabria. Now at the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Text shows the Senatus consultum de bacchanalibus, ca. 186 BC.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/senatus-consultum.jpg) Bronze tablet found 1640 in Tiriolo, Calabria. Now at the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Text shows the Senatus consultum de bacchanalibus, ca. 186 BC. Public domain However, the Senate’s real significance lay not only in its formal functions but in its daily political activity, its ability to issue binding *senatus consulta*, and the cultural authority it wielded despite its advisory role. This realization prompted newer scholarly approaches from the 1980s onward, focusing on foreign policy, deliberative dynamics, and the political interplay between magistrates and the Senate. Conversely, Fergus Millar’s (a British ancient historian and academic) influential work shifted the focus toward popular assemblies and the Republic’s democratic dimensions, temporarily sidelining interest in the Senate’s inner workings. Still, the Senate remains key to understanding how Rome’s political elite—its [*nobilitas*](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/)—exercised influence not only through elections and patronage but also through the rhythms of deliberation and decision-making within the Curia. ### Debate and Authority: How the Roman Senate Reached its Decisions Despite the formal structure of its meetings, the Roman Senate functioned as a space where animated and even spontaneous debate was not only permitted but expected. Every session was led by a magistrate who structured the discussion: convening the body, setting the topic, polling members in order, proposing motions, and overseeing the vote. While this might suggest top-down control, in practice, the magistrate generally refrained from influencing individual opinions — a norm respected even during politically charged periods like the late Republic. Nevertheless, influence could be exerted subtly. Prominent figures such as Pompey and [Crassus](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/) employed proxies to put forward their favored motions. The power to appoint the *primus rogatus* gave magistrates additional leverage, as illustrated by [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) in 59 BCE when he replaced Crassus with Pompey following a political marriage alliance. Yet senators guarded their independence: being asked to speak first was an honor, but one with the expectation of individual judgment. The *ius sententiae*, or right to express an opinion, allowed senators—particularly those of higher rank—to speak freely, sometimes before being formally invited, or to amend their positions as the debate progressed. Historical examples abound: in 204 BCE, senators demanded to be heard on punishing Latin colonies, and in 63 BCE, during the debate on Catiline’s conspirators, some like Silanus even reversed their stance after hearing others' arguments. Senators could submit pre-written proposals, as Cicero once did, and demanded procedural checks such as quorum verification. ![Painting by Federico Faruffini - Catilina](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Federico_Faruffini_-_Catilina--1-.jpg) Painting by Federico Faruffini - Catilina. Public domain The final text of a *senatus consultum* reflected the prevailing motion, often introduced with the phrase “***the decree of the Senate was passed according to the proposal of x***”. One of the most vivid examples of senatorial deliberation remains the session of December 63 BCE, where differing opinions clashed in real time: - Silanus ( a roman senator) initially proposed execution, Caesar advocated imprisonment, and [Cato](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-younger-the-last-roman-of-the-republic/), speaking last, swung the mood back to Silanus’ view amid outbursts of applause and protest. - Cicero, despite being the presiding magistrate, also voiced his disapproval of [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/)’s stance — a move highlighting the fluidity of roles within such debates. Toward the end of the Republic, even the tribunician veto, which could block decrees, was strategically bypassed. In 51 BCE, the Senate began drafting *senatus consulta* despite expected opposition — a tactic aimed at preserving institutional momentum and asserting the Senate’s supremacy. The label given to these preemptively prepared texts, *senatus auctoritas*, underscored the enduring moral authority of the body, which was not so easily undone by procedural roadblocks. ### Center of Power or Stage of Struggle? The Senate’s Place in the Roman Republic Defining the Senate’s institutional role in the Roman Republic is complex. While Roman political theory emphasized the Senate’s *auctoritas*, this authority manifested chiefly through relationships—with magistrates, popular assemblies, and foreign envoys. Polybius saw Rome’s political system as a mixed constitution whose balance depended on mutual constraints between aristocracy (the Senate), monarchy (magistrates), and democracy (assemblies). While modern historians still use this model, they increasingly examine the practical cooperation among institutions over confrontations. The Senate’s daily operations unfolded at the heart of Rome’s civic space, in close proximity to tribunes and assemblies. Though its meetings were formally closed to the public, the public was frequently informed via *contiones* (the contio was an ad hoc public assembly in [Ancient Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/some-recipes-date-back-to-ancient-rome-french-toast-foie-gras-and-braised-flamingo/), which existed during the monarchy as well as in the Roman Republic and [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/)) and later, through the publication of *acta senatus*—a reform initiated by Caesar. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/A-possible-representation-of-a-Roman-Senator-listening-to-a-fellow-colleague-while-he-is-speaking-to-the-Senate.jpg) ## The Senate’s influence was most visible in foreign policy, where it worked in tandem with magistrates to receive envoys, assign military commands, authorize peace treaties, and manage provincial territories. **A possible representation of a Roman Senator listening to a fellow colleague while he is speaking to the Senate. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney* In domestic politics, the Senate verified candidates for office and advised on laws, even after its legal involvement was no longer required. Tribunes sometimes withdrew *rogationes* (in the Roman Republic, a *rogatio* is a proposed piece of legislation — all legislation during the Republic was moved before an assembly of the people)*,* in the face of senatorial opposition or amended them under pressure. In other cases, senators countered tribunes with alternative proposals. However, tensions could escalate: Caesar, when faced with Senate resistance, bypassed the chamber altogether and took his laws directly to the people, marking a shift that Cassius Dio viewed as undermining traditional constitutional norms. Throughout the Republic, the Senate’s influence waxed and waned, subject to broader political currents. While some scholars view its authority as gradually eroded by populist challenges and strong generals, others highlight its enduring centrality to Roman governance well into the late Republic. ### From Ascendancy to Adaptation: The Senate's Journey Through the Middle and Late Republic The Senate’s undisputed dominance during the so-called ‘middle Republic’—roughly from the early third century BCE to the [Gracchi](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-gracchi-brothers-visionaries-or-socialist-revolutionaries/)—traced its origins to a critical reform, the *lex Ovinia*, which transferred the authority of appointing senators from [consuls](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-consuls-in-ancient-rome-a-pillar-of-republican-governance/) to [censors](https://romanempiretimes.com/guarding-the-word-speech-censorship-and-power-in-ancient-rome/). This shift solidified the Senate as a stable, autonomous institution with enduring authority. Livy’s accounts from the [Hannibalic War](https://romanempiretimes.com/hannibal-ad-portas-how-37-african-elephants-crossed-the-alps/) period illustrate the Senate’s commanding role in both military strategy and Mediterranean diplomacy, a capacity Polybius admired as the Republic’s most refined constitutional moment. Institutional reforms also regulated the *nobilitas*, curbing electoral excesses and codifying senatorial advancement, while reinforcing the internal hierarchy dominated by *consulares*. However, this golden age was later viewed through a nostalgic lens, with Sallust describing it as a time of moderation and harmony. Its decline began with the rise of the *populares* after 133 BCE, whose legislative victories against senatorial will, judicial reforms, and use of political violence fractured elite consensus and marginalized the Senate’s role—especially in foreign affairs. In response, the Senate developed tools such as the *senatus consultum ultimum*, claiming a renewed moral authority in times of crisis. The expansion of Rome's empire both enabled and undermined senatorial power. Sallust and Cassius Dio identified growing wealth disparities, institutional strain, and the Senate’s inability to govern an expanding empire as root causes of systemic dysfunction. ![Senatus PopulusQue Romanus, or most well known as SPQR](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Senatus-PopulusQue-Romanus--or-most-well-known-as-SPQR.jpg) Senatus PopulusQue Romanus, or most well known as SPQR. Credits: Max Sat, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Sulla’s later reforms aimed to restore senatorial supremacy by weakening the tribunes and enlarging the Senate, but the influx of less experienced members diluted its cohesion. From 70 to 50 BCE, the Senate continued to assert itself, especially in foreign policy and legal definitions of public enemies, even as military strongmen like Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar bypassed its authority. Despite its diminishing power, the Senate’s symbolic value endured. The senatus consultum ultimum remained a potent ideological tool, and figures like Caesar still paid rhetorical homage to the Senate’s auctoritas. Tacitus later reflected this continuity when he portrayed Emperor Otho framing the Senate as the custodian of the Republic’s legacy. Ultimately, as Talbert notes, the Senate did not dissolve into irrelevance with the end of political liberty, but instead adapted, preserving its prestige through ritual, symbolism, and tradition. (*"The Senate" by Marianne Coudry, in "*[*A Companion to the Political Culture of the Roman Republic*](https://amzn.to/41tX2t7?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*"*) ### The Illusion of Recovery: Sulla’s Legacy and the Senate’s Last Struggle for Coherence Despite the apparent restoration of senatorial supremacy after 70 BCE, deeper structural weaknesses remained. The expansion of the Senate under Sulla had brought with it an unintended consequence: a sharp division between ambitious office-holders and a larger body of men whose public role consisted only of jury duty and debate attendance. This bifurcation weakened cohesion and diluted the Senate’s functional capacity. Many of Sulla’s appointees never progressed beyond the quaestorship, creating what some scholars describe as a senatorial “*penumbra*” — a silent majority excluded from true political power. ![Painting by  Benjamin Ulmann. This is a depiction of an event that took place in 88 BC, when the consul Lucius Cornelius Sulla was forced by a mob led by the tribune of the plebs Sulpicius to seek shelter in the house of Gaius Marius. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Sulla.jpg) Painting by Benjamin Ulmann. This is a depiction of an event that took place in 88 BC, when the consul Lucius Cornelius Sulla was forced by a mob led by the tribune of the plebs Sulpicius to seek shelter in the house of Gaius Marius. Public domain Even the return of the tribunate and the harsh censorial purge of 70 BCE, which expelled dozens of senators, failed to address the imbalance. The Senate remained a bloated, uneven body, unable to act decisively as factionalism deepened. Procedural inefficiency, bribery, and political gridlock became common. Though it retained its outward grandeur, the institution had begun to hollow from within — a fate sealed not by a single event, but by an accumulation of design flaws that even tradition could no longer conceal. (*From Ascendancy to Adaptation: The Senate's Journey Through the Middle and Late Republic, by Catherine Steel*) ### Was the Roman Senate Still Powerful Under the Emperors? Between 30 BCE and 238 CE, the Roman Senate underwent significant transformation. The former date marks [Octavian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/)’s consolidation of power after years of civil war and his eventual rise as [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/), initiating the Principate. The latter year, 238 CE, represents a natural stopping point, as literary sources grow sparse and the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/) enters a phase of exceptional instability, leading to a restructured imperial system. During this period, the Senate’s membership evolved, and senators took on varied official responsibilities under imperial oversight. Although many scholars have explored individual careers and the Senate’s relationship with the emperor, less attention has been paid to how the Senate functioned as a collective institution during the Principate. This aspect has remained understudied, with few comprehensive works dedicated to its procedural operations. Even in the 19th century, while T. Mommsen addressed senatorial activity within his broader constitutional study, he largely dismissed the Senate’s imperial role, convinced that the Roman state had become “utterly withered and dead” following [Caesar’s dictatorship](https://romanempiretimes.com/mistress-of-rome-servilia-caesar-and-the-politics-of-passion/). Later reference works likewise neglected the corporate functions of the Senate in this era or treated them only briefly and without detail. The decline of the Senate’s authority during the Principate is undeniable. The erosion of its political power had begun in the late Republic but became lasting and systemic under imperial rule. The institutional downgrading was compounded by a severe loss of source material: the *acta senatus*, the *Lex Julia de senatu habendo* from 9 BCE, most *senatus consulta*, and the legal commentaries on these acts are all largely lost. Few senatorial speeches have survived in full, and no complete record exists of the proceedings from a single meeting, leaving the scope and variety of Senate business difficult to reconstruct. Yet, despite the curtailment of its autonomy and prestige, the Senate did not fade into irrelevance. Its persistence in a diminished but still operational capacity represents a notable historical paradox. In many ways, the Senate of the Principate resembled other constrained political bodies in ancient and modern history, limited in authority but institutionally resilient. Though the source material is fragmentary, the available evidence for the Senate’s procedures during the first and early second centuries CE is surprisingly rich. In contrast to the Athenian Assembly, whose workings are largely known through outcomes rather than processes, the Senate of this period benefits from descriptive accounts by [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) and [Pliny the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/). Pliny detailed meetings he personally attended, while Tacitus, it is argued, drew heavily from the acta senatus, established in 59 BCE. Although this record no longer survives, Tacitus’ accounts may offer a reflection of its structure and content. Other literary sources—[Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/), Fronto, Dio Cassius, and the imperial biographies of [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) and the [*Historia Augusta*](https://amzn.to/45ljMwA?ref=romanempiretimes.com)—also shed light on the Senate’s dynamics and the emperor’s stance toward it. Non-literary sources add further depth. [Coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/), papyri, legal texts, archaeological finds, and inscriptions—particularly those uncovered during the 20th-century restoration of the Curia Julia—offer additional data. ![The Curia Julia was the home of the Roman Senate. Its construction was begun during the reign of Julius Caesar in 44 BC but interrupted after his assassination. It was completed in 29 BC under the reign of his successor, Augustus.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/curia-julia--1-.jpg) The Curia Julia was the home of the Roman Senate. Its construction was begun during the reign of Julius Caesar in 44 BC but interrupted after his assassination. It was completed in 29 BC under the reign of his successor, Augustus. Credits: daryl\_mitchell, CC BY-SA 2.0 Epigraphic material on senatorial activity is especially abundant, though previously uncollected and unanalyzed in a focused manner. Legal texts, while often fragmentary, contain excerpts from jurists active between 100 and 250 CE, providing considerable information about the legislative output of the Senate. ### From Census to Curia: Who Could Enter Rome’s Senate Under the Emperors? Understanding the operation of the Roman Senate during the Principate begins with knowing who its members were, how they were chosen, and what rules governed their entry and progression. Admission was restricted to freeborn Roman citizens of sound standing: > —“conviction under the *Lex Julia de vi privata* barred a man from any position of honor or responsibility, including membership of the senate.” Marcianus Marcianus was a Roman jurist from the early 3rd century CE. (*he is the source for this legal stipulation, which appears in the Digest of Justinian, a 6th-century compilation of earlier Roman legal writings — Marcianus' work, often excerpted in the Digest, addressed senatorial eligibility and legal restrictions such as those imposed by the Lex Julia de vi privata — a law concerning private violence*) Physical condition mattered as well: Ulpian (*a Roman jurist*) asserted that: > “a blind man could not seek any further office” Though he could retain his rank. Augustus introduced two notable changes around 18 BCE: raising the property qualification to one million HS, (*HS stands for sestertius (sestertii in plural), a common unit of Roman currency — the abbreviation HS comes from the Latin "HS" or "IIS", which stood for "duo et semis", meaning "two and a half" — a reference to its original value of 2.5 asses (another Roman coin).* Dio observed that: > “even the sons and grandsons of senators…not only would not lay claim to senatorial dignity, but also if chosen rejected it on oath.” Despite these restrictions, emperors often helped promising individuals bridge the gap. > “For most of them he \[Augustus\] made up the required census,” Cassius Dio, Book 54, Chapter 17, [*Roman History*](https://amzn.to/4m0xmMY?ref=romanempiretimes.com) and later emperors followed suit. While access was largely through magistracies such as the *vigintivirate* and the quaestorship, emperors could also use adlection—granting rank without the need for election. Claudius, the first emperor known to have used this method, did so sparingly. Later emperors, like [Vespasian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/) and [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/), used it more freely but never to “pack” the Senate with loyalists. Even so, as early as Gaius’ reign, there existed a recognizable “senatorial class,” shaped by imperial favor, aristocratic networks, and carefully preserved traditions. ([*The Senate of Imperial Rome*](https://amzn.to/4macy5U?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Richard J .A. Talbert*) --- Across the centuries, the Roman Senate weathered conquest, civil war, and constitutional upheaval. From its origins as a royal council to its transformation under emperors, it adapted—sometimes reluctantly, often imperfectly—but never disappeared. Though stripped of legislative supremacy and relegated to the margins of real power, it continued to perform ritual, confer legitimacy, and represent the memory of republican ideals. The emperors who sidelined it still addressed it, adorned it, and, when convenient, feared its judgment. In the end, the Senate survived not by command but by continuity—its very presence reminding Romans that **authority could evolve**, but **tradition never truly vanished**. ### The Art of Poison in the Roman Empire URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-art-of-poison-in-the-roman-empire/ Last updated: 2026-02-03T12:58:10.000Z From the flick of a perfumed vial to the sprinkle of a deadly powder, poison haunted the corridors of Roman power like an [invisible assassin](https://romanempiretimes.com/locusta-of-gaul-the-imperial-poisoner-of-ancient-rome/). More than a tool of murder, it became a metaphor for corruption—quiet, insidious, and devastatingly effective. In a world where emperors feared their own physicians and women were suspected chemists of death, poison was both a weapon and a warning, binding medicine, myth, and political terror into a single, chilling art. ### Plants, Poisons, and Roman Perceptions Rooted in their agrarian lifestyle, the Romans developed an intricate understanding of plant life—both as sustenance and threat. This close relationship with the natural world meant they were attuned to the subtle boundary between healing and harming. They knew that nature could provide nourishment, but also harbor potent agents of death. Across medical texts and natural histories, there runs a consistent theme: plants are powerful, unpredictable, and demand respect. The language used to describe poisons reflects this ambivalence. Romans often blurred the line between medicine and toxin, viewing many substances as capable of both harm and healing depending on use and dose. This conceptual overlap explains why their terminology was imprecise—sometimes relying on context or tradition more than pharmacological accuracy. Writers like [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) and Dioscorides compiled vast lists of herbs and minerals that could kill or cure, and even early Roman law acknowledged the dangers of toxic substances, treating their misuse as a serious social threat. ![A possible representation of a noble Roman woman, checking in secrecy her stash of poisons for every case.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/a-noble-roman-woman-checking-her-stash-of-vials-filled-with-poisons--1.png) A possible representation of a noble Roman woman, checking in secrecy her stash of poisons for every case. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney Yet poison always retained an aura of secrecy—its use often associated with feminine cunning, foreign treachery, or magical manipulation. This Roman perspective on poisoning was therefore not simply medical or legal—it was cultural. Poison sat at the intersection of nature and human intent, where fear, knowledge, and imagination converged. ### A Toxic Legacy In Roman antiquity, poison was not merely a tool of assassination—it was part of a broader cultural awareness of nature’s power to harm as well as heal. Pliny’s [*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/3IXFxv3?ref=romanempiretimes.com) cataloged an astonishing range of substances deemed poisonous, from the infamous hemlock and aconite to more surprising sources like the blood of toads or the bile of wild animals. He wrote with both curiosity and alarm about the ease with which these agents could be transformed from medicine into murder. The Roman attitude toward poison was shaped by their broader medical culture, in which many of the most toxic substances were also therapeutic in measured doses. This duality is reflected in the paradoxical role of the physician-poisoner—a figure who straddled the line between healer and potential assassin. The pharmacological writings of Dioscorides, Galen, and Scribonius Largus likewise display an uneasy respect for toxic flora and fauna, simultaneously describing their lethal properties and therapeutic applications. Roman authors also theorized about poison’s moral and social implications. The use of poison was often associated with cowardice, treachery, and unmanly conduct. Yet it was also widespread enough to suggest a grim practicality: it was a weapon in domestic conflicts, succession plots, and imperial power struggles. The line between natural knowledge and criminal intent was sometimes perilously thin. Pliny, in particular, believed that poisons were often discovered by accident or desperation, writing that: > “it is through human misery that such knowledge was gained.” This view cast poison not as a divine curse, but as the darker byproduct of human curiosity and suffering. ([*The role of poison in Roman society*](https://amzn.to/4lZDOUn?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Cheryl L. Golden*) ### Poison and Political Anxiety in Early Imperial Rome Compared to the Roman Republic, the early Imperial period witnessed a notable rise in recorded poisonings. Traditionally, scholars have emphasized the connection between [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) and poison—both as users and perpetrators. Yet this association is problematic. Women were not the only ones to employ poison, and not all accounts of poisoning are historically credible. By interrogating the plausibility of these incidents, we may also question the motivations of ancient authors. Scholars like Cilliers and Retief argue that poison often served as a narrative tool during times of political turmoil, not just to explain events, but to signify a collapse of traditional Roman values. It is interesting to see how poisonings were depicted in Roman historical and literary sources, before focusing on two famous cases: the deaths of [Emperor Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudius-the-unexpected-the-emperor-they-never-saw-coming/) and his son Britannicus. While [the poisoning of Claudius](https://romanempiretimes.com/locusta-of-gaul-the-imperial-poisoner-of-ancient-rome/) appears historically credible, the story of Britannicus may reflect narrative convention more than truth. ![Britannicus, son of the Roman emperor Claudius. Detail of a statue of his mother Messalina. Marble, ca. 45 AD.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/britannicus-louvre--2--1.jpg) Britannicus, son of the Roman emperor Claudius. Detail of a statue of his mother Messalina. Marble, ca. 45 AD. Credits: Gautier Poupeau, CC BY 2.0 ### Veneficium and Roman Conceptions of Poison To evaluate the credibility of ancient poisoning reports, we must understand Roman definitions and representations of poison. The Latin term *venenum* carried several meanings: remedy, poison, or magical/[abortive drug](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/). Its moral weight was determined by adjectives like *bonum* (beneficial) or *malum* (harmful). The related words *veneficium* (poisoning/sorcery) and *veneficus* or *venefica* (a poisoner or drug maker) reinforce the term’s ambiguous scope. Unlike the Greek *pharmakon*, which also had dual connotations, venenum straddled the line between substance and effect. Its etymology remains contested. Some trace it to *vinum* (wine) or *venae* (veins), both means of administration. The most widespread theory connects it to Venus, implying an original link to love potions—a link largely replaced by deadly connotations in Imperial Rome. ### Women and the Poisoning Stereotype Women frequently appear as the principal figures in ancient poisoning narratives. The earliest case, recorded by [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) in 331 BCE, involved 170 matrons accused of poisoning their husbands. He writes: > “Before that day there had never been a public inquiry into charges of poisoning in Rome. The case was regarded as an ill omen, and it appeared that the women’s minds were possessed rather than depraved.” Similar incidents include the [Bacchanalia](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/) scandal (186 BCE), the case of Hostilia who attempted to secure her son’s rise to consul, and later, [Agrippina the Younger’](https://romanempiretimes.com/agrippina-the-younger-the-first-empress-of-rome-in-a-male-dominant-society/)s supposed poisoning of Claudius to ensure [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/)’s succession. Women like Martina and [Locusta](https://romanempiretimes.com/locusta-of-gaul-the-imperial-poisoner-of-ancient-rome/) were even described as professional poisoners, paid to create lethal concoctions. Literature reflects the same bias. Juvenal warns of “Mummy’s poison pies” and satirizes elite women mixing poison with aged wine and toad’s blood. He compares one female poisoner favorably to Locusta for her skill in concealing the corpse. Horace depicts Canidia as using poison to cow her enemies and alludes to dinner guests recoiling from meals as though prepared by her. ![A possible representation of Canidia preparing to poison her dinner guests. For Horace,Canidia was a woman who engaged in magical rites of questionable morality, a kind of saga or maga who symbolized the dark side of religion and power that was the very antithesis of the ethical ideals Augustus was promoting.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/Canidia-by-Horace-1.jpg) A possible representation of Canidia preparing to poison her dinner guests. For Horace,Canidia was a woman who engaged in magical rites of questionable morality, a kind of **saga* or **maga* who symbolized the dark side of religion and power that was the very antithesis of the ethical ideals Augustus was promoting. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Sora Scholars like Currie argue that poison serves as a feminine weapon due to its stealth and subversiveness. It offers women power through secrecy, neutralizing physical disadvantage. Others note its link to the uncanny, associating poison with castration, death, and the collapse of bodily integrity. Still, this framework overstates the gendered monopoly: men also used poison to eliminate rivals and consolidate power. ### Male Poisoners and Moral Ambiguity Historical sources record several men accused of poisoning. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) denounces Oppianicus the elder as a “villain and poisoner” who murdered relatives for gain. Under [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), Nonius Aspernas was charged with poisoning 130 dinner guests. Poison also functioned in sanctioned contexts: Pliny the Elder justifies its use in euthanasia and capital punishment: > “Nay, even poison \[nature\] may be thought to have been invented out of compassion for us... lest we should be tortured by the perverted punishment of the noose.” This shows that poison was not an exclusively female domain. Its presence in Roman life was widespread and often culturally accepted. However, ancient authors were not always convinced by reports of poisoning. Livy admits: > “There is one thing I should very much like to think was falsely put on record—namely, that those whose death made this year notorious for the plague were in fact killed by poison.” ### Narrative Utility: Poison as Explanation and Symbol Cilliers and Retief argue that during political crises, poison was a convenient scapegoat for unexplained deaths. The rise in recorded poisonings during the first century CE reflects not just real events but a literary effort to make sense of upheaval. Galen once remarked that: > “the main difference that lies between nourishing food and a deleterious drug is that the latter masters the forces of the body.” In contrast to battlefield death—glorious and public—poison kills in secret. It strips the victim of honor and robs them of the ability to defend themselves. Poison, then, was more than a method: it was a metaphor for Rome’s moral decline under the Julio-Claudians. ### A Chilling Dinner: The Death of Britannicus The story of Britannicus’ murder is one of the most notorious poisonings of ancient [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)—and perhaps the most theatrically orchestrated. After Claudius’ death, his biological son Britannicus stood as the rightful heir to the imperial throne. But Nero, Claudius’ adopted son, swiftly moved to eliminate his rival. According to [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/), Nero lacked any legitimate accusation against Britannicus and dared not have him openly executed. ![The poisoning of Britannicus, by François Chauveau](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/The-poisoning-of-Britannicus--by-Fran--ois-Chauveau.jpg) The poisoning of Britannicus, by François Chauveau. Public domain Instead, he arranged for a poison to be secretly prepared by the notorious Locusta, a convicted poisoner held in custody for precisely such purposes. The first attempt failed: the poison administered by Britannicus' tutors produced only a purge. Furious, Nero accused Locusta of crafting a mere medicinal tonic, not a true poison. Under his own supervision, she concocted a stronger, fast-acting variant—one tested on animals to ensure its lethality. Suetonius reports that a goat took too long to die, prompting Locusta to fortify the poison before testing it again on a pig, which collapsed instantly. > “Pressed by Agrippina's menaces, having no charge against his brother and not daring openly to order his murder, he meditated a secret device and directed poison to be prepared through the agency of Julius Pollio, tribune of one of the prætorian cohorts, who had in his custody a woman under sentence for poisoning, Locusta by name, with a vast reputation for crime. > > That every one about the person of Britannicus should care nothing for right or honour, had long ago been provided for. > > He actually received his first dose of poison from his tutors and passed it off his bowels, as it was rather weak or so qualified as not at once to prove deadly. > > But Nero, impatient at such slow progress in crime, threatened the tribune and ordered the poisoner to execution for prolonging his anxiety while they were thinking of the popular talk and planning their own defence. > > Then they promised that death should be as sudden as if it were the hurried work of the dagger, and a rapid poison of previously tested ingredients was prepared close to the emperor's chamber." Cornelius Tacitus, [*The Annals*](https://amzn.to/4okPwL1?ref=romanempiretimes.com) At a formal banquet soon after, Britannicus was served a diluted hot [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/) that he refused for being too warm. The poisoned cold water added to it proved fatal. In Tacitus’ chilling words, the poison: > “so penetrated his entire frame that he lost alike voice and breath.” Nero, feigning calm, attributed the boy’s collapse to epilepsy. The assembled guests, initially shocked, resumed their dining as Britannicus died beside them. Agrippina, unaware of the plot, was shaken—realizing this could be a precedent for her own demise. Britannicus’ body was hurriedly buried that same night. Ancient authors like [Dio Cassius](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) claim his corpse was covered in plaster to mask the discoloration of poisoning, though rain allegedly washed it away during the funeral procession. (*"Snow White’s Apple and Claudius’ Mushrooms: A Look at the Use of Poison in the Early Roman Empire", by Connie Galatas. In the Hirundo – The McGill Journal of Classical Studies*) ### A Poisonous Pattern: Early Roman Cases and Growing Anxieties One of the earliest documented instances of poisoning in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/) dates back to 331 BCE, during a time of widespread mortality likely caused by an [epidemic.](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-antonine-plague-devastation-reshaped-roman-empire/) The losses were blamed on poisonings, although Livy himself expressed doubt about the truth of the charges. He nonetheless recorded the account from his sources: a slave-girl informed the *aediles curules* that numerous noblewomen were responsible for the deaths, claiming they had concocted and administered deadly mixtures. Investigators found about twenty matrons, some of patrician rank, preparing brews they claimed were medicinal. When compelled to drink the potions themselves to prove their innocence, they died on the spot. Following this event, another 170 women were condemned for the same crime. Another notable wave of prosecutions took place in 186 BCE amid the suppression of the Bacchanalian cult. After an exhaustive investigation spanning four months and extending across Italy, the praetor Quintus Naevius exposed a massive scandal involving roughly two thousand individuals. Poisoning was among the [crimes](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/) most heavily emphasized in this sweep. Only four years later, another surge in deaths during a pestilence again provoked suspicions. [The Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/) ordered the *praetores* to investigate, especially after prominent figures, including a [consul](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-consuls-in-ancient-rome-a-pillar-of-republican-governance/), had died. ![A possible representation of a table with plants like belladonna alkaloids, e.g. henbane, datura, deadly nightshade and mandrake; aconite from monk's hood; hemlock, hellebore, colchicum (from autumn crocus), yew extract and opium. All used to create poisons. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/amarbletablefullofherbstocreateapoison-1.jpg) A possible representation of a table with plants like belladonna alkaloids, e.g. henbane, datura, deadly nightshade and mandrake; aconite from monk's hood; hemlock, hellebore, colchicum (from autumn crocus), yew extract and opium. All used to create poisons. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney One case focused on Hostilia, the wife of a consul, who was suspected of orchestrating poisonings to advance her son—born of a prior [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/)—toward a consulship. Though convicted on circumstantial evidence, she was executed along with three thousand others. These episodes illustrate both the frequency of such accusations and the tendency to direct blame at women, particularly in times of public fear and sickness. Much like witchcraft allegations in medieval Europe, these charges were often accepted without empirical proof. The absence of chemical testing methods made it impossible to verify poisonings, leaving room for fear and superstition. Nevertheless, Roman moral norms, which were different and perhaps less rigid than ours, combined with a criminal element similar in size to our own, lend plausibility to the recurring charges. By 154 BCE, poisoning had become more common, and even high-ranking men fell victim. That year, two former consuls were reportedly killed by their own wives. From this point onward, the number of poisonings seems to have grown rapidly. In the time of Quintilian, the term *adultera* had become nearly interchangeable with *venefica*, or female poisoner. [Marcus Cato](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/) had already voiced a similar sentiment two centuries earlier, declaring that every adulteress was also a poisoner. Cicero frequently mentioned *venefici* in his orations. Among those linked to Catiline’s circle were known poisoners, and Catiline himself was rumored to have murdered his own son to satisfy Aurelia Orestilla, who hesitated to marry him while the boy lived. In the [*Philippicae*](https://amzn.to/3Hi9yVO?ref=romanempiretimes.com), Cicero referred to a friend of [Mark Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/) who allegedly poisoned his nephew. *Veneficium*—the act of poisoning—was a familiar accusation in marital cases as well. In his [*Pro Cluentio*](https://amzn.to/4mvwakL?ref=romanempiretimes.com), Cicero outlined the story of Oppianicus the Elder, a man he depicted as the very embodiment of a villain and poisoner (*veneficus*). Oppianicus had, according to Cicero, murdered his wife Cluentia, his brother’s pregnant wife Auria (to prevent the birth of an heir), and even his own brother—all in pursuit of inheritance. He had also attempted to bribe a physician’s slave into poisoning Cluentius himself. Cicero went so far as to draw a comparison with a woman from Miletus, who accepted money from prospective heirs and induced an abortion by means of drugs. ![Cicero denouncing Catiline, by Hans Werner Schmidt](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Cicero-denouncing-Catiline--by-Hans-Werner-Schmidt.jpg) Cicero denouncing Catiline, by Hans Werner Schmidt. Credits: Mary Harrsch, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times During the [early Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/), poisoning appears to have become an even more pervasive method of resolving personal and political conflicts. It was used to secure inheritances, eliminate inconvenient husbands or stepsons, or dispose of rivals. Juvenal and Tacitus both lamented the prevalence of this crime. Juvenal grimly observed: > “If you want to be anybody nowadays, you must dare some crime that merits narrow Gyara or a gaol; honesty is praised and starves.” Elsewhere, he described mothers who poisoned their own children out of sheer malice, sometimes even defying capture with pride. Even more unsettling was the fact that some women—perceived as the “weaker sex”—killed for profit. While male [assassins](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-shadow-of-the-dagger-assassinations-of-roman-emperors/) were also common, Juvenal recounts a case in which a woman stabbed her husband after her poisoning attempts failed—her husband having taken daily antidotes as a precaution. In another satire, Juvenal advises a father to consume an antidote before dinner, noting that his son is: > “praying for his death which has been postponed so long.” Poison was not only a private tool but a weapon of political intrigue. Nonius Asprenas, a confidant of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/), was accused of poisoning no fewer than 130 guests. Such accusations underscore how deeply embedded veneficium had become in the Roman social and political imagination. ### Poison at Court, in Society, and in Self-Destruction: The Roman Culture of Toxic Substances In the Roman imperial court, poison became a frequent and fearsome tool of elimination. [Drusus](https://romanempiretimes.com/drusus-the-elder-rome-most-successful-germanic-commander/), the son of [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/), was believed to have been poisoned by his wife in collusion with Sejanus. ![Drusus the Younger, son and heir of Tiberius, 1st century AD, Museo del Prado, Madrid.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/drusus-son-of-Tiberius.jpg) Drusus the Younger, son and heir of Tiberius, 1st century AD, Museo del Prado, Madrid. Credits: Carole Raddato,CC BY-SA 2.0 As aforementioned, Claudius famously met his end—according to many ancient sources—at the hands of his wife, Agrippina. Under Tiberius, Piso was accused of poisoning the beloved Germanicus, and Agrippina herself reportedly feared even the fruit Tiberius offered her. The roll call of emperors linked with either committing or suffering poisoning includes [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-caligula-mad-or-just-sick/), Nero, Vitellius, [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/), [Commodus](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-commodus-truly-the-megalomaniac-gladiator-emperor/), [Caracalla](https://romanempiretimes.com/brothers-divided-the-tragic-tale-of-emperors-caracalla-and-geta/), and [Elagabalus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-divine-chaos-of-elagabalus-romes-most-unconventional-emperor/). Caligula supposedly maintained a personal poison arsenal in a large trunk, while Nero, described by [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) as the “arch-poisoner,” orchestrated multiple poisonings: Britannicus, his aunt Domitia, the praetorian prefect Burrus, and even his own freedmen. Nero, in a moment of chilling ambition, even considered wiping out the Senate through mass poisoning at banquets. As fear of assassination escalated, prominent individuals—especially [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/)—began employing professional food tasters (*praegustatores*), often drawn from the ranks of slaves or freedmen. These tasters became so commonplace that they eventually formed a guild (*collegium*) under a procurator. One account even claims that Claudius’s death came not from Agrippina directly but via his eunuch taster, Halotus. Outside the court, distrust and awareness of poisoning permeated daily life. Pliny records that before the battle of Actium, Mark Antony was so suspicious of [Cleopatra](https://romanempiretimes.com/cleopatra-daughter-selene-ii-the-last-echo-of-a-dynasty/)’s intentions that he refused to eat anything unless it was first sampled by someone else. Poison had become a theme for academic exercise as well—students wrote school compositions titled *The Poisoner*. In a striking case, Adgandestrius, leader of the Chatti, once offered to assassinate Arminius if the Senate sent poison for the deed. Poison also found its place in suicide, especially among the elite or politically cornered. Livy recounts that before Capua’s fall, 27 senators ended their lives by drinking poison rather than suffer Roman retribution. Similarly, when Masinissa feared Roman punishment for marrying Sophonisba, he sent her a poisoned cup, which she dutifully drank to avoid capture. Livy adds that for kings, keeping a personal poison reserve was common practice in times of uncertainty. [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/antinous-and-hadrian-love-devotion-or-divine-ambition/) compelled Servianus to take poison due to alleged ambitions for the throne. Pliny notes that poison became an escape for many suffering from chronic or unbearable illnesses, particularly those involving strangury, gastrointestinal pain, or neurological torment. Elagabalus, expecting a violent end, kept poisons nearby in case he needed to control the manner of his own death. Tacitus provides examples of poison in judicial settings. Martina, a famed poisoner implicated in Germanicus’s death, died en route to Rome, apparently by suicide via poison. Vibulenus Agrippa, accused before the Senate, secretly carried poison under his robe and swallowed it in the middle of his trial. Seneca, when his initial self-execution through bloodletting proved too slow, requested a friend to give him poison traditionally used in Athenian executions. ![Roman Fresco probably depicting Cleopatra VII of Egypt consuming poison, from the House of Emperor Joseph II, Pompeii](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Roman-Fresco-probably-depicting-Cleopatra-VII-of-Egypt-consuming-poison--from-the-House-of-Emperor-Joseph-II--Pompeii.jpg) Roman Fresco probably depicting Cleopatra VII of Egypt consuming poison, from the House of Emperor Joseph II, Pompeii. Public domain ### Poisons, Antidotes, and the Rule of Law: The Roman Systematization of Toxicology Though mineral poisons were not widely understood in Rome, substances like gypsum (*gypsum*), white lead (*cerussa*), *sulphur*, and quicksilver (*argentum vivum*) were acknowledged as dangerous. Some natural springs in Thessaly, Arcadia, and Macedonia were said to be fatally toxic. One legend even suggests that Alexander the Great died from such water in Macedonia. Wells, too, were occasionally poisoned deliberately, highlighting how environmental and man-made toxic hazards blurred in the Roman mindset. Romans employed numerous methods of administering poison. The most common was mixing it into [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/). Food was another vehicle—Agrippina, for instance, was said to have poisoned Claudius via mushrooms, while Commodus reportedly used poisoned figs to eliminate a rival. Though Cicero noted that [bread](https://romanempiretimes.com/panis-quadratus-the-ancient-bread-that-fed-an-empire/) was a poor delivery medium, as its slower absorption made detection easier, it was still occasionally used. Dio describes a more insidious approach: poisoned needles used to prick victims undetectably. Horace writes of hemlock mixed with [honey](https://romanempiretimes.com/mad-honey-warfare-how-king-mithridates-poisoned-pompeys-legions/), while Cleopatra is credited with perhaps the most cunning tactic—dipping the flowers of her chaplet in poison and letting it fall into Antony's wine at a banquet. The Romans also catalogued antidotes. Milk in its various forms was used against many poisons—asses' milk for minerals, cows' milk for hemlock, and milk generally for cantharides and other toxins. Wine was considered the universal remedy for plant-based poisons and animal bites. Effects of poison varied widely: some caused slow agony, others death in silence. Some victims turned black or livid postmortem. Tacitus relates how Nero attempted to cover Germanicus’ poisoned corpse with gypsum to mask the blackened skin—but rain revealed the truth to all. Certain individuals achieved fame—or infamy—for their toxic expertise. King Attalus III of Pergamon studied poisonous plants in his leisure. Mithradates VI of Pontus was renowned for [his knowledge of antidotes and daily use of prophylactic mixtures](https://romanempiretimes.com/mad-honey-warfare-how-king-mithridates-poisoned-pompeys-legions/). ![Modern Mad Honey harvest on bamboo basket](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/08/Modern-Mad-Honey-harvest-on-bamboo-basket.jpg) Modern Mad Honey harvest on bamboo basket. Credits: Aerackkkkk, CC BY-SA 4.0 Women like Canidia, Martina, and especially Locusta became legendary as already mentioned. Nero even spared Locusta from execution to employ her services and assigned students to learn from her. Physicians too were sometimes implicated in poisonings, though the Hippocratic Oath explicitly forbade such acts. The term veneficus (male poisoner) or venefica (female poisoner) was an insult, reflecting widespread disdain for those who trafficked in death. From a legal perspective, poisoning was treated with utmost seriousness. As early as the [Twelve Tables](https://romanempiretimes.com/foundations-of-justice-romes-twelve-tables/), specific provisions addressed the crime. [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/) ranked it alongside treason and conspiracy. The pivotal law came under Sulla in 82 BCE: the *Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis*. It penalized not just those who killed with poison but also anyone involved in its production, sale, or possession with harmful intent. Subsequent senatorial decrees expanded its reach. Even giving fertility potions that unintentionally caused death could result in banishment. Druggists (*pigmentarii*) faced similar penalties if they supplied love philtres. According to [*the Digest*](https://amzn.to/3J1bceW?ref=romanempiretimes.com), elite offenders (*altiores*) faced exile and property confiscation; lower-class individuals (*humiliores*) could be executed by wild beasts. In Republican times, punishment likely took the form of *interdictio aquae et ignis*, a form of civic exile later replaced by deportation under the emperors. Pliny makes a striking reflection on nature’s intent: that poison was provided not out of malice, but as a merciful escape from life’s cruelties. As he wrote: > "Nature has produced a substance which is very easily taken, and by which life is extinguished, the body remaining undefiled and retaining all its blood \[...\] neither bird nor beast will touch the body, but he who has perished by his own hands is reserved for the earth." In the Roman world, poison was more than a tool of death—it was a reflection of fear, ambition, and the fragility of power. From whispered plots in imperial courts to legal reforms in the Forum, it left an indelible mark on Rome’s history. In its silence, poison spoke volumes. ## List of Notable Roman Poisons #### Cicura (Hemlock) ****Source**: Plant – **Conium maculatum* ****Symptoms & Effects**: Paralysis, cold limbs, loss of speech, death. Often caused the skin to discolor with spots. ****Roman Use & Beliefs**: Used in suicides and executions; diluted form was medicinal. #### Aconitum (Aconite) ****Source**: Plant – **Monkshood* ****Symptoms & Effects**: Immediate collapse, convulsions, cardiac arrest. Its odor could allegedly kill mice at a distance. ****Roman Use & Beliefs**: Considered the most **prompt* of all poisons. Sometimes used against scorpion venom. #### Hyoscyamus (Henbane) ****Source**: Plant – **Nightshade family* ****Symptoms & Effects**: Hallucinations, insanity, unconsciousness. Toxic even through the leaves and oil. ****Roman Use & Beliefs**: Found in maritime areas; feared for its mental effects. #### Cantharis (Spanish Fly) ****Source**: Insect – **Lytta vesicatoria* ****Symptoms & Effects**: Bladder pain, burning sensations, organ failure. ****Roman Use & Beliefs**: Fatal if ingested, but applied externally for medical treatments. #### Taxus (Yew Tree) ****Source**: Tree – **Taxus baccata* ****Symptoms & Effects**: Vomiting, respiratory failure, death. Even sleeping beneath the tree was thought to be fatal. ****Roman Use & Beliefs**: Poisonous in all parts, including wood. Believed fatal to drink from yew cups. (*Poisons and poisoning among the Romans, by David B. Kaufman*) ### What Was Life Really Like in Roman Britain? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-life-really-like-in-roman-britain/ Last updated: 2025-07-20T21:34:32.000Z When the [legions of Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/) marched into Britain in 43 CE, they brought more than [swords](https://romanempiretimes.com/forged-for-battle-the-six-century-reign-of-the-roman-gladius/) and [standards](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-has-the-eagle-become-the-roman-symbol/) — they brought a way of life. From the misty frontiers of [Hadrian’s Wall](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrians-wall-the-roman-empires-enigmatic-frontier/) to the Romanized villas of the south, life in Roman Britain was a complex blend of imperial order and local tradition. [Soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) drilled in distant garrisons, merchants traded exotic wares in bustling towns, and native Britons adapted — sometimes reluctantly — to [bathhouses](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), forums, and the [Pax Romana](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-pax-romana-was-rome-ever-a-peaceful-empire/). Yet even as [mosaics](https://romanempiretimes.com/asarotos-oikos-mosaic-unswept-floor-roman-elite/) brightened [villa floors](https://romanempiretimes.com/domus-romana-the-roman-villa-of-rabat-malta/) and Latin names appeared in local inscriptions, the island remained a frontier: rugged, rain-swept, and never quite tamed. ### Rome in the Landscape: Traces of Empire in Britain’s Towns and Roads For nearly four centuries — from the first century to the early fifth — the provinces now known as England and Wales, along with parts of southern Scotland, stood under Roman rule. The imprint of that era remains vivid even today: ancient roadways, city grids, and place names continue to shape the geography and urban character of modern Britain. Cities like London, York, Leicester, and Exeter trace their origins to Roman foundations. In some, remnants of Roman-era layouts persist, while others still echo Latin naming conventions. [Roads](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/) that once carried legions and merchants now guide commuters and travelers, revealing how the infrastructure of empire endures across time. This legacy connects modern Britons with the lives of those who inhabited the province of Britannia — from townspeople and soldiers to merchants and local [elites](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). Roman Britain’s influence extended well beyond architecture or roads; it also helped set the stage for later developments in British identity, culture, and governance. Importantly, very few of the people who lived in Roman Britain would have been “Romans” in the narrow geographic sense. Roman identity was not confined to those from the city of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) — much like modern national identities that are built on law, language, and shared culture rather than ancestry alone. ## Being “Roman” in Britain was often a matter of citizenship, military service, or participation in a broader cultural world. Some arrived by choice, others by force; many were born into families that had long lived in Britain before the Roman conquest ever began. These [diverse origins](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/) produced a complex social landscape where Roman and local traditions intersected. The Roman conquest began formally in AD 43 under Emperor Claudius. But to understand how Roman rule reshaped Britain, it is equally important to consider what life was like both before the conquest and after Rome’s withdrawal. The historical record offers only scattered voices from this period, and much of what is known comes through the interpretation of archaeological evidence. Different people — whether free or [enslaved](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/), wealthy or poor, men or [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) — experienced Roman Britain in profoundly different ways, shaped by personal status, local context, and social roles. Reconstructing these lives requires imagination grounded in scholarship. Though the specific stories are gone, traces of housing, [foodways](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/), religion, and infrastructure reveal how the people of Roman Britain lived and how those lives were shaped by empire. Every interpretation of this past must wrestle with gaps in the record and changing understandings, but through the fragments left behind, it is possible to catch glimpses of a world both distant and deeply entangled with the present. ![A Dolphin Mosaic at Fishbourne Roman Palace](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/A-Dolphin-Mosaic-at-Fishbourne-Roman-Palace.jpg) A Dolphin Mosaic at Fishbourne Roman Palace. Credits: David Spender, CC BY 2.0 ### Traces in the Earth: How we know what we know about Roman Britain Much of what is known about life in Roman Britain comes from the fragmentary echoes left behind — texts copied through the centuries, inscriptions carved into stone or metal, and rare wooden tablets miraculously preserved in the soil. While a handful of complete documents survive in later manuscripts, the majority of written evidence has come down in archaeological form. Most inscriptions date to the early phases of Roman rule and are linked to military, administrative, or religious functions. The use of wood and wax tablets was widespread, but they are rarely found due to the damp soil conditions — with the remarkable exception of sites like Vindolanda, near Hadrian’s Wall, where anaerobic preservation has allowed some to survive. The archaeological record is continually expanding. Excavations across Britain frequently yield new discoveries, but archaeologists also rely on techniques that reveal the past without breaking the surface. Earthwork surveys, which identify landscape features through subtle topographical changes, and geophysical scans, which detect buried structures through shifts in soil composition, are essential tools. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/A-Soldier-s-Personal-Affects--found-in-Roman-Britain.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/Iron-Swords---Spearheads-found-in-Roman-Britain.jpg) 🏛️ Image #1: A Soldier's Personal Affects, found in Roman Britain. **Credits: Gary Todd, Public domain* Image #2: Iron Swords & Spearheads found in Roman Britain. **Credits: Gary Todd, Public domain* Aerial photography adds another dimension, highlighting hidden patterns in fields — often caused by ancient buildings affecting crop growth. Field-walking, where pottery and objects are gathered from ploughed land, also helps piece together settlement histories. Insights into daily life — especially in terms of farming, diet, and the environment — come from organic remains recovered from both archaeological sites and natural landscapes. Pollen trapped in ancient wetlands reconstructs lost woodlands and pastures, while charred seeds hint at crops once cultivated and consumed. Animal bones reveal not just dietary habits but also the use of animals in agriculture and transport. Oxen pulling ploughs, pigs raised for food, and horses employed in cavalry and commerce all leave their mark in the soil. Scientific techniques add another layer. By analyzing the clay of a [broken pot](https://romanempiretimes.com/monte-testaccio-the-roman-hill-composed-of-53-million-amphorae-fragments-2/) or the stone of a tool, researchers can determine where objects were made and how far they traveled. The story of Roman Britain is told not in a single voice, but through a patchwork of disciplines. From trade and transport to burial rites and belief systems, the scattered data coalesce into a rich portrait — one that speaks to the rhythms, labors, and beliefs of those who lived in a province at the edge of empire. ![A Kantharos (wine vessel) with satyr and maenad heads Roman Britain 1st century CE Ceramic with pigment](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/A-Kantharos--wine-vessel--with-satyr-and-maenad-heads-Roman-Britain-1st-century-CE-Ceramic-with-pigment.jpg) A Kantharos (wine vessel) with satyr and maenad heads Roman Britain 1st century CE Ceramic with pigment. Credits: Mary Harrsch, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ### Before the Legions: Life in Britain Before the Roman Conquest While [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) made two brief and ambitious forays into Britain in 55 and 54 BCE during his campaigns in Gaul, it wasn’t until nearly a century later, under Emperor Claudius in 43 CE, that the Roman conquest began in earnest. This military campaign unfolded over decades, encountering fierce resistance from some of Britain’s native peoples — notably the *Durotriges* in the southwest and the *Iceni* in the east. **Yet not all greeted the legions with hostility**. Certain eastern tribal leaders, already entwined in diplomatic ties with Rome, may have welcomed the imperial arrival. The lavish villa at Fishbourne in Sussex, likely built for the pro-Roman king Togidubnus, hints at such early collaboration. The people the Romans encountered were not strangers to civilization. Britain during the late Iron Age was far from primitive. Though no native histories were written, material and environmental evidence paints a vivid picture. These communities had long farmed the land, cleared forests, and built networks of settlements. Agricultural methods, tested today at places like Butser Ancient Farm, show that Iron Age Britons produced abundant grain and animal products — enough to support social hierarchies that included warrior elites, craftspeople, and religious figures. Most people lived in family-run farmsteads composed of roundhouses, built from timber or stone, often enclosed by earthen banks and fences. These homes, smoky and dim inside, clustered across the countryside in large numbers, suggesting a thriving population. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/IMG_2522.jpeg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/IMG_2521.jpeg) 🏛️ Image #1: The Fishbourne Roman Palace gardens. **Credits: Ben Ponsford, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0* Image #2: A Model of the Fishbourne Roman Palace. **Credits: John W. Schulze, CC BY 2.0* e daily tools and clothing were likely made from wood, leather, and wool, archaeological finds reveal sophisticated metalworking in iron, bronze, and gold. Luxury items such as enamelled ornaments and torcs speak to both wealth and craftsmanship. Trade was active, even if [coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) weren’t yet in widespread use. Exchange was largely based on gifts and services, though some tribal leaders minted high-value coins — more symbolic than practical — which bore their names and hinted at political organization. Imported [Roman wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/), grave goods, and coastal trade hubs like Hengistbury Head reveal a Britain already engaged with the Mediterranean world. Iron Age society was organized into kingdoms, each ruled from strongholds such as large enclosures (*oppida*) or fortified hillforts. These centers housed leaders, supported ritual activity, and sometimes hosted markets or minting operations. Their defenses, often timber palisades atop earthen walls, suggest a society familiar with conflict. Warriors fought with swords, spears, slings, and [shields](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-last-legionary-unveiling-the-scutum-of-dura-europos/). Some aristocrats donned chainmail and helmets, while others likely fought with little more than a spear. When the Romans came, the Britons’ style of warfare — centered on individual valor — was no match for Rome’s tactical discipline and crushing force. Even so, their resistance was notable in an imperial context. Religion remains more elusive, though offerings in bogs and lakes, the prominence of hilltops and groves, and finds like the well-preserved body of Lindow Man suggest ritual sacrifice — perhaps even of humans. While Britain had long interacted with Roman traders and influences, it remained a land of its own — without towns, bureaucracy, widespread literacy, or a monetary economy. **The conquest changed that world forever**. ([*Life in Roman Britain*](https://amzn.to/3GY1gSJ?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Ken and Petra Dark*) ![A closeup photo of the body of Lindow Man, found in a bog in Roman Britain, exhibited in the British Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/A-closeup-photo-of-the-body-of-Lindow-Man--found-in-a-bog-in-Roman-Britain.jpg) A closeup photo of the body of Lindow Man, found in a bog in Roman Britain, exhibited in the British Museum. Credits: Paul Hudson, CC BY 2.0 ### Caesar’s Footsteps: Britain Between Myth and Strategy In the closing decades of the Roman Republic, [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/)’s expeditions to Britain in 55 and 54 BCE were less about conquest and more about political ambition and precedent. Though military gains were limited and never consolidated, these campaigns placed Britain—until then a mysterious land beyond the known world—firmly on the Roman map. The island’s remoteness gave it an enduring symbolic power in Roman imagination, used for imperial propaganda and even exile. Caesar’s encounters with British kings and his installation of client rulers laid the groundwork for future claims of Roman overlordship. In the decades following [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/), internal Roman conflicts stalled further action in Britain. Yet links between southeastern Britain and Belgic Gaul grew stronger, with elites on both sides maintaining trade and shared culture. The Romans increasingly employed a strategy of indirect control, relying on allied "client kingdoms" rather than full military occupation. British society, especially in the south, began to show signs of Roman cultural influence—metalworking, land division, settlement patterns—though this did not always align with political allegiance. Despite several planned invasions, [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) chose diplomacy over force, content to let Roman influence expand through commerce and political relationships. Archaeological evidence shows Britain was exporting grain, cattle, iron, and luxury goods, becoming economically important to the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) even before conquest. The balance between Roman non-intervention and British autonomy benefited both sides, especially powerful leaders like Cunobelinus, who controlled key trade routes and expanded his dominion without provoking [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/). By the early first century CE, Roman cultural penetration was deep, but it remained entangled with native power politics. Britain, still officially outside the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/), was already being shaped by the gravitational pull of Roman wealth, prestige, and strategic interest. Caesar had opened the door, and generations of emperors would keep their eyes on the island across the Channel. ### From Conquest to Province: The Roman Order takes Root in Britain By AD 47, Roman control in Britain extended to the Severn and Trent, and the process of transforming the territory into a formal province was underway. Britain’s governorship became a prestigious appointment, reserved for former consuls and entrusted with commanding multiple [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-enigmatic-disappearance-of-the-9th-roman-legion/). ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/A-remnant-of-Ancient-Roman-lead-workings-in-Roman-Britain.jpg) ## The island, prized for its mineral wealth—such as the state-controlled silver-bearing lead mines in the Mendips—was seen as both a strategic and economic asset. **A remnant of Ancient Roman lead workings in Roman Britain. Credits: Neil Owen, CC BY-SA 2.0* Rome initially hoped to administer the province efficiently by installing loyal local rulers. Client kings like Cogidubnus and allies such as Cartimandua of the Brigantes helped maintain stability without the need for direct occupation. These arrangements allowed the Roman governor to manage much of the province through reorganized tribal structures (*civitates*), where native elites took on administrative roles in a Romanized local government system. However, efforts to extend [Roman law](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/) and military order—such as disarming the population—sparked resistance. The Iceni rebellion revealed the limits of nominal independence. In response, Rome fortified its presence: Colchester became the center of the Imperial Cult and was resettled with retired soldiers, while London (*Londinium*) was likely founded as a planned commercial and administrative hub. Strategically located on the Thames and connected by new Roman roads, London quickly emerged as the province’s business and logistical heart. These developments set the stage for deeper integration and expansion of Roman Britain beyond its original southern foothold. ([*Roman Britain. A very short introduction*](https://amzn.to/45buBlT?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Peter Salway*) ### Ties That Bound: Family Life in Roman Britain The structure of family life in Roman Britain was as complex as the empire itself—an interwoven web of traditions, migrations, military regulations, and social change. Before the Roman conquest, most Britons lived in extended family groups in rural, self-sufficient settlements. While this tradition persisted in some regions well into the Roman period, the growth of towns and military zones prompted a shift toward nuclear families and more fluid, multicultural households. The arrival of Roman soldiers, merchants, and administrators introduced new dynamics. In both forts and civilian settlements, evidence reveals mixed-ethnicity families, adopted dependents, and intricate kinship networks. Inscriptions tell of widowed mothers, sisters, and nieces accompanying soldiers; centurions marrying across provincial lines; and children navigating multilingual, multicultural homes. These families often faced tensions stemming from language, religion, and differing legal norms—such as the Roman preference for monogamy and patrilineal inheritance, contrasted with customs from polygamous or tribal societies. ![A Cavalry Face-Mask Helmet, from Ribchester, late 1st or early 2nd century AD, Roman Britain, British Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/A-Cavalry-Face-Mask-Helmet--from-Ribchester--late-1st-or-early-2nd-century-AD--Roman-Britain--British-Museum.jpg) A Cavalry Face-Mask Helmet, from Ribchester, late 1st or early 2nd century AD, Roman Britain, British Museum. Credits: Neerav Bhatt, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Children in Roman Britain were raised in a variety of familial contexts: legitimate offspring of Roman citizens, fostered or adopted children (often freed slaves), or those born outside legal wedlock to serving soldiers—who, until AD 197, were barred from formal [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/). Although the legal system increasingly accommodated these familial realities, the status of children and women often depended on social class, ethnic origin, and the presence of written wills or citizenship grants. Family planning was evidently common, as indicated by the small average family size and the wide use of contraceptives, [abortion methods](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/), and—less commonly—infanticide, which Roman law treated pragmatically rather than morally. [Tombstones and dedications](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) across Roman Britain reflect a spectrum of emotional expression within families. Some inscriptions record deep grief over the loss of children and spouses, while others are more formal or administrative. The presence of affectionate epithets, long marriages, and shared tombs among freedmen, merchants, military personnel, and their families reveals a society where familial ties—both biological and chosen—were central to identity and daily life. Despite the disruptions of war, military postings, and imperial policies, the concept of the family remained a foundational unit in Roman Britain. It included not only kin by blood or marriage, but also slaves, freed people, clients, and colleagues. In a world of cultural convergence and personal mobility, family—however defined—offered a sense of stability, obligation, and belonging. (*"The family in Roman Britain", by Lindsay Allason-James, in "*[*A Companion to Roman Britain*](https://amzn.to/4f1yhKn?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*", edited by Malcolm Todd*) ![The Hoxne Treasure, in Roman Britain](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/The-Hoxne-Treasure--in-Roman-Britain.jpg) [The Hoxne Treasure](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-roman-empire-treasure-ever-found/), in Roman Britain. Credits: Gary Todd, Public domain --- From the first clash of legions to the quiet fading of Roman rule, the story of Roman Britain is one of encounter and endurance. Across centuries, the island bore witness to war and diplomacy, conquest and coexistence. It was a land where Latin met local tongues, where [Roman gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) shared space with native deities, and where mosaics were laid beside roundhouses. The people who lived here—merchants and farmers, soldiers and slaves, women and children—wove Roman customs into their own, creating a frontier society at once distinct and deeply Roman. Though the empire eventually retreated, **its echoes remain** in the roads, walls, names, and families that still shape Britain today. ### Convivium: How the Romans Turned Dinner into a Display of Power URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/convivium-how-the-romans-turned-dinner-into-a-display-of-power/ Last updated: 2025-07-14T22:51:20.000Z They came not just to eat, but to witness and be witnessed. In the Roman world, the *convivium* was no ordinary dinner—it was a carefully orchestrated spectacle of wealth, culture, and control. Reclining on couches beneath frescoed ceilings, [Rome’s elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) dined in style while asserting their place in the social hierarchy. Food became performance, tableware a tool of domination, and the very layout of the dining room a statement of power. To understand the convivium is to unlock a key ritual of Roman identity—where every bite, every glance, and every guest list spoke volumes. ### What the Roman Convivium really looked like When most people think of Roman dining, the imagination tends to run wild—images of outlandish delicacies, indulgent banquets, lounging elites, bouts of vomiting, and, inevitably, a descent into orgy. An informal poll of Karen M. Spence’s own circle (*an engineer that holds a graduate degree in Classical Mediterranean Archaeology from the University of Leicester, UK*), confirmed just how deeply these clichés are embedded, with predictable references to dormice and extravagant birds stuffed with other animals. But Roman dining, like many aspects of the ancient world, has long suffered from the seductive power of sensationalism. To get closer to the truth, we have to examine the convivium—the communal Roman dining experience—by drawing on various forms of evidence across the empire, not just to reconstruct the events themselves, but to expose how such evidence has often distorted our understanding. At first glance, piecing together what Roman dinner parties actually looked like—their form, purpose, and culinary preferences—is a challenge. The architecture of supposed dining rooms, material remains, and textual sources rarely align neatly. ![Casa del Tricinio, triclinium - Two banqueting scenes from the period before the earthquake of 62 AD.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/Casa-del-Tricinio--triclinium---Two-banqueting-scenes-from-the-period-before-the-earthquake-of-62-AD..jpg) Casa del Tricinio, triclinium - Two banqueting scenes from the period before the earthquake of 62 AD. Above: banquet in an enclosed room. Some of the exclusively male guests have just arrived; one is having his shoes taken off. Another, by contrast, is having to be propped up and is in the course of vomiting. Below: banquet outdoors under an awning. Men and women are feasting together. Painted inscriptions reproduce common phrases: "Make yourself comfortable", "I am singing". Credits: Fausto & Felice Niccolini. Houses and Monuments of Pompeii by TASCHEN, Photo by Roman Empire Times Scholars seeking a consistent picture are bound to be disappointed. Yet these sources remain crucial for situating Roman dining behavior in context. As anthropologist Sidney Mintz once put it, > “food and eating afford us a remarkable arena in which to watch how the human species invests a basic activity with social meaning” —a reminder to look beyond surface impressions for deeper insights. We need to focus specifically on elite private dining, leaving aside imperial banquets and non-elite practices. The wealthy classes, after all, were the ones with access to food in excess of subsistence and the means to shape dining into a cultural performance. Because most of our evidence—both literary and archaeological—comes from elite contexts, the picture we have is necessarily narrow and socially skewed. This is a broader issue in Roman archaeology, but one worth confronting. By analyzing dining practices from various regions of the empire and highlighting scholarly missteps that have led to false generalizations, we can offer a more grounded view of what the Roman convivium actually entailed. ### Reclining in Style: The Roman Convivium and the Spaces that shaped it Furniture and tableware provide some of the clearest traces of Roman dining, offering valuable insight into where and how food consumption likely occurred. A typical Roman dining room often featured a layout designed for reclining guests. Three wide couches were arranged in a U-shape around a central table—usually square or round—placed directly on decorative mosaics. These dining areas were frequently oriented toward a garden, creating an elegant visual connection between architecture and nature. The couches, known as *lecti*, could be either built into the room’s structure or brought in as movable pieces. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/reproduction-of-biclinium.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/reproductiontriclinium-1.jpg) 🏛️ Reproductions of a biclinium (image #1) and a triclinium (image #2). **Public domain. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times* The ideal number of guests appears to have been nine—perhaps in homage to the nine Muses—a notion supported by wall paintings and the dimensions of surviving couches. In practice, though, guest numbers could range from three to nine, and such figures don’t account for those who might have sat on chairs, the floor, or even stood during the gathering. The trio of couches is often collectively referred to as the *triclinium*, a term that originally described the couches themselves, not the room. Yet over time, it became common—even in scholarly discussions—to use the word to refer to the dining space as a whole, despite the fact that not all Roman homes had the furnishings typically associated with this setup. Evidence from domestic spaces—especially rooms adjacent to or opening onto gardens—shows that these were common places for dining furniture to be located. Similar arrangements have been found outside of Italy, including in eastern parts of the empire, such as in Patras, Greece. While this spatial design represents a widespread model of elite Roman dining rooms, it coexisted with older architectural styles. In many regions, traditional Greek features like the classical *andron* or Hellenistic *oecus* remained in use well into the Roman period, even if they had fallen out of architectural fashion. The spread of Roman-style dining spaces did not necessarily signal the wholesale adoption of Roman dining customs. The presence of a triclinium-like arrangement does not guarantee that the social protocols and meanings associated with Roman dining were fully embraced elsewhere. ![Triclinium with table, against the west wall of the loggia. The circular table, the couches and the benches, were all painted with motifs of plants and birds on a red background.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/built-intriclinium2-1.jpg) Pompeii. December 2018\. Triclinium with table, against the west wall of the loggia. The circular table, the couches and the benches, were all painted with motifs of plants and birds on a red background. Photo courtesy of Parco Archeologico di Pompei & Aude Durand. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times Within Roman homes themselves, dining was not always confined to formally designated rooms. Movable furniture allowed for flexibility, and in many cases, meals might have taken place on beds or couches normally used for sleeping. Even among households with the means to host guests, the specific layout of a home could dictate where shared meals could realistically occur. The material remains remind us that, while ideals existed, dining practices were shaped just as much by architectural limitations as by cultural aspirations. ### Painted Feasts: Art, Illusion, and the Meaning of the Roman Convivium Wall paintings and [mosaics ](https://romanempiretimes.com/asarotos-oikos-mosaic-unswept-floor-roman-elite/)found in Roman dining spaces offer vibrant glimpses into the visual culture surrounding the convivium. Yet, like literary texts, they are not direct records of real events. Many banquet scenes reflect artistic conventions rather than literal documentation of dining practices. Early Roman imagery, particularly from [Pompeii ](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/)and [Herculaneum](https://romanempiretimes.com/ancient-roman-beach-herculaneum-reopened/), often drew heavily from earlier [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) symposia traditions, adapting the visual language to suit Roman values and tastes. This connection opens up deeper questions about how the convivium was understood and differentiated from its Greek predecessor. To the Roman mind, the convivium held a broader and more communal meaning than the symposium, at least ideally. It implied not merely the act of drinking together, but a shared experience of living and social bonding. However, Roman dining customs departed significantly from the Greek model. Women, for example, had a limited but sanctioned presence at Roman dinner parties—something unthinkable at Greek symposia, where female attendees were usually slaves or entertainers. Despite some philosophical idealizations of equality among guests, the Roman convivium was marked by distinct hierarchies, often reflected in seating arrangements and access to food and wine. These differences complicate the idea that the convivium was simply a Roman variant of the symposium. Wall paintings from Pompeian homes allow us to explore this tension between aspiration and reality. In one example, the so-called House of the Chaste Lovers, the dining room displays banquet scenes in the decorative Third Style: red panels framed in black featuring couples reclining on couches, surrounded by drinking vessels and servants. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/Eastern-wall--House-of-the-Chaste-Lovers-.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/looking-towards-west-wall--north-west-corner-and-north-wall-in-triclinium-1.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/North-wall-of-the-House-of-the-Chaste-Lovers-1.jpg) 🏛️ Image #1: Eastern wall, House of the Chaste Lovers. Image #2: Pompeii. February 2017\. Image #3: North wall of the House of the Chaste Lovers. **Photo courtesy of Parco Archeologico di Pompei. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times* The setting varies between indoor and outdoor locations, and though couches and tableware are clearly represented, food itself is notably absent. This dining room followed a decorative format repeated in many homes, suggesting the use of visual pattern books and standard iconography. In fact, near-identical scenes are found in multiple houses across Pompeii, with minor alterations. Whether these rooms were meant for private use or available for rent is difficult to determine. Evidence does exist that some triclinia could be hired for events—inscriptions advertising dining rooms with couches for rent confirm this practice. But the art on the walls does not always align with the layout or function of the space. While the ideal triclinium arrangement of three couches in a U-shape appears in painted scenes, its physical presence in architecture is less consistent. These early representations focus not on showcasing material abundance, but rather on evoking an atmosphere of festivity and cultural refinement, inspired by Hellenistic traditions. Another example, the House of the Triclinium, reflects this same dynamic. Although the banquet scenes have been updated to include Roman hairstyles and clothing, they still rely on Greek visual models and omit any direct portrayal of food. ![ Looking north-west towards garden area with triclinium (under blue sheeting)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/house-of-the-triclinium.jpg) Pompeii. December 2007\. Looking north-west towards garden area with triclinium (under blue sheeting). Photo courtesy of Parco Archeologico di Pompei. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times These scenes celebrate the convivial spirit of the occasion rather than document its material aspects. Their nostalgic tone suggests a Roman admiration for the pre-conquest cultural past of Greece, subtly reinforcing the notion that contemporary Greece, while still culturally resonant, was seen as subordinate to Roman authority. As time progressed, banquet imagery evolved to become more grounded in the realities of Roman dining. Later mosaics and paintings began to depict recognizable architectural features and actual food consumption. One playful and widely copied motif was the [*asarotos oikos*](https://romanempiretimes.com/asarotos-oikos-mosaic-unswept-floor-roman-elite/), or "unswept house," first seen in a mosaic from Pergamum in the second century BCE. Scattered food debris rendered in mosaic gave the impression of a feast just finished, and variations of this theme appeared in homes throughout the Roman world, including Italy and North Africa. ![Asarotos Oikos mosaic, or commonly known as unswept floor.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/asarotos-oikos-mosaic--2-.jpg) Asarotos Oikos mosaic, or commonly known as unswept floor. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC 2.0 DEED By the third and fourth centuries CE, Roman banquet scenes had become far more literal. A mosaic from the House of the Buffet Supper in Antioch depicts a full, elaborate meal—complete with courses and silver serving dishes—arranged in harmony with the curved sigma couch that had by then replaced the traditional triclinium setup. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/House-of-the-Buffet-Supper-in-Antioch-2.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/house-of-the-buffet-antioch-1.jpg) 🏛️ House of the Buffet Supper in Antioch. **Photo courtesy of Antakya Archaeology Museum, Turkey. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times* Elsewhere, a large dining room in Rome from the early Constantinian period features life-sized female attendants bearing trays of meats, vegetables, and wine, visually emphasizing abundance and display. This shift in imagery—from symbolic or idealized to representational and specific—offers a closer reflection of actual convivium practices and aligns more closely with written accounts of elite Roman dining. ### Power on a Platter: Luxury, Imports, and Excess One of the clearest expressions of class distinction in the Roman world appeared at the dinner table. Culinary privilege was reserved for the elite, who had not only the wealth but also the logistical power to access exotic ingredients. Calls for restraint were common among moralists of the Late Republic, who criticized indulgence and praised simpler times. Yet these appeals were often rhetorical. As material evidence and literary accounts reveal, elite Romans indulged in theatrical feasts—fueled by the expanding spice trade and sophisticated cookbooks like those attributed to Apicius, which helped transform the kitchen into a stage of creative excess. Although some writers idealized the convivium as a gathering of friendship and philosophical exchange, the food served—and the manner in which it was presented—told another story. Horace, for instance, describes a dinner he attended that involved elaborate preparations, rare ingredients, and a host eager to impress with culinary flair: > A lamprey now appears, a sprawling fish, > With shrimps about it swimming in the dish. > Whereon our host remarks: "This fish was caught > While pregnant: after spawning it is naught. > We make our sauce with oil, of the best strain > Venafrum yields, and caviare from Spain, > Pour in Italian wine, five years in tun, > While yet 'tis boiling; when the boiling's done, > Chian suits best of all; white pepper add, > And vinegar, from Lesbian wine turned bad. > Rockets and elecampanes with this mess > To boil, is my invention, I profess: > To put sea-urchins in, unwashed as caught, > 'Stead of made pickle, was Curtillus' thought." Horace, [*Satires*](https://amzn.to/4eLYpZD?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 2.8.42–55 ![Wall painting of a dining scene with guests, set inside a pavilion - The mural was found in 1844 in a tavern on the south side of the Via di Nola but was afterwards destroyed.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/Wall-painting-of-a-dining-scene-with-guests--set-inside-a-pavilion---The-mural-was-found-in-1844-in-a-tavern-on-the-south-side-of-the-Via-di-Nola-but-was-afterwards-destroyed..jpg) Wall painting of a dining scene with guests, set inside a pavilion - The mural was found in 1844 in a tavern on the south side of the Via di Nola but was afterwards destroyed. Credits: Fausto & Felice Niccolini. Houses and Monuments of Pompeii by TASCHEN, Photo by Roman Empire Times Such performances of taste were not without their dark side. In some cases, the pursuit of culinary novelty resulted in acts of brutality. One ancient source recounts the preparation of sow’s udders, made more flavorful by ensuring the animal’s litter was violently aborted just before birth—combining blood and milk to intensify the taste. Imports of food, [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/), and spices were vast. Out of the nearly 500 recipes preserved in the Apicius collection—augmented and circulated well into late antiquity—almost all require spices, and several call for ingredients sourced from as far as South or Southeast Asia. The material record corroborates this, with [amphorae](https://romanempiretimes.com/monte-testaccio-the-roman-hill-composed-of-53-million-amphorae-fragments-2/) and storage vessels found across the empire pointing to robust and far-reaching trade networks. Rome’s ability to move these goods speaks to the administrative strength of its [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/)—but also to the imbalance it created between producer and consumer. A well-known episode underscores the symbolism embedded in such feasting. [Emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) [Vitellius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/the-year-of-the-four-emperors/), dining at his brother’s home, had his generals compile a massive dish featuring food sourced from every corner of the empire—from Parthia to the Atlantic coast of Spain. He devoured it in its entirety, an act that simultaneously flaunted personal excess and Roman dominion. Even so, Rome never pursued culinary imperialism. Provincial diets remained distinct, and Rome did not enforce a standard cuisine to unify the empire. In fact, elite Roman anxieties about imported luxuries and moral decay often pointed to the East as the source of decadence. Some authors traced the rise of greed and moral decline in Roman society to the aftermath of Eastern conquests, which introduced new luxuries and foreign values. Beneath the moralizing tone, there lingered a deeper fear: that Roman identity itself could be altered by what others brought to the table. To label the convivium as merely gluttonous is to miss its deeper purpose. These elaborate feasts were structured social performances. Hosts displayed their power not only through what was served but how it was served. Portions, placements, and the quality of tableware were all tools for reinforcing rank and authority—making the Roman dining room a theater of status as much as a space of indulgence. ### Equal Guests or Displayed Rank? [Pliny the Younger ](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/)once recounted a telling exchange at a dinner party. He explained that when he hosted guests, he made no distinction in what each person was served, regardless of their social status. One of the other guests seemed surprised and asked, > “Even the freedmen?” Pliny answered, > “Of course, for then they are my fellow-diners, not freedmen.” That this response caused surprise reveals something deeper: the notion of egalitarian dining was the exception, not the rule. What people claimed to value and how they actually behaved often diverged. In most cases, the convivium mirrored the host’s social standing and ambition. Invitations could elevate a host’s prestige—or reinforce their dominance over others. A graffito from Pompeii drives this home with blunt clarity: > “The man with whom I do not dine is a barbarian to me.” ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/Terra-sigillata-ceramic-wares-decorated-with-reliefs.jpg) ## The Roman house itself, with its architecture deliberately designed to reflect social hierarchies, reminds us that the idea of all diners being equals was far removed from reality. **Terra sigillata ceramic wares decorated with reliefs. Credits: Fausto & Felice Niccolini. Houses and Monuments of Pompeii by TASCHEN, Photo by Roman Empire Times* At the convivium, social rank could be expressed in various ways. Two main dining traditions existed. One featured equal, individual portions served to each guest. The other relied on shared dishes placed centrally for all to draw from. These approaches were not just a matter of logistics—they were laced with expectation and tension, especially since dinner invitations were typically reciprocal. Individual servings allowed the host to control both the amount and quality of food each person received. This created space for subtle affronts, as Pliny experienced when he found himself at a dinner where different wines and vessels were used for different guests. He scathingly likened the entire affair to an “auction.” The philosophical appeal of shared service lingered, however. Though individual portions had become common by the second century, some still viewed communal eating as more generous and egalitarian. The shared dish suggested friendship and togetherness, while the individual plate risked emphasizing inequality. Archaeological evidence sheds light on how these dynamics played out in practice. An analysis of dining assemblages across the empire looked at bowls, plates, and platters to distinguish between personal and communal use. Sets of small, matching vessels were often tied to individual service. By studying their dimensions—especially rim size and volume—researchers could infer whether a dish was likely meant for a single diner or for shared access. A sample of twelve sealed assemblages was analyzed, ranging from the early first century in Corinth to the early seventh century in Alexandria. The early examples showed a preference for coordinated, individual dining sets. In contrast, later assemblages reflected more mixed forms—large serving dishes accompanied by smaller, non-matching bowls. The trend suggested a structural change in the Roman convivium, shifting gradually from individual service toward shared meals. Although a broader sample size would have strengthened the findings, the available data points to a notable transition. The shift is particularly interesting given how artistic depictions did not always align with this change. Early imperial banquet art often emphasized symposium-style drinking and idealized conviviality, despite the archaeological pattern favoring individualized servings. Later imagery, on the other hand, featured more shared dining scenes—especially in Christian and funerary contexts. ![Various luxury vessels in bronze and silver](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/Various-luxury-vessels-in-bronze-and-silver.jpg) Various luxury vessels in bronze and silver. Credits: Fausto & Felice Niccolini. Houses and Monuments of Pompeii by TASCHEN, Photo by Roman Empire Times 🏛️ (A): Bowl from Herculaneum with two chariots driven by Athena and Ares. (B): Bronze drinking vessel in the shape of a stag's head (rhyton) from Herculaneum. (C): Silver sieve and saucer. (D) and (F): Two silver cups with handles (kantharoi) from a 64-part service from the Casa di Inaco e lo (VI 7,19). Winged erotes ride on a bull (left) and a panther (right), with various objects associated with Dionysus behind. (E): Silver beaker with handle (kalathos) with a representation of the battle between Theseus and the Amazons. Some have argued that these images of communal banquets reflected real shifts in elite dining culture, influenced by religious traditions of group meals. However, it’s difficult to accept this link entirely. The shared dining scenes that appear in catacombs—[Christian](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/) and pagan alike—are deeply symbolic. It’s unlikely they accurately represent private elite meals. [Funerary](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) iconography served its own purpose, separate from domestic reality. While religion may shape societal values, images tied to cult practices are not reliable indicators of everyday elite behavior, even when religion is culturally dominant. This reinforces a broader point: values and practices are not always aligned. Though shared dining is often idealized as fostering community, the social effects may have been overstated. The practicalities of late imperial life offer another explanation. As resources dwindled—whether financial, agricultural, or logistical—it became easier and more economical to present food for communal consumption. A single set of dishes, laid out to appear abundant, could impress guests while placing limits on their consumption. Individual portions required more planning, more utensils, and often more food. Serving from a central dish may even have helped avoid second servings—making it both efficient and visually lavish. It’s also possible that sumptuary laws played a role in this evolution, though there’s no clear measure of how effective such regulations were in curbing excess. Ultimately, this isn't to dismiss the social dimensions of the convivium but to suggest that the economic aspect of dining deserves more attention. What appears as a gesture of communal generosity may just as well have been a smart way to stretch declining resources. (*Haute Cuisine, Conspicuous Consumption and Power Play around the Triclinium: Analysis of the Roman Convivium, by Karen M. Spence*) ![Various still lifes from Pompei](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/07/Various-still-lifes-from-Pompei.jpg) Various still lifes from Pompei. Credits: Fausto & Felice Niccolini. Houses and Monuments of Pompeii by TASCHEN, Photo by Roman Empire Times 🏛️ The two upper rows show writing implements and ink pots, along with paper scrolls and small tablets. The small pictures were cited by Winckelmann in his essay of 1762 for the light they shed on Roman writing utensils and the way in which scrolls were used. Below: still lifes of foodstuffs from the Macellum, where they appear in the upper zone of painting above the mythological themes, in fitting allusion to the building's function. ### Women at the Table: Reclining, Respectability, and the Gender Politics of the Convivium Unlike the Greek symposium, where the presence of respectable [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) was almost unthinkable, the Roman convivium allowed elite women to join their male counterparts in reclining at dinner. But this apparent inclusion was far from straightforward. In Roman society, posture was never neutral—it was loaded with cultural meaning. To recline was to declare oneself a full participant in elite leisure, a statement traditionally reserved for free Roman men. When [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) took on this posture, they were not just sharing a meal—they were making a claim to status, legitimacy, and visibility within the domestic sphere. The shift toward allowing elite women to recline reflected broader Roman transformations. Rome inherited many dining customs from the Hellenistic East, but adapted them in ways that reinforced its own social order. In doing so, it created a new model of domestic display: one that included high-status women not as silent observers, but as visible, reclining figures—a role that walked a fine line between dignity and suspicion. Art and literature of the period reveal this tension. Reclining women appear in wall paintings and banquet scenes, but they are often visually indistinct from courtesans, blurring the line between the respectable *matrona* and the sexualized *meretrix*. This ambiguity was deliberate, and it fed Roman anxieties about gender, morality, and the influence of luxury. The sight of a woman reclining could be read as an assertion of elite Roman identity—or as a sign of creeping decadence. Within the triclinium, posture was performance. Who reclined, who sat, and who served were all part of a visual language that expressed hierarchy, gender roles, and moral values. When elite women took their place among male diners, their presence was both empowering and provocative. It reflected the evolving social ambitions of the Roman aristocracy—where even dinner was a form of political theater. (*Horizontal women: posture and sex in the Roman convivium, by Matthew Roller*) --- In the end, the *convivium* was far more than a meal—it was a microcosm of Roman society itself, where every posture, portion, and performance reflected the unspoken rules of status, gender, and imperial ambition. ### Septimius Severus: Founder, Fighter, and Father of a New Rome URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/septimius-severus-founder-fighter-and-father-of-a-new-rome/ Last updated: 2025-06-27T20:16:14.000Z When Septimius Severus marched into [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/foundations-of-justice-romes-twelve-tables/) in 193 CE, he did so not as the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/)’s choice, but as the army’s—toppling [Didius Julianus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-imperial-auction-fact-or-fiction-unraveling-the-reign-of-didius-julianus/), the short-lived emperor installed after a praetorian coup. Born in the African city of Leptis Magna, he was no heir to [Roman aristocracy](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/), yet he would remake the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) in his image—disciplining its institutions, elevating its soldiers, and securing his sons as his successors. His reign, forged in the fires of civil war, marked the beginning of a new political reality: one in which military power, provincial roots, and dynastic ambition would override the old Republican ideals. Severus was not merely an emperor—he was a founder, a fighter, and the architect of a harsher, more resilient Rome. ![Septimius Severus in the classic style of four "Serapis curls" falling into his forehead, that go back to a cult image of the Egyptian god Serapis, to whom the North African Emperor felt particularly attached](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Septimius-Severus-in-the-classic-style-of-four--22Serapis-curls-22-falling-into-his-forehead--that-go-back-to-a-cult-image-of-the-Egyptian-god-Serapis--to-whom-the-North-African-Emperor-felt-particularly-attached.jpg) Septimius Severus in the classic style of four "Serapis curls" falling into his forehead, that go back to a cult image of the Egyptian god Serapis, to whom the North African Emperor felt particularly attached. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 ### A New Emperor from Africa Once the Roman imperial system had settled into permanence, it seemed to matter little who wore the purple. > “As for the Emperor and the Emperor’s friends, and fortune’s dance… certain names shooting up like flames to a great height of glory and being extinguished—there is complete silence on these things here, our ears are spared from news of that sort...” Synesius, *Letter to a friend* His jest, drawn from life in distant Cyrenaica under Arcadius in the early 5th century, came with a rebuke: in his treatise *On Kingship*, he urged that the emperor must be present—touring the provinces, leading the army. Septimius Severus, although not recorded visiting Cyrenaica itself, came close to fulfilling this vision. He was the first emperor to be both born and raised outside Rome and Italy, growing up in the heart of Tripolitania. His path to power—beginning with his senatorial career—took him across the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/): from Sardinia to Spain, Syria, Gaul, Sicily, and Pannonia, with a formative interlude in Athens. After seizing power, he spent only four of his eighteen years as emperor in Rome. The rest unfolded in constant movement—campaigning in the east where he pushed Rome’s frontier to the Tigris, visiting Egypt, the Balkans, the Rhineland, his native Africa, and ultimately, remote Britain, where he remained longer than any emperor before him. ![Tondo showing the Severan dynasty, Septimius Severus with Julia Domna, Caracalla and Geta, whose face has been erased, probably because of the damnatio memoriae put against him by Caracalla](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Tondo-showing-the-Severan-dynasty--Septimius-Severus-with-Julia-Domna--Caracalla-and-Geta--whose-face-has-been-erased--probably-because-of-the-damnatio-memoriae-put-against-him-by-Caracalla.jpg) Tondo showing the Severan dynasty, Septimius Severus with Julia Domna, Caracalla and Geta, whose face has been erased, probably because of the damnatio memoriae put against him by Caracalla. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 His African roots were no less remarkable. Recent scholarship has underscored the distinctiveness of Tripolitania, which remained conservative and culturally self-contained long after becoming part of the Roman world under [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/). Its Punic or Libyphoenician identity remained strong, undisturbed by waves of Roman settlement. The old elite, however, responded promptly to Roman authority. Lepcis, already a free city, had secured allied status early, and Septimius’ family was among the first to rise within the new order. His grandfather had become a Roman knight, held land near Rome, and was known in the literary world of late Flavian Italy, before returning to Lepcis to preside over its transformation into an honorary colonia. His father remained rooted in Tripolitania; Septimius himself spent his youth there. Severus’ African background shaped more than just his biography its influence extended to the imperial household’s diversity, seen in his Syrian-born wife Julia Domna and the broader Severan dynasty’s eastern character. In a world of many languages—Latin, Greek, and others—Severus emerges as a figure deeply shaped by his provincial origins, one whose rise reflects the layered, often misunderstood dynamics of a changing Roman world. [What was the Severan Marble Plan?In the ruins of an ancient city, amidst temples and columns long abandoned, lied the shattered remains of something truly extraordinary.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/icon/Screenshot-2023-10-05-at-22.54.45-1-1.png)Roman Empire TimesChristina Athanasiou![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/thumbnail/A-possible-representation-of-Roman-Emperor-Severus-walking-inside-the-Temple-of-Peace-and-admiring-the-first-iteration-of-the-Forma-Urbis-Romae-1.jpg)](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-severan-marble-plan/) ### From Lepcis Magna to Rome Septimius Severus was born on April 11, 145 CE, in the prominent city of Lepcis Magna, located in the province of Tripolitania. He was the son of Publius Septimius Geta and Fulvia Pia. At the time of his birth, Lepcis had held the rank of Roman colony for a generation and was one of the most distinguished cities of Roman Africa. The name Tripolitania—“land of three cities”—referred to Lepcis and its neighbors Oea (modern Tripoli) and Sabratha. The empire itself was then at the height of prosperity, under the rule of Antoninus Pius. The emperor, consul for the fourth time in 145 alongside his adopted son [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-marcus-aurelius-meditations-survive/), gave the period its association with peace and affluence. The infant was named Lucius Septimius Severus, after his paternal grandfather. Half a century later, as emperor, he would retroactively adopt the Antonine dynasty to bolster his legitimacy—declaring himself “son of the deified Marcus” in place of “son of Publius,” a calculated move to link his reign to the respected legacy of [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/10-things-you-did-not-know-about-marcus-aurelius/). ![Septimius Severus portrayed as Serapis, the god to which the emperor liked to be compared, carved in the Antonine stylistic fashion](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Septimius-Severus-portrayed-as-Serapis--the-god-to-which-the-emperor-liked-to-be-compared--carved-in-the-Antonine-stylistic-fashion.jpg) Septimius Severus portrayed as Serapis, the god to which the emperor liked to be compared, carved in the Antonine stylistic fashion. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 This retrospective adoption did not pass without comment: one senator dryly remarked that Severus had “found a father,” an insinuation that his true origins were unremarkable. While Geta never held public office and died long before his son’s rise in 195, he was not without standing. Two members of his family—likely his cousins—were already senators in 145 and held promising careers. Geta himself remained in Tripolitania with his wife and their three children: another son, probably the elder, who shared his name, and a daughter named Octavilla. Though the details of his life remain obscure, the *Historia Augusta* claims that Marius Maximus discussed him “quite copiously” in his biography of Severus, even if it offers no surviving account of that discussion. Lepcis Magna, where Severus spent the first seventeen years of his life, was no ordinary [Roman city](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/). Among the patchwork of communities across the empire, Lepcis and the other Tripolitanian cities stood out for their distinctiveness. To understand Septimius Severus' background, it is essential to explore the early history of his native city, Lepcis Magna. Founded as a Phoenician trading post by settlers from Tyre and Sidon, Lepcis developed within a wider Punic network that dominated the western Mediterranean until Rome’s rise. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Stage--proscaenium-and-frons-scaenae--and-orchestra--from-the-Roman-theatre-in-Lepcis-Magna.jpg) ## While Carthage was the leading power, Lepcis retained a distinctive Libyan identity, reflected in its name and location along important trans-Saharan trade routes. **Stage (proscaenium and frons scaenae) and orchestra, from the Roman theatre in Lepcis Magna. Credits: Sebastià Giralt, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0* The region’s fertility, particularly the Cinyps valley, was noted by Herodotus, and though Greek colonists made occasional attempts to settle nearby, they were eventually pushed out by local and Carthaginian forces. With Carthage’s decline after the Punic Wars, Lepcis gradually shifted into the Roman sphere. By the second century BCE, it maintained a degree of independence and later aligned with Rome during the Jugurthine War, becoming a treaty state (*civitas foederata*). Despite its political integration, Lepcis preserved its Punic religious and civic institutions well into the late Republic. Local coinage and inscriptions show continued devotion to deities like Melqart and Shadrapa, while Punic remained in use, though written in a cursive script. The city avoided major disruptions during Rome’s internal conflicts and remained prosperous, especially through olive oil production. It was discovered that in 1961–2 the military site at Carpow on the Tay in Scotland was of Severan date—its stone principia and praetorium confirming that the emperor had intended to conquer the entire island, just as [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) had claimed. Later visits to Lepcis Magna, crossing the desert from the Garamantian region past Bu Ngem—the Severan frontier fort—offered further context to that ambition. During [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/)’s civil war, Lepcis was penalized for supporting his opponents, yet it remained a significant urban center. Under Augustus, Africa’s provincial structure was consolidated, and Lepcis was gradually incorporated into the Roman provincial system—marking a transition from its Punic past to its imperial future. ([*Septimius Severus: The African Emperor*](https://amzn.to/3IiACnS?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Anthony R. Birley*) ![Portico of the Roman theatre, Lepcis Magna, Libya](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Portico-of-the-Roman-theatre--Lepcis-Magna--Libya.jpg) Portico of the Roman theatre, Lepcis Magna, Libya. Credits: Sebastià Giralt, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ### Septimius Severus and Roman Africa Septimius Severus was the only Roman emperor originating from the province of Africa, and scholarly assessments of his reign and policies have varied significantly. Recent discoveries, particularly an inscription from Lepcis, encourage a fresh examination of Severus' family background, ascent to imperial power, and connections to Roman Africa. Severus’ ancestry has sparked debate, notably around a lyrical ode by Statius dedicated to a friend named Septimius Severus. This Severus, admired for oratory skills, had settled in Italy, prompting debate about his relation to the future emperor. Evidence strongly suggests he was not the emperor's direct ancestor but belonged to another branch of the same equestrian family from Lepcis, with family members reaching senatorial ranks in Rome during the second century. Inscriptions, including those at Lepcis and Praeneste, confirm Severus’ familial connections and further indicate Italian origins, specifically marked by the tribe Pupinia, rare outside Italy. Severus’ maternal family, the Fulvii, likewise had Italian roots, engaged prominently in the imperial cult, suggesting Severus’ ancestors were not indigenous Africans but Italian immigrants. Severus benefited significantly from family patronage, notably through his relatives C. Septimius Severus and P. Septimius Aper, who occupied influential positions. His own political career, however, showed no remarkable distinction before his imperial proclamation. Severus held relatively minor posts, experienced significant periods without appointments, and notably lacked military distinction despite later characterizations as a military emperor. His assignment to Pannonia Superior by the praetorian prefect Laetus seems motivated more by Severus' perceived mediocrity and lack of military ambition than any regional solidarity among Africans. Claims about Severus’ alleged Punic racial identity and cultural sympathies are largely unsupported. Anecdotes alleging Severus’ sister spoke little Latin or that Severus himself favored Punic language lack credibility, appearing as rhetorical slander rather than factual evidence. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-bust-of-Roman-Emperor-Septimius-Severus.jpg) ## Though from Lepcis, Severus and his family embraced Roman and Greek cultures, distancing themselves from Punic traditions. **A bust of Roman Emperor Septimius Severus. Credits: Marc Barrot, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0* Severus' policy as emperor did not reflect a bias toward African interests. Contrary to suggestions of favoritism, his administration continued established Roman practices of provincial promotion and integration into the senatorial and equestrian classes without particular preference for Africans. African cities, including Severus' birthplace Lepcis, received benefits and privileges; however, these were consistent with broader imperial policies toward prosperous provincial cities rather than signs of specific regional favoritism. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Detail-of-the-portico-of-the-Roman-theatre-in-Lepcis-Magna-1.jpg) ## Even Severus' famed architectural patronage in Lepcis largely served to glorify his hometown rather than Africa broadly. **Detail of the portico of the Roman theatre in Lepcis Magna. Credits: Sebastià Giralt, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0* In military and administrative appointments, Severus favored competent and ambitious individuals from across the empire, underscoring opportunism and ambition as key motivators among his supporters, rather than regional or ethnic allegiances. Notably, African governors and generals, such as Plautianus and Laetus, rose through merit or opportunity rather than inherent regional solidarity. Overall, Severus’ African heritage was not significantly reflected in his imperial policies or actions beyond a personal and sentimental attachment to Lepcis. Scholarly attempts to emphasize his African identity and its impact on his governance overestimate the significance of his origins, overlooking the broader imperial contexts, political circumstances, and practical considerations shaping his rule. (*The Family and Career of Septimius Severus, by T. D. Barnes*) ### Septimius Severus in Herodian Septimius Severus occupies a central role in Herodian’s [*History of the Empire*](https://amzn.to/4lya28W?ref=romanempiretimes.com), uniquely portrayed as a decisive, energetic, and shrewd emperor, whose character shapes the coherence of a turbulent period. Unlike Cassius Dio’s broader historical narrative, Herodian emphasizes Severus’ personal traits and deliberate contrasts with rivals Didius Julianus and Pescennius Niger, casting Severus as a figure of vigorous action against their passivity and indecision. Herodian repeatedly structures his portrayal through careful parallels and contrasts. Severus' strategic manipulation and rhetorical mastery emerge clearly against Niger’s hesitant optimism and Julianus’ weak inaction. Severus’ swift march on Rome, careful alliance-building, and rhetorical promises further highlight these differences, demonstrating his effectiveness as both military leader and political tactician. Upon arriving in Rome, Severus reinforces his earlier rhetoric by decisively punishing Pertinax’s murderers, demonstrating consistency between his words and actions. ![Arch of Septimius Severus, in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Arch-of-Septimius-Severus--in-Rome.jpg) Arch of Septimius Severus, in Rome. Credits: Hsuanya Tsai, CC BY-NC 2.0 Herodian highlights Severus’ calculated use of deception against the [Praetorians](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/) and carefully frames his entry into Rome through internal reactions—fear from the populace, cautious support from the Senate—rather than visual spectacle, as Dio does. Severus skillfully aligns himself rhetorically with virtuous predecessors such as Pertinax and Marcus Aurelius, even as Herodian selectively omits unfavorable details found in Dio, thus maintaining Severus’ positive image. His narrative of Severus’ later years emphasizes his continued dedication to imperial administration and moral instruction of his sons. His careful handling of Plautianus’ conspiracy emphasizes threats posed by overly ambitious praetorian prefects, positioning Severus as a cautious reformer who splits prefectural power while upholding administrative responsibilities, unlike [Commodus](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-commodus-truly-the-megalomaniac-gladiator-emperor/). Severus’ thoughtful education of his sons, particularly through his advice about fraternal harmony, recalls Marcus Aurelius’ virtuous model. In depicting Severus’ final campaign in Britain, Herodian further underscores Severus’ military excellence, omitting hardships detailed by Dio, thus reinforcing the emperor’s established traits of determination and effectiveness. The final scenes highlight Severus’ parental challenges, showing Caracalla’s destructive tendencies contrasted with Severus’ continued efforts toward familial harmony. He concludes by carefully paralleling Severus’ death with Marcus Aurelius’, emphasizing their shared dedication to imperial duty despite illness and family tensions. [Soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/)' enduring loyalty to Severus' memory briefly maintains harmony between his sons, demonstrating his lasting influence. Through sustained rhetorical parallels, carefully structured contrasts, and selective narrative omissions, Herodian presents Severus as an exemplar of imperial strength, capable administration, and complex legacy within Rome’s chaotic era. (*Herodian's Septimus Severus: Literary Portrait and Historiography, by Chrysanthos S. Chrysanthou*) --- In life, Septimius Severus marched farther than any emperor before him; in death, **he left behind a Rome reshaped**—not by birthright, but by will, war, and the reach of a man from Africa. ### Emperor Decius: Persecutor of Christians or Restorer of Rome? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-decius-persecutor-of-christians-or-restorer-of-rome/ Last updated: 2025-06-07T14:05:31.000Z In the shadow of a fractured empire and the memory of greater men, Decius stepped onto the Roman stage not as a [conqueror](https://romanempiretimes.com/alexander-the-great-in-roman-thought-hero-rival-and-legend/), but as a restorer. Styling himself *Trajanus*—a name soaked in imperial glory—he envisioned a return to Roman virtue, tradition, and divine favor. Yet his most ambitious decree, an empire-wide command for sacrifice to the [old gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/), would earn him a darker legacy. Christians remembered him as the first great persecutor. Historians, however, now ask: was Decius truly driven by cruelty—or by desperation to save a dying world? ![Plan of the Baths of Decius by Rome Paul Bigot, they were built on Rome’s Aventine Hill to serve the area’s elite, wealthy residents, located between today’s Santo Alessio and Santa Prisca churches](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Plan-of-the-Baths-of-Decius-by-Rome-Paul-Bigot--they-were-built-on-Rome---s-Aventine-Hill-to-serve-the-area---s-elite--wealthy-residents--located-between-today---s-Santo-Alessio-and-Santa-Prisca-churches.jpg) Plan of the Baths of Decius by Rome Paul Bigot, they were built on Rome’s Aventine Hill to serve the area’s elite, wealthy residents, located between today’s Santo Alessio and Santa Prisca churches. Credits: Pascal Radigue, CC BY-SA 3.0 ### A Crisis Demands a Savior The mid-third century was a time when [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) teetered on the [edge of collapse](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/). Borders were under siege, [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) rose and fell in [rapid succession](https://romanempiretimes.com/69-ce-the-year-of-the-four-emperors/), and the old rhythms of [Roman life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/)—military discipline, religious piety, civic duty—seemed to be crumbling. Into this chaos stepped Decius, a seasoned senator and general from the Balkan provinces, proclaimed emperor by his troops in 249 after defeating Philip the Arab. His ascent was not driven by personal ambition alone; it was born of necessity. The empire needed order, and Decius believed he could provide it. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-closeup-of-a-bust-of-Roman-Emperor-Trajan-Decius.jpg) ## He was no innovator. Quite the opposite—Decius looked backward, drawing on the memory of better times. **A closeup of a bust of Roman Emperor Trajan Decius. Credits: F. Tronchin, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0* He took the name Traianus in deliberate homage to [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/), the emperor still remembered as the [embodiment of Roman strength](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/) and justice. This was not empty flattery of the past, but a calculated move to evoke an era when [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/)’s gods were honored, its [armies](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) feared, and its values intact. To Decius, the solution to present instability lay in restoring the foundations of the old Republic—its morality, its religion, and its unity. One of his first acts was to revive the long-dormant [office of the censor](https://romanempiretimes.com/guarding-the-word-speech-censorship-and-power-in-ancient-rome/), an institution once charged with upholding public morals and overseeing the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/). It was a symbolic gesture that reflected his wider agenda: Rome would be healed not by new doctrines or reforms, but by recovering its ancient soul. In a time of [plagues](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-antonine-plague-devastation-reshaped-roman-empire/), food shortages, and foreign threats, Decius envisioned himself not merely as a ruler, but as a restorer—*princeps restitutor*, a title that would soon be etched into [coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) bearing his name. ![A gold Roman Aureus coin, featuring Emperor Trajan Decius](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-gold-Roman-Aureus-coin--featuring-Emperor-Trajan-Decius.jpg) A gold Roman Aureus coin, featuring Emperor Trajan Decius. Credits: the Trustees of the British Museum, produced by Natalia Bauer for the Portable Antiquities Scheme, CC BY-ND 2.0 ### Faith on Trial: The Sacrificial Edict In either the final days of 249 or the opening of 250 CE, an imperial decree swept through the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/)—an edict unlike any before. It commanded every citizen to make a public sacrifice to the Roman gods, taste the sacrificial meat, and pour a libation in the emperor’s name. These acts, so ordinary to traditional Romans, became the basis for a sweeping campaign of ritual conformity. From Alexandria to Hispania, civic life was suddenly reordered around a test of loyalty—measured not in words or taxes, but in ash and incense. To administer the edict, Decius ordered the formation of sacrificial commissions, panels of local officials that operated in cities, towns, and even rural villages. Compliance was recorded through written certificates called *libelli*—physical proof that the bearer had performed the proper rites. The process was standardized: make the offering, taste the meat, pour the [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/). Those who refused were brought before magistrates, [imprisoned, tortured, or executed](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/). But this machinery, though brutal in effect, was not driven by sadism. It was designed to secure unity—religious, civic, and imperial—in a time when Rome’s very soul seemed under siege. For [Christians](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/), the edict posed an impossible choice: renounce their God or die. Some fled, others broke under pressure, and many held firm, becoming martyrs remembered in church calendars for centuries to come. Yet Decius did not single out Christians in the edict’s language. Its scope was universal. All were required to sacrifice—not because of their beliefs, but because the emperor demanded shared ritual as a safeguard for Rome’s future. It was less an act of targeted persecution than a test of Roman identity. ![A painting by Michael Pacher, depicting St. Laurentius (commonly known as St. Lawrence) with Emperor Decius, showing him that the real treasure of the church are the poor](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-painting-by-Michael-Pacher--depicting-St.-Laurentius--commonly-known-as-St.-Lawrence--with-Emperor-Decius--showing-him-that-the-real-treasure-of-the-church-are-the-poor.jpg) A painting by Michael Pacher, depicting St. Laurentius (commonly known as St. Lawrence) with Emperor Decius, showing him that the real treasure of the church are the poor. Public domain ### Persecutor or Traditionalist? Rethinking Decius’ Motives For centuries, Christian writers portrayed Decius as a villain—a successor to [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) and [Diocletian](https://romanempiretimes.com/diocletian-architect-of-the-roman-empires-renewal/), a man who tried to stamp out the faith by force. Eusebius, the earliest major church historian, framed the edict as a deliberate persecution of Christians, part of a satanic assault on the true religion. > “The cruelty of the tortures surpassed all description.” Eusebius This portrayal became deeply rooted in Christian memory. But modern historians are no longer so certain. When the language of the edict is examined—stripped of later theological interpretation—it tells a different story: one of enforced ritual unity, not of extermination. No known document from Decius himself, or from imperial authorities, explicitly names Christianity as the target. Instead, the decree applied to all citizens, requiring them to demonstrate public piety in a moment of collective crisis. As historian Torstein Jørgensen notes: > “The motive behind the edict was not a desire to suppress Christianity as such, but rather an attempt to reassert the traditional religious foundations of Roman society.” Christians suffered greatly under it, but not because they were the intended victims—instead, because they alone, as a group, refused to participate in the rituals required of everyone else. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Christian-martyr-Saint-Reparata-before-the-Emperor-Decius--painting-by-0ABernardo-Daddi--her-tormentors-have-been-scratched-out-and-defaced-by-viewers-who-responded-in-outrage-to-their-actions.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-painting-showing-Saint-Fabian--Saint-Sebastian-and-Saint-Roch--the-two-first-famously-persecuted-and-martyred-under-Emperor-Decius-and-Emperor-Diocletian.jpg) 🏛️ ****Image #1:** Christian martyr Saint Reparata before the Emperor Decius, painting by Bernardo Daddi, her tormentors have been scratched out and defaced by viewers who responded in outrage to their actions. **Credits: The Met Fifth Avenue, Public domain* ****Image #2:** A painting showing Saint Fabian, Saint Sebastian and Saint Roch, the two first famously persecuted and martyred under Emperor Decius and Emperor Diocletian. **Credits: Lluís Ribes Mateu, CC BY-NC 2.0* This distinction matters. Decius was not a religious ideologue but a traditionalist, working to restore favor with the gods through universal acts of devotion. His edict may have caused widespread arrests and executions, but the machinery behind it was civic and religious, not genocidal. The suffering it inflicted was tragic, but its purpose—at least from Decius’ perspective—was to heal Rome, not to destroy dissent. In hindsight, it became one of the earliest moments when state ritual collided fatally with Christian conscience. But it began, not as persecution, but as policy. ### Death at Abritus and the Shadow of Legacy In 251 CE, Emperor Decius faced a new threat—not from within the empire, but from beyond the Danube. The Gothic leader Cniva had crossed into Roman territory, and the emperor moved to confront him. In the swamps near Abritus, in modern-day Bulgaria, Decius and his son Herennius Etruscus led their legions into battle. The result was catastrophic. Both father and son were killed—**Decius becoming the first Roman emperor to perish in combat against a foreign enemy.** The bodies were never recovered. Rome was left stunned. ![Bronze head of the Roman emperor Decius found in Sarmizegetusa (Hunedoara County, Romania)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Bronze-head-of-the-Roman-emperor-Decius-found-in-Sarmizegetusa--Hunedoara-County--Romania-.jpg) Bronze head of the Roman emperor Decius found in Sarmizegetusa (Hunedoara County, Romania). Credits: Laci3, CC0 1.0 Despite his death in the field, Decius was not immediately condemned. The edict of sacrifice was not reversed, and his successor Trebonianus Gallus even maintained a tolerant stance toward those who had carried out Decius’ policies. His image endured on coins, often alongside deified emperors of the past—a subtle affirmation of his efforts to place himself in that lineage. The persecution he inadvertently launched left deep scars, especially in Christian memory, but in political terms, Decius’ reign passed into the wider turbulence of the century without further censure. In the broader scope of Roman history, Decius stands at a crossroads. His death marked not only a military disaster, but the end of a moment when Rome attempted, through religious uniformity, to restore its identity. His actions echoed long after his fall—not because they succeeded, but because they revealed just how fragile the empire’s foundations had become. (*The Decian Persecution: Reconsidering its Cause and Nature, by Torstein Jørgensen*) ### Sacrifices on Paper: The Bureaucratic Machinery Behind the Decian Persecution Though the Decian edict struck terror into Christian communities, its execution was not chaotic. It was bureaucratic. Across the empire—but most tangibly in Egypt—a paper trail of compliance emerged: the *libelli*, which as aforementioned certificates a confirmation that an individual had sacrificed to the gods in accordance with imperial orders. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Part-of-a-papyrus-with-libell-of-the-decian-persecution--with-the-certification-of-having-sacrificed-to-the-pagan-gods-for-2-women--June-14--250-AD.jpg) ## These documents, small in size but immense in implication, reveal the administrative backbone of a policy often remembered only for its brutality. **Part of a papyrus with libell of the Decian persecution, with the certification of having sacrificed to the pagan gods for 2 women, June 14, 250 AD. Credits: Sailko, CC BY-SA 4.0* Most surviving libelli come from the Egyptian towns of Theadelphia and Arsinoë, dating to the year 250 CE. While their formula varied slightly, they followed a clear structure: the petitioner’s declaration that they had sacrificed, accompanied by a record of the offering, and endorsements by witnesses and local officials. Three distinct hands are often present on each document: one writing the text, and two signing to verify the act. This wasn’t merely a matter of local reporting—it was a layered verification process designed to resist forgery and guarantee uniform compliance. Local administrators played an essential role. In Theadelphia, the names of a *grammateus* and a commissioner recur across several certificates, hinting at a small team conducting mass documentation. ![The painted ceilings of Esna’s temple, recently restored, reveal vivid ancient colors once hidden by grime, much of the structure was rededicated under Emperor Decius, one of the final temples built before Egypt’s Christian era](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/The-painted-ceilings-of-Esna---s-temple--recently-restored--reveal-vivid-ancient-colors-once-hidden-by-grime--much-of-the-structure-was-rededicated-under-Emperor-Decius--one-of-the-final-temples-built-before-Egypt---s-Christian-era.jpg) The painted ceilings of Esna’s temple, recently restored, reveal vivid ancient colors once hidden by grime, much of the structure was rededicated under Emperor Decius, one of the final temples built before Egypt’s Christian era. Credits: orientalizing, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 In Arsinoë, the officials included a *prytanis*, possibly the town’s leading magistrate. These layers of bureaucracy show that the edict wasn’t just law—it was a logistical enterprise. Curiously, the petitioners named in these documents do not include overtly Christian names. Whether this reflects a real absence of Christians in the records, or the tendency of Christians to refuse the process altogether, remains debated. Either way, the survival of these documents provides an extraordinary window into how Decius' policy was experienced at the level of everyday life—through paperwork, not just persecution. ![Van Mandijn captivating landscape with the Legend of Saint Christopher](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Van-Mandijn-captivating-landscape-with-the-Legend-of-Saint-Christopher.jpg) Van Mandijn captivating landscape with the Legend of Saint Christopher. Credits: Dr. Alexey Yakovlev, CC BY-SA 2.0 🏛️ The scene is drawn from Jacobus de Voragine’s Golden Legend, a 13th-century collection of saints’ lives. It recounts the tale of a giant man from Canaan who, after converting to Christianity, dedicated himself to good deeds by ferrying the sick and poor across a river. One night, by lantern light, he carried a child who grew so unbearably heavy that he struggled to move. “You have carried the weight of the world,” the child revealed, “for I am Jesus Christ.” His name, Christophoros—Greek for “Christ-bearer”—remains associated with safe travel; for centuries, it was believed that gazing upon his image would bring protection for the day. Around 250 CE, during Emperor Decius’s persecution, Christopher was martyred—tortured and beheaded. This is alluded to in the painting by the severed head pierced by a knife hanging from a dead tree branch. Stylistically and iconographically, Van Mandijn’s composition follows the path of Hieronymus Bosch, blending fantastical detail with moral allegory. The vivid, lifelike landscape teems with bizarre creatures crawling, flying, and swimming—symbolic embodiments of the Seven Deadly Sins that ceaselessly tempt humankind. **Analysis by Dr. Alexey Yakovlev* ### Restorers of the Provinces: Decius and His Family on the Frontier As mentioned above, between 249 and 251 CE, the Danubian frontier transformed into the beating heart of imperial attention. The provinces of Dacia, Upper Moesia, Lower Moesia, and Thrace—battered by waves of Gothic and Carpic incursions—became the primary arena of Emperor Decius’ activity. But he did not face the crisis alone. Coins and inscriptions across the region testify to the physical presence not only of the emperor, but also of his wife Herennia Etruscilla and their son Herennius Etruscus. Their presence in these volatile territories was not ceremonial—it was part of a coordinated imperial response to instability on multiple fronts. Local coinage from Dacia and Upper Moesia reveals a carefully curated message. These issues, distinct from those struck in Rome, featured images of Victoria, personifications of the provinces, and symbols of abundance like cornucopias and wreaths. The consistency of these motifs reflected a calculated attempt to inspire confidence and suggest resilience in the face of chaos. The titles *Restitutor Daciarum* and *Dacicus Maximus*, preserved in inscriptions from Apulum and Hispania, hint at successful operations by Decius that went unrecorded in narrative sources but were commemorated by the provinces themselves. ![The Ludovisi Sarcophagus possibly depicts Hostilian, son of Emperor Decius, in battle against the Goths, as a Roman general, a Mithraic cross on his forehead links him to the Persian god of light](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/The-Ludovisi-Sarcophagus-possibly-depicts-Hostilian--son-of-Emperor-Decius--in-battle-against-the-Goths--as-a-Roman-general--a-Mithraic-cross-on-his-forehead-links-him-to-the-Persian-god-of-light.jpg) The Ludovisi Sarcophagus possibly depicts Hostilian, son of Emperor Decius, in battle against the Goths, as a Roman general, a Mithraic cross on his forehead links him to the Persian god of light. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Road repair projects and milestone inscriptions also traced the movements of the imperial family. Inscriptions from the key road between Scupi and Naissus, and across Dacia, suggest Decius not only commanded from afar but walked the ground himself. The Empress Herennia, bearing the title mater *castrorum*—a designation used by women actively engaged in military life—was honored in Thrace and Lower Moesia. Her role, far from passive, appears to have mirrored the precedent set by imperial women of the previous century who accompanied their husbands in military campaigns. A particularly intriguing case concerns their younger son, Hostilian. A medallion struck at Viminacium in Upper Moesia shows him as Caesar—suggesting that he, too, may have visited the province. This challenges the conventional narrative that Hostilian remained in Rome while his father and brother led the war effort. If true, this temporary absence of all male members of the imperial house may explain the brief usurpation of Valens in 251—a moment of opportunism in a capital left unguarded. ![A Roman silver Antoninianus coin showing Hostilian as Caesar, and standing to left, holding standard in right hand and transverse scepter in left](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-Roman-silver-Antoninianus-coin-showing-Hostilian-as-Caesar--and-standing-to-left--holding-standard-in-right-hand-and-transverse-scepter-in-left.jpg) A Roman silver Antoninianus coin showing Hostilian as Caesar, and standing to left, holding standard in right hand and transverse scepter in left. Credits: CoinArchives.com, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times In all, the pattern is clear. The Decian dynasty was not operating from a distance. It moved with the army, appeared in provincial mints, and responded visibly to crisis in Rome’s vulnerable borderlands. Though history would later reduce Decius to the emperor who persecuted Christians, the record from the Danubian limes tells another story: one of active governance, coordinated imperial presence, and a desperate effort to hold the empire’s edge together as everything threatened to fall apart. (*Emperor Trajan Decius and His Sons on the Lower-Danubian Limes (AD 249–251), by Lily Grozdanova*) --- In the short span of his reign, Decius imposed one of the most far-reaching religious policies Rome had ever seen. Yet beneath the traditional image of a persecutor, the sources reveal a more complex figure—one who looked to the past for solutions, who sought civic unity through shared ritual, and who governed not just from Rome, but from the frontier. His edict, preserved in the libelli of provincial Egypt, and his presence, inscribed in stone across the Danubian provinces, show an emperor trying to reassert control in a world that seemed to be slipping away. Whether remembered as a restorer or remembered as a threat, Decius left behind a legacy not of ideology alone, but of crisis management—written in ink, stone, and blood. ### Crime and Punishment in the Roman Empire: Justice and Inequality URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/ Last updated: 2026-04-29T17:52:03.000Z Justice in the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) was as much a display of dominance as it was a legal institution. Beneath the solemn rituals of the courtroom and the rigid formulas of Roman law, a deeply unequal system thrived—one where status dictated not only how justice was administered, but what counted as justice in the first place. A [senator](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/) and a [slave](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) might face the same charge, but never the same fate. From crucifixions and *damnatio ad bestias* to exile and fines, punishment in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/) was calibrated to uphold hierarchy, instill fear, and maintain control. In the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/)’s sprawling legal machinery, crime was never judged in a vacuum—it was judged in context: social, political, and brutally pragmatic. ![Example of a Roman military punishment, soldiers being sold into slavery and servitude](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Example-of-a-Roman-military-punishment--soldiers-being-sold-into-slavery-and-servitude.jpg) Example of a Roman military punishment, soldiers being sold into slavery and servitude. Credits: Wellcome Collection, CC BY 4.0 ### The Legal Framework of Ancient Rome The foundation of Roman law was the [Twelve Tables](https://romanempiretimes.com/foundations-of-justice-romes-twelve-tables/), established in the early Republic. This codification of laws was a response to the plebeians' demands for legal transparency and equality. However, the application of these laws often depended on one's social status, with patricians enjoying more leniencies compared to [plebeians](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/) and slaves. The Twelve Tables served as a public declaration of the rights afforded to each citizen within both the public and private domains. These tables codified what had been implicitly understood within Roman society as unwritten laws. By making these previously unwritten norms accessible, the Twelve Tables offered plebeians a means to assert their rights and resist financial exploitation, contributing to a more balanced Roman economy. ### Interpreting Roman Justice: A Legacy of Unequal Punishment Roman criminal law has intrigued historians for more than a century, especially as it relates to how Rome maintained order across its vast territories. While early legal historians focused on building a clear picture of Rome’s legal system, later scholars began to look more closely at how punishment functioned within that framework. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-bas-relief-of-the-Goddess-of-Justice--by-Antonio-Canova-1.jpg) ## Rather than treating Roman justice as a static body of rules, more recent approaches have asked deeper questions: Who was punished, how, and why? **A bas-relief of the Goddess of Justice, by Antonio Canova. Credits: Fondazione Cariplo, CC BY-SA 3.0* Interest gradually shifted toward understanding punishment not only as a legal consequence but as a tool of social control. It became clear that Roman penalties—especially harsh forms like execution, torture, and exile—were shaped as much by politics and hierarchy as by law. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How did Romans use Marketing in the Roman Empire? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-romans-use-marketing-in-the-roman-empire/ Last updated: 2025-06-04T23:45:16.000Z In the bustling cities of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), messages clamored for attention not through glowing screens or glossy magazines, but across stone walls, market stalls, and colonnaded streets. From the political slogans scrawled in [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/) to painted advertisements for taverns,[ gladiator](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/) games, and lost goods, the ancient world pulsed with a surprising variety of promotional language. Far from being silent and austere, Roman urban life was filled with carefully crafted appeals — commercial, political, and theatrical — aimed at shaping public opinion, drawing crowds, and turning a profit. These messages, whether etched by the hand of a paid scribe or shouted aloud by a town crier, reveal a world where persuasion was public, performative, and often as strategic as it is today. ## Messages on Walls, Marks on Clay: How the Romans Advertised Their World [Ancient Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/), founded in 753 BCE, evolved into the world’s first true metropolis — a city of theaters, libraries, [bustling baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), and commercial brilliance. Its urban heart thrived like a grand bazaar, dense with tabernae — small shops that often featured painted signs above their doors to catch the eye of passersby. Some of these commercial walls even doubled as paid advertising space, licensed for promotional use. Competition among retailers was fierce, and to cut through the noise, merchants employed criers to shout product names in crowded streets — an early form of audio advertising. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-possible-representation-of-word-of-mouth-marketing-in-the-Roman-Empire.jpg) ## Still, the most powerful promotional force remained word of mouth, which traveled quickly through Rome’s dense social networks. **A possible representation of word-of-mouth marketing in the Roman Empire. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney* Rome’s appetite for public entertainment also offered fertile ground for promotional spectacle. [Gladiator](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-legends-about-gladiator-sweat-heres-what-we-found/) fights, theatrical plays, and [chariot](https://romanempiretimes.com/fury-on-wheels-the-legendary-chariot-races-of-ancient-rome/) races drew citizens from every social class to venues like the [Colosseum](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/), the [Circus Maximus](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-circus-maximus-and-why-there-is-nothing-left-of-it/), and the Amphitheatre of Pompeii. These mass events weren’t just leisure — they were political platforms. [Wealthy elites](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) vied for the honor of sponsoring games, using them as public displays of influence and allegiance. Public spectacle became the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/)’s version of mass media. Celebrity culture also flourished. Gladiators, actors, and [charioteers like Diocles](https://romanempiretimes.com/gaius-appuleius-diocles-a-billionaire-on-wheels-the-richest-athlete-ever/) became the icons of their age — admired, imitated, and commodified. Their fame inspired portraits, [mosaics](https://romanempiretimes.com/asarotos-oikos-mosaic-unswept-floor-roman-elite/), and souvenirs, and their names held sway over the Roman imagination. The visibility of such figures was not lost on those in power, who recognized — even then — **the influence of star power**. Rome’s flair for communication extended beyond arenas and [marketplaces](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/). Under [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/), the *Acta Diurna* (“Daily Acts”) emerged as the earliest known form of a state-run newspaper. Posted in public spaces, these bulletins informed citizens of births, deaths, court decisions, and grain supplies — curated and controlled by the state. In many ways, it was a prototype for modern media: centralized, circulated, and political. Some scholars even argue that the essence of social media existed long before the internet. Information from public assemblies was transcribed onto papyri, copied, annotated, and re-shared. Quotes were passed along and content evolved as it traveled — much like posts on modern digital platforms. [Coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/), too, became carriers of curated identity. [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/) used currency to project his image and achievements — from portraits to symbols of victory — ensuring his persona reached every hand in the empire. In this, money functioned as [propaganda](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/), reinforcing power with every transaction. ![A golden Roman aureus coin, depicting Emperor Augustus by Unknown, -19](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-golden-Roman-aureus-coin--depicting-Emperor-Augustus-by-Unknown---19.jpg) A golden Roman aureus coin, depicting Emperor Augustus by Unknown, -19\. Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times Branding, likewise, was no stranger to the Roman world. Pottery, oil lamps, bricks, and tiles often bore marks — stamps, names, or initials — identifying the maker, the workshop, or the inspector. These labels weren’t just practical; they were promotional. Whether molded into clay or pressed into [terracotta](https://romanempiretimes.com/monte-testaccio-the-roman-hill-composed-of-53-million-amphorae-fragments-2/), such marks aimed to establish reputation and build loyalty. In some cases, even brand names like “*Fortis*” or “*Communis*” appeared — precursors to trademarks we recognize today. Even Rome’s infrastructure bore signs of self-promotion. Bricks used in construction were frequently stamped, sometimes with the name of the military unit that made them, sometimes with the official overseeing the production. By the third century CE, brick production had become an imperial monopoly, and state control extended right down to the imprint in the clay. The Roman colony of Pompeii, founded as early as the eighth century BCE, met its tragic end when Mount Vesuvius erupted in the first century CE. Yet before its destruction, the city had already embraced a lively culture of political messaging. Archaeologists have uncovered hundreds of election-related slogans painted on its walls — early examples of organized political propaganda. A common abbreviation found at the end of these inscriptions was OVF, short for **“*Oro vos faciatis*”** (“I ask you to vote for him”). ![Electoral inscriptions, or programmata, proposing candidates for civic offices (as aedil and duumvir)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Electoral-inscriptions--or-programmata--proposing-candidates-for-civic-offices--as-aedil-and-duumvir-.jpg) Electoral inscriptions, or programmata, proposing candidates for civic offices (as aedil and duumvir). Credits: Fausto & Felice Niccolini. Houses and Monuments of Pompeii by TASCHEN, Photo by Roman Empire Times Control over these messages often belonged to the homeowners whose walls bore them, allowing them to decide which names or slogans would appear. This practice bears a resemblance to the selective nature of personal endorsement seen in modern social media platforms. In addition to political appeals, pictorial advertisements promoting public spectacles — particularly [gladiator](https://romanempiretimes.com/ave-imperator-morituri-te-salutant-what-did-gladiators-actually-say-before-fighting/) games — were also painted throughout the city. These ads typically included the sponsor’s name and the date of the event, serving both informational and promotional purposes. Tickets were not sold for such events; entry was free. The spectacles themselves functioned as tools of political promotion — platforms through which Rome’s leaders could win public favor. The exchange of influence through branding and sponsorship clearly spread across cultures in contact with Rome, showing how promotional strategy was already a shared and evolving practice. (*The Origin and Historical Development of Branding and Advertising in the Old Civilizations of Africa, Asia and Europe, by Slađana Starčević*) ![Dipinti - Programmata, the inscriptions use slogans such as "verecundissimus" (most modest) and "dignus est" (he is worthy)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Dipinti---Programmata--the-inscriptions-use-slogans-such-as--22verecundissimus-22--most-modest--and--22dignus-est-22-0A-he-is-worthy-.jpg) Dipinti - Programmata, the inscriptions use slogans such as "verecundissimus" (most modest) and "dignus est" (he is worthy). Credits: Fausto & Felice Niccolini. Houses and Monuments of Pompeii by TASCHEN, Photo by Roman Empire Times ## Signs of Persuasion: Advertising Practices in Ancient Rome Roman trade, though less central than in modern economies, still gave rise to a variety of promotional practices. Among the Roman elite, commercial activity was often looked down upon: senators, for instance, were barred from engaging in trade, with the expectation that their votes should remain free from financial influence. Agriculture was considered the only noble occupation. As [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) noted: > “most or all other sources of income are vulgar or ungenteel,” with small-scale shopkeeping seen as too close to the masses. Though large-scale commerce was more acceptable, a disdain for business permeated Roman culture. Despite this cultural posture, trade persisted, driven in part by the equestrian class and managed largely by [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) and freedmen, many of whom were foreigners. These individuals, often lacking substantial capital, would not have engaged in large-scale advertising campaigns. Yet publicity was still a part of urban life. Advertising, in its various forms, developed to suit the limitations and norms of Roman society. ![Inscription by the donor N. Popidius Celsinus, ground plan of the temple precinct, oriented towards the west, with the theatre on the left, and detail of the floor mosaic inside the temple](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Inscription-by-the-donor-N.-Popidius-Celsinus--ground-plan-of-the-temple-precinct--oriented-towards-the-west--with-the-theatre-on-the-left--and-detail-of-the-floor-mosaic-inside-the-temple.jpg) Inscription by the donor N. Popidius Celsinus, ground plan of the temple precinct, oriented towards the west, with the theatre on the left, and detail of the floor mosaic inside the temple. Credits: Fausto & Felice Niccolini. Houses and Monuments of Pompeii by TASCHEN, Photo by Roman Empire Times ### Four broad categories of Roman advertising may be identified: 1. Notices in news media or public bulletins 2. Circulars or letters directed to individuals 3. Signage for businesses and services 4. Billboards and wall postings The first category was constrained by the near-absence of formal periodicals. Prior to 59 BCE, there was no equivalent to the newspaper. Romans relied on personal letters for news, especially when posted far from the capital. Cicero’s correspondence with Caelius Rufus exemplifies the system of private updates, mixing political commentary with social news. Some letters were circulated among others or posted in public spaces. A class of news gatherers, known pejoratively as *operarii* or more neutrally as correspondents, emerged to fulfill this need for information. Though scorned by elites, their digests were widely used. As Caelius admitted: > “You can skip the divorces, the hissings at the theater, and the rest of the trash.” Public records evolved with Caesar’s reforms. In 59 BCE, the *acta diurna* were established — the first formal public reports of [senatorial proceedings](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/) and daily events. Over time, the acta expanded to include items such as births, suicides, public works, and even amusing details like “***the visit to the Emperor of a certain C. Crispinius Hilarus with sixty-one descendants in the direct line***.” Despite their reach, the acta did not become platforms for commercial advertising. Public interest in them was evident, especially in the provinces, but merchants did not yet see the opportunity to exploit them for promoting goods or services. Instead, dissemination of consumer trends and fashions relied more on travelers and word of mouth. ![An photo of Acta Diurna (Daily Acts or Daily Public Records), the first proto-newspaper in Ancient Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/An-photo-of-Acta-Diurna--Daily-Acts-or-Daily-Public-Records---the-first-proto-newspaper-in-Ancient-Rome.jpg) A photo of Acta Diurna (Daily Acts or Daily Public Records), the first proto-newspaper in Ancient Rome. Credits: MUSEO DELLA CIVILTA ROMANA The nearest equivalent to magazines may have been the seasonal poetry volumes published by writers such as [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/), whose verses often read like promotional blurbs. Martial named publishers and booksellers, listed prices, and possibly embedded promotional content for perfumers, [barbers](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-ancient-romans-shave-barber-grooming-rituals-in-the-roman-empire/), and others — some of whom may have paid for the mentions. References to real and fictitious tradespeople blurred the line between literary character and product placement. Circulars, form letters, or handbills were virtually unknown — likely due to prohibitive costs and limited printing infrastructure. Signs, however, did play a role. Inns and taverns used painted or carved images — such as elephants or mythological figures — to identify themselves. Occasionally, signs would include slogans like “***One word, wayfarer: come in; a copper tablet tells you all***.” A Vergilian quote on a butcher’s wall offered another imaginative flourish. Shops displayed images of their wares: painted goats for milk vendors, Bacchus for [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/) merchants, [dyed garments](https://romanempiretimes.com/tyrian-purple-the-royal-dye-of-the-ancient-world-and-the-secrets-of-murex-extraction/), or scenes of transactions. Though these may not have functioned like modern signs, they reflected the shop’s trade and aesthetic. Reliefs and plaques were also used, and some shopfronts simply bore inscriptions like “***Aemilius Celer lives here***” — Celer being a prolific sign painter. Factory markings were rare, but goods were sometimes stamped or labeled with the names of their makers, shops, or production centers. Retail activity was spread across the city, with no centralized business districts. Some trades localized naturally — like the “scythemakers’ street” — and addresses often relied on nearby landmarks rather than precise street names. Billboard-style advertising was the most developed format, especially in Pompeii, where over 6,000 wall inscriptions have been found. These included everything from “***for rent***” signs to event announcements and political slogans. ![Various Roman graffiti - 1, Tally of work by female weavers, 2-4, Various aphorisms and brief narratives, 5, A Psych)e in a heart](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Various-Roman-graffiti---1--Tally-of-work-by-female-weavers--2-4--Various-aphorisms-and-brief-narratives--0A5--A-Psych-e-in-a-heart.jpg) Various Roman graffiti - 1, Tally of work by female weavers, 2-4, Various aphorisms and brief narratives, 5, A Psych)e in a heart. Credits: Fausto & Felice Niccolini. Houses and Monuments of Pompeii by TASCHEN, Photo by Roman Empire Times Public buildings like the forum, basilica, and [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/) served as display areas. Billposting became professionalized, with names like Aemilius Celer and even whitewashers leaving signatures on their work. At times, property owners tried to repel postings by painting snakes on their walls. Tombs along major roads were also used, with messages like: “***Bill-poster, I beg you, pass this monument by. If any candidate’s name is ever painted on it, may he suffer defeat and never get an office***.” Political advertisements were particularly prominent. More than 1,500 election notices have been recovered, with recommendations from individuals, trade groups, or humorous entities like“***all the sleepyheads***.” Candidates were endorsed for their integrity, bread quality, or treasury stewardship. [Women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) occasionally joined campaigns, and messages sometimes included quotes or literary references. Literary posters outside bookshops may have echoed this model, possibly quoting from the advertised works themselves. In assessing the relatively limited development of Roman advertising, several constraints emerge: inefficient shipping, the dominance of slavery over labor innovation, and a society with fewer product changes and less consumer novelty. Yet the Roman citizen, with his long days spent in public spaces, had no shortage of exposure to messages. He did not need a newspaper; he was the network. And in this social, outdoor world, promotion was woven into the rhythms of daily life. Had the need arisen, the practical Roman — often called the Yankee of antiquity — would likely have met it. (*Advertising among the Romans, by Evan T. Sage*) ![Front of a tomb altar, inscription with portrait of Naevoleia and representation of Munatius Faustus' public donation of grain](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Front-of-a-tomb-altar--inscription-with-portrait-of-Naevoleia-and-representation-of-Munatius-Faustus--public-donation-of-grain.jpg) Front of a tomb altar, inscription with portrait of Naevoleia and representation of Munatius Faustus' public donation of grain. Credits: Fausto & Felice Niccolini. Houses and Monuments of Pompeii by TASCHEN, Photo by Roman Empire Times ## Advertising Gladiatorial Games in the Streets of Pompeii During excavations in Pompeii in the late 19th century, a striking fresco was uncovered that has since become one of the most iconic visual depictions of the Roman amphitheatre. Painted on the wall of the peristyle in the Casa di Anicetus, the scene vividly captures the violent clash between residents of Pompeii and nearby Nuceria during a gladiatorial event in AD 59 — an episode later chronicled by [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/). The composition offers more than mere drama; it includes a detailed rendering of the area around the amphitheatre, showing it as seen from *Vicolo dell'Anfiteatro* with the Grande Palestra prominently visible. ![Battle between inhabitants of Pompeii and Nuceria in the Amphitheatre of Pompeii, the Roman fresko from Pompeii in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Battle-between-inhabitants-of-Pompeii-and-Nuceria-in-the-Amphitheatre-of-Pompeii--the-Roman-fresko-from-Pompeii-in-the-Museo-Archeologico-Nazionale.jpg) Battle between inhabitants of Pompeii and Nuceria in the Amphitheatre of Pompeii, the Roman fresko from Pompeii in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale. Credits: WolfgangRieger, Public domain The painter emphasized both architectural realism and local color, depicting not only the riot but also a [velarium](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-sail-above-the-sand-did-the-colosseum-really-have-a-retractable-roof/) stretched above the arena stands, merchant stalls, and the imposing façade of the Grande Palestra. On this façade appears a prominent painted inscription: “**D•LVCRETI-FELICIT\[ER\]**”, positioned between two entryways flanked by decorated wall abutments. Accompanying this is a reference to *acclamationes* — public acknowledgments of the benefactors who sponsored and organized gladiatorial games. These inscriptions, known as *dipinti*, were a familiar and deliberate part of the urban setting, emphasizing the significance of the games within local identity and memory. Notably, this is the only section of the fresco where the whitewashed wall has been preserved in contrast to the rest of the painted scene, drawing attention to the textual content. The lettering style used in the fresco closely matches inscriptions discovered on the actual façade of the Pompeian Palestra, raising the possibility that what we see is not simply artistic license, but a faithful rendering of a familiar urban feature. The scene functions not only as a dramatic record of the riot but as a tool for analyzing Pompeii’s urban landscape. The inclusion of dipinti related to gladiatorial events underscores their lasting visibility in the cityscape and their role in shaping public awareness. These painted notices were part of a consistent visual language that made spectacles like gladiator contests a permanent part of civic life. Among these painted messages were announcements called *edicta munerum*, advertising upcoming games and animal hunts (*venationes*). These were not haphazard messages but professionally produced promotional tools meant to draw large audiences. Alongside edicta were acclamationes and *libelli gladiatorum* — the former offering post-event praise for sponsors, and the latter serving as scratched lists of paired fighters and fight outcomes, created by spectators. These texts provided both pre-event marketing and post-event commentary, creating a feedback loop of anticipation and reflection. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-pair-of-small-sketches-or-graffiti-related-to-gladiatorial-combat.jpg) ## While gladiatorial games are often remembered for their grand spectacle, less attention has been paid to the promotional infrastructure behind them. **A pair of small sketches or graffiti related to gladiatorial combat. Credits: Fausto & Felice Niccolini. Houses and Monuments of Pompeii by TASCHEN, Photo by Roman Empire Times* These edicta, painted by skilled signwriters (*scriptores*), operated much like modern advertisements. Though the Latin language lacked a direct term for “advertising,” the practice was embedded in the socio-political dynamics of the time. In Campania especially, changing political landscapes and the emergence of new elites after the Social War led to a growing need to publicize games as a means of securing public favor. Despite the general assumption that all residents already knew when and where these games occurred — since they were tied to [funerals](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/), holidays, elections, and harvests — written advertisements played a key role in encouraging attendance. Oral announcements and word-of-mouth were not enough. Instead, painted edicta served as tools of persuasion, not just information, reinforcing public enthusiasm and legitimizing the sponsor’s status in the process. The Pompeian evidence reveals a century-long tradition — from the late Republic to AD 79 — of using edicta as a consistent communication method. These announcements evolved alongside the politicization of what had once been private, funerary rituals. As games transformed into public exhibitions of political ambition, advertising them became essential. From a sponsor’s perspective, information needed to spread far beyond one's social or political circle. For the spectator, the appeal depended on the quality of the show — something that needed to be conveyed compellingly. Painted inscriptions became the most effective tool for mass advertising. Over eighty surviving examples of *edicta munerum* from Pompeii and its cemeteries allow scholars to study how these messages operated, where they were placed, and how they shaped public perception. These inscriptions fall into two main categories: dipinti (professionally painted texts including edicta, *programmata*, and acclamationes) and [graffiti](https://romanempiretimes.com/whispers-on-the-walls-graffiti-as-a-voice-of-ancient-rome/) (amateur messages and drawings). While programmata — political endorsements painted on walls — lie outside the scope of gladiatorial promotions, they offer a helpful parallel. They often appeared alongside edicta and shared similar functions and locations. Particularly notable within the dipinti category are acclamationes, emotional praises directed at the benefactors of recent games. Though visually similar to edicta, they were distinct in content and purpose, reflecting audience sentiment rather than promotional strategy. ![A small sketch or graffiti related to gladiatorial combat](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-small-sketch-or-graffiti-related-to-gladiatorial-combat.jpg) A small sketch or graffiti related to gladiatorial combat. Credits: Fausto & Felice Niccolini. Houses and Monuments of Pompeii by TASCHEN, Photo by Roman Empire Times The second category, graffiti, includes *libelli* — amateur inscriptions listing gladiators and match results — and figural graffiti showing fighters in action. These libelli served two functions: some may have been distributed as informational “folders” or booklets before or during events, while others were spontaneous post-event etchings made by spectators. Though no physical copies of the “folder” type have survived, literary references provide indirect evidence for their existence. When scratched on walls, libelli served to preserve memory and emotion long after the events had ended. All surviving edicta from Pompeii appear in their complete form, not as evolving drafts. By organizing these sources according to their function rather than their date, one can reconstruct the communication strategy behind these spectacles. Each stage — from painted edicta to post-event graffiti — helped build anticipation, document participation, and sustain the relationship between patrons and the people they hoped to impress. ## Communication as Spectacle: How Romans Engaged Their Public The world of Roman advertising did not end with painted walls and shouted slogans. As Anna Miączewska’s study on “*Communication Culture on a Mass Scale: Ancient Roman Games and Methods of Communicating with the Audience*”, shows, Roman society developed a sophisticated, multi-layered system of public messaging, especially around the games. The tools of communication were not only practical but performative — calibrated to attract, excite, and engage spectators long before the games began. The methods fall into distinct categories: direct oral interaction (*chants, cheers, and protests by the crowd*), indirect oral delivery (*announcements by heralds*), indirect written messages (*official edicta munerum, libelli, and placards*), and direct written feedback in the form of graffiti and acclamationes. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Another-small-sketch-or-graffiti-related-to-gladiatorial-combat.jpg) ## This matrix gave organizers a range of channels to build anticipation, explain events, and harvest public response — not unlike today’s multi-platform campaigns. **Another small sketch or graffiti related to gladiatorial combat. Credits: Fausto & Felice Niccolini. Houses and Monuments of Pompeii by TASCHEN, Photo by Roman Empire Times* Heralds, far from being mere criers, sometimes narrated complex stories and paraded signs to enhance the drama of the games. Placards themselves became storytelling devices, worn by the condemned and used to announce the moral lesson of a spectacle. Painted slogans like *venatio* et *vela erunt* (“***there will be hunts and awnings***”) became recognizable promotional markers — effectively the brand language of the arena. The public played an active role in this system. Spectators left emotional graffiti, praised or criticized organizers, and sometimes protested the nature of a show in real time. Some responses, like the painting of acclamationes after particularly grand events, functioned as public endorsements of both the spectacle and the patron who paid for it. This feedback loop — direct, visible, and often spontaneous — was central to the culture of the games. Even the logistics of edicta placement were strategic. Notices were painted along roads and on tomb facades outside city walls, catching the eye of both locals and travelers. Program leaflets (libelli), meanwhile, offered names, matchups, and timetables — part information, part memorabilia. Miączewska's research reveals a society that not only mastered the art of communication but made it part of the performance. The games were not just advertised — they were staged long before the first blow in the arena. In Rome, publicity wasn’t a sideshow. **It was part of the show.** ### The Divine Chaos of Elagabalus: Rome’s Most Unconventional Emperor URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-divine-chaos-of-elagabalus-romes-most-unconventional-emperor/ Last updated: 2025-06-01T23:48:24.000Z He came wrapped in silk, crowned by a god, and followed by scandal. Elagabalus ascended the Roman throne at just fourteen, not with a sword but with incense and sunfire, bringing with him the cult of a foreign god, a taste for theatrical ceremony, and a defiance of every Roman norm. In a city built on discipline and tradition, he was excess incarnate—high priest and [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), teenager and taboo. Reviled by ancient historians as a perverse tyrant and celebrated by some modern readers as a radical outsider, Elagabalus remains one of the most provocative enigmas of imperial [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/). His reign, though brief, ignited debates on power, identity, religion, and the price of difference—then and now. ![A second-type portrait of Elagabalus or Heliogabalus, or Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-second-type-portrait-of-Elagabalus-or-Heliogabalus--or-Marcus-Aurelius-Antoninus-Augustus.jpg) A second-type portrait of Elagabalus or Heliogabalus, or Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ### A Boy Emperor’s Ascent On the 16th of May, 218 CE, the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/) shifted course in the dead of night. A fourteen-year-old boy named Varius Avitus Bassianus was smuggled into the camp of Legio III Gallica, stationed at Raphanaea in Syria. The son of Julia Soaemias and a high priest of the local sun god Elagabal, he had gained attention for his striking appearance and ritual dancing. Now, draped in garments that had once belonged to the [murdered Emperor Caracalla](https://romanempiretimes.com/brothers-divided-the-tragic-tale-of-emperors-caracalla-and-geta/), he was proclaimed emperor by the troops at dawn. The soldiers were told he was [Caracalla](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/)’s illegitimate son—a rumor encouraged by his Severan relatives to restore dynastic legitimacy. [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) records the drama that unfolded: > “They carried Avitus, whom they were already styling Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, roundabout upon the ramparts, and exhibited some likenesses of Caracallus when \[he was\] a child as bearing some resemblance to the boy, at the same time declaring that the latter was truly Caracallus’ son, and the only rightful heir to the throne. > > ‘Why do you do this, fellow soldiers?’ they exclaimed. ‘Why do you thus fight against your benefactor’s son \[τοῦ εῦεργέτου ὑμῳν υῐόν\]?’ > > By this means they corrupted all the soldiers who were with Julianus, the more so as these were eager to revolt, so that the assailants slew their commanders, with the exception of Julianus, who escaped in flight, and surrendered themselves and their arms to the False Antoninus.” Cassius Dio, [*Roman History*](https://amzn.to/44YQHbR?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 79.32.2–3 ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/The-Roman-sarcophagus-of-Sextus-Varius-Marcellus--bearing-a-bilingual-inscription-in-Greek-and-Latin--on-top-is-the-statue-of-a-female-nymph.jpg) ## Dio calls the new claimant "**the False Antoninus*" and insists the boy’s real father was Varius Marcellus, a Syrian aristocrat whose sarcophagus was later found in Velletri. **The Roman sarcophagus of Sextus Varius Marcellus, bearing a bilingual inscription in Greek and Latin, on top is the statue of a female nymph. Credits: Media Storehouse* Marcellus' wife, Julia Soaemias, was Caracalla’s cousin through Julia Domna—linking Elagabalus to the [Severan](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-severan-marble-plan/) house only by maternal blood. Still, the story worked. Whether the troops believed it or merely accepted it as a useful fiction, their loyalty to Caracalla’s memory and their dissatisfaction with [Macrinus](https://romanempiretimes.com/macrinus-true-story-gladiator-2-power-player-rome-brief-emperor/) ensured the boy’s rise. Macrinus, who had cut military wages and lacked dynastic credentials, had lost the [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/)'s affection. Elagabalus, on the other hand, revived Severan imagery and used the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus to forge continuity. [Coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) and inscriptions declared him *divi Magni Antonini Pii filius, divi Severi Pii nepos*—son of the divine Caracalla, grandson of the divine Severus. [Veterans](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) even traced his supposed ancestry to Nerva. Visual propaganda played a central role. Early portraits of Elagabalus closely resembled those of Caracalla, particularly in hairstyle and facial features. Coins issued between 218 and 219 CE emphasized martial strength: *Mars Victor, Victoria Augusti, Fides Militum*, and *Concordia Militvm* all appeared as coin legends. But the political landscape remained volatile. Dio notes that rebellion sprang up across the empire, inspired by the ease with which one could claim the throne: > "To such an extent, indeed, had everything got turned topsy-turvy that these men, one of whom had been enrolled in the senate from the ranks of the centurions and the other of whom was the son of a physician, took it into their heads to aim at the supreme power. > > I have mentioned these men alone by name, not because they were the only ones that took leave of their senses, but because they belonged to the senate; for other attempts were made. > > For example, the son of a centurion undertook to stir up that same Gallic legion; another, a worker in wool, tampered with the fourth legion, and a third, a private citizen, with the fleet stationed at Cyzicus, when the False Antoninus was wintering at Nicomedia; and there were many others elsewhere, as it was the simplest thing in the world for those who wished to rule to undertake a rebellion, being encouraged thereto by the fact that many men had entered upon the supreme rule contrary to expectation and to merit." Cassius Dio, [*Roman History*](https://amzn.to/44YQHbR?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 80.7.2–3 ![A bust portrait of teenage Roman Emperor Elagabalus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-bust-portrait-of-teenage-Roman-Emperor-Elagabalus.jpg) A bust portrait of teenage Roman Emperor Elagabalus. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 Elagabalus had [reached the purple](https://romanempiretimes.com/tyrian-purple-the-royal-dye-of-the-ancient-world-and-the-secrets-of-murex-extraction/) not by inheritance, achievement, or acclaim—but through a calculated performance staged by his family. The [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/) would soon learn what kind of performance he intended to give. Although some of these attempts were more serious than others, the sheer number of challengers suggests that many individuals believed they had a chance at seizing imperial power. Declarations about the loyalty and unity of the [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-enigmatic-disappearance-of-the-9th-roman-legion/) were likely aspirational rather than factual—rhetorical efforts to promote an image of stability that did not reflect reality. Once again, this underscores the fragility of Elagabalus’ reign. Having gained the throne through deception, the young emperor and his advisors actively distorted the political and military landscape to present him as a confident and commanding figure. In truth, his position was anything but secure. ### God Above All: Elagabalus and the Sun that Ruled Rome After securing the throne, Elagabalus remained in the East for the remainder of 218 CE, wintering in Nicomedia. It is likely that a sacred stone depicting the god Elagabal—the sun deity of Emesa, worshipped in the form of a conical black stone—traveled with him. Several Eastern coin issues depict this sacred stone in a quadriga, surrounded by military standards. ![A Roman coin depicting EMICΩN KOΛΩN in the back, the hexastyle temple containing the conical stone of Elagabal](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-Roman-coin-depicting-EMIC--N-KO----N-in-the-back--the-hexastyle-temple-containing-the-conical-stone-of-Elagabal.jpg) A Roman coin depicting EMICΩN KOΛΩN in the back, the hexastyle temple containing the conical stone of Elagabal. Credits: [Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.](http://www.cngcoins.com/?ref=romanempiretimes.com), Upscaling by Roman Empire Times Herodian, writing as a contemporary, describes the emperor’s immediate devotion to his priestly role: > “Straight away (...) \[he\] began to practice his ecstatic rites and go through the ridiculous motions of the priestly office belonging to his local god in which he had been trained.” Herodian, [*History of the Empire*](https://amzn.to/3T17vYn?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 5.5.3 While performing these rites, Elagabalus allegedly wore lavish garments “woven of purple and gold,” adorned with necklaces, bangles, and a “crown in the shape of a tiara glittering with gold and precious stones.” According to Herodian”: > “The effect of this exotic attire was something between the sacred garb of the Phoenicians and the luxurious apparel of the Medes.” Herodian, [*History of the Empire*](https://amzn.to/3T17vYn?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 5.5.3–4 Elagabalus reportedly disdained Roman and [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) dress, dismissing their woolen garments in favor of Chinese silk. This portrayal by Herodian starkly contrasts with the imperial administration’s messaging, which tried to align the young ruler with Caracalla and Roman tradition. One story, possibly apocryphal, claims Elagabalus refused to wear a [toga](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-toga-to-today-how-ancient-rome-still-echoes-through-modern-culture/) when entering Rome. Instead, he had a grand image prepared showing him sacrificing to Elagabal in his priestly robes. This image was sent to the capital and hung in the [senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/) house so that senators and citizens could become accustomed to his appearance ahead of his arrival. While the veracity of this tale is uncertain, a Roman *antoninianus* minted in 219 CE shows a strikingly similar scene: a figure—presumably the emperor—sacrificing at a small altar, with the god Elagabal in a quadriga behind him. ![A possible representation of Roman Emperor Elagabalus, wearing purple silk and adorning gold details, jewellery and a gold tiara](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-possible-representation-of-Roman-Emperor-Elagabalus--wearing-purple-silk-and-adorning-gold-details--jewellery-and-a-gold-tiara.jpg) A possible representation of Roman Emperor Elagabalus, wearing purple silk and adorning gold details, jewellery and a gold tiara. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney Whether true or not, what is clear is that Elagabalus sought to introduce his god to the Roman public. The deity was even titled *CONSERVATOR AVGVSTI*—“the emperor’s divine protector.” But in 220 CE, the religious ambitions of Elagabalus intensified. He officially elevated Elagabal to the head of the Roman pantheon and adopted the title *sacerdos amplissimus dei invicti Solis Elagabali*—“most exalted priest of the invincible sun god Elagabal.” Although he continued using the title *pontifex maximus*, inscriptions consistently placed his priestly identity first, signaling its supreme importance. New coin types followed suit, bearing images of Elagabalus in ornate priestly dress performing sacrifices, with inscriptions such as *INVICTVS SACERDOS AVGVSTVS*, *SACERDOS DEI SOLIS ELAGABALI*, and *SVMMVS SACERDOS AVGVSTVS*. In his zeal, Elagabalus divorced his first wife, Julia Paula, and married Aquilia Severa, a [Vestal Virgin](https://romanempiretimes.com/vestal-virgins-keepers-of-romes-eternal-flame-and-protectors-of-the-state/). This likely served to merge his sun cult with the most sacred institution of Roman religion. Cassius Dio was scandalized: > “He plumed himself over an act for which he ought to have been scourged in the Forum, thrown into prison, and then put to death.” Cassius Dio, [*Roman History*](https://amzn.to/44YQHbR?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 80.9.4 Dio adds that Elagabalus even arranged a symbolic [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/) between the god Elagabal and the Punic goddess Urania: > “As if the god had any need of marriage and children!” Cassius Dio, [*Roman History*](https://amzn.to/44YQHbR?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 80.12.1 ![Portrait of Julia Aquilia Severa, second wife of Elagabalus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Portrait-of-Julia-Aquilia-Severa--second-wife-of-Elagabalus.jpg) Portrait of Julia Aquilia Severa, second wife of Elagabalus. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Until his [assassination](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-shadow-of-the-dagger-assassinations-of-roman-emperors/) in 222 CE, the cult of Elagabal held a central role in Roman religious life. A monumental [temple](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/) was constructed on the Palatine Hill—not just on imperial property but at the symbolic heart of Rome. Herodian paints a vivid scene of Elagabalus’ ritual performances: > “Each day at dawn he \[i.e. Elagabalus\] came out and slaughtered a hecatomb of cattle and a large number of sheep which were placed upon the altars and loaded with every variety of spices. > > In front of the altars many jars of the finest and oldest wines were poured out, so that streams of blood and wine flowed together. > > Around the altars he and some Phoenician women danced to the sounds of many different instruments, circling the altars with cymbals and drums in their hands. The entire senate and the equestrian order stood round them in the order they sat in the theatre. > > The entrails of the sacrificial victims and spices were carried in golden bowls, not on the heads of household servants or lower-class people, but by military prefects and important officials wearing long tunics in the Phoenician style down to their feet, with long sleeves and a single purple stripe in the middle. > > They also wore linen shoes of the kind used by local oracle priests in Phoenicia. It was considered a great honour had been done to anyone given a part in the sacrifice.” Herodian, [*History of the Empire*](https://amzn.to/3T17vYn?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 5.5.8–10 Though Herodian’s descriptions may be exaggerated in terms of scale or frequency, the forced participation of senators and knights at these rites is consistent with the emperor’s attempt to restructure [Roman religion](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) around Elagabal. Herodian also refers to a second Elagabal temple, possibly located in Trastevere. Once a year, at midsummer, the black stone of the god was ceremonially transported there from the Palatine. He describes the ritual procession: > “The god was set up in a chariot studded with gold and precious stones” and was “preceded by the emperor, holding the reins and walking backwards,” followed by a procession of standard bearers, sacred treasures, and images of other gods. > > The cavalry and army were also compelled to join. Herodian, [*History of the Empire*](https://amzn.to/3T17vYn?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 5.6.6–8) After the sacrifices, Elagabalus would mount a tall tower and toss lavish gifts into the crowd—gold and silver [cups](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-lycurgus-cup-ancient-romes-marvel-of-art-and-nanotechnology/), garments, fine linen, even household animals. Through such dramatic gestures, he made sure that Elagabal, god of the rising sun, remained not only Rome’s new chief deity—but also its daily spectacle. ![A gravure by Henri-Paul Motte, depicting Elagabalus' Feast, at which he frightened his guests with tame lions, according to the Historia Augusta](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-gravure-by-Henri-Paul-Motte--depicting-Elagabalus--Feast--at-which-he-frightened-his-guests-with-tame-lions--according-to-the-Historia-Augusta.jpg) A gravure by Henri-Paul Motte, depicting Elagabalus' Feast, at which he frightened his guests with tame lions, according to the Historia Augusta. Public domain ### Priest Before Emperor: Elagabalus and the Failed Reinvention of Roman Religion The radical religious policies of Elagabalus remain difficult to explain. Though he rose to power as the supposed son of Caracalla, the young emperor’s path diverged sharply from the model of a Roman princeps. Rather than uphold Roman traditions with moderation and respect for Jupiter, he elevated a foreign deity—Elagabal—above the entire Roman pantheon. Personal devotion to a non-Roman god was tolerated, but **displacing Jupiter was unprecedented**. One possible explanation lies in the emperor’s age. By the end of 220 CE, Elagabalus was no longer a fourteen-year-old puppet, but a maturing young man, likely starting to assert independence. It is plausible that he began to make decisions without direction from his handlers, possibly under the influence of Emesene priests who accompanied the black stone to Rome. His devotion appears genuine. But this created a dilemma for the imperial administration: how could they persuade Rome—especially the Senate and the [Praetorian Guard](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/)—to accept a high priest of a foreign god as emperor? Coinage became a tool of persuasion. As aforementioned, Elagabal was presented as CONSERVATOR AVGVSTI—the emperor’s divine protector. This title was traditionally reserved for Jupiter but had occasionally been attributed to other gods. Using it for Elagabal aimed to frame the deity within a familiar Roman context. Interestingly, *Coins of the Roman Empire* in the British Museum notes only two coin types from 220–222 CE showing the black stone, while at least twelve depict an anthropomorphic Sol. Two of these coins even label the god as CONSERVATOR AVGVSTI, possibly referring to Elagabal. Yet, none of the Sol-type coins bear the name Elagabal, leaving the figure’s identity ambiguous—perhaps deliberately so. Most coins during this period featured Elagabalus sacrificing as high priest. While his garments were unlike the traditional toga, the overall imagery—the altar, the patera, and the act of libation—closely echoed that of the *pontifex maximus.* ![A Roman antoninianus coin, depicting Emperor Elagabalus in front of a temple sacrificing at altar, with another figure behind him and on the other side of the altar another two figures](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-Roman-antoninianus-coin--depicting-Emperor-Elagabalus-in-front-of-a-temple-sacrificing-at-altar--with-another-figure-behind-him-and-on-the-other-side-of-the-altar-another-two-figures.jpg) A Roman antoninianus coin, depicting Emperor Elagabalus in front of a temple sacrificing at altar, with another figure behind him and on the other side of the altar another two figures. Credits: Münzkabinett Berlin, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times Elagabalus is typically shown in trousers and a long-sleeved tunic, often with a *chlamys,* and wearing an imperial diadem rather than a tiara, despite Herodian’s claim that he wore: > “the most expensive types of clothes, woven of purple and gold, and adorned himself with necklaces and bangles,” completed by “a crown in the shape of a tiara glittering with gold and precious stones.” Herodian, [*History of the Empire*](https://amzn.to/3T17vYn?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 5.5.3–4 This modified outfit was likely a Roman reinterpretation of Syrian priestly dress—possibly even an innovation designed to appeal to the army. By the third century, Roman soldiers commonly wore trousers and long-sleeved tunics. Additionally, Cassius Dio notes that Caracalla wore similar “Germanic” clothing during his eastern campaigns. By mimicking this look, Elagabalus may have been invoking his father's memory to strengthen his own image. Maybe his appearance as *sacerdos amplissimus* (most exalted priest) was a calculated appeal to military audiences, linking priestly authority with martial prowess. One coin inscription—INVICTVS SACERDOS AVGVSTVS, “*invincible priest-emperor*”—explicitly associates the emperor with the god’s power. Although nicknames like Elagabalus and *Heliogabalus* imply divine embodiment, the emperor is never shown as Sol, and only wears a radiate crown on high-value coins. Still, his intimate connection to Elagabal may have implied a semi-divine status. This identity—Elagabalus as mediator between mortals and the sun god—placed him in a unique role akin to that of pontifex maximus. Like the chief priest, the *sacerdos amplissimus* made sacrifices not for himself, but for all Romans, their peace and prosperity depending on the god’s favor. Only he could secure that favor. Despite the administration’s best efforts, Elagabalus failed to gain acceptance. The cult of Elagabal appeared too foreign, its rituals too alien, and the emperor’s charisma too weak to overcome Roman suspicion. Later emperors like Constantine would claim divine favor through military victories and national reunification, but Elagabalus lacked such achievements. His legitimacy as a sacred ruler was never convincing. In March 222 CE, the Praetorian Guard rebelled. Elagabalus, his mother, and many close associates were executed, their corpses mutilated, and their names erased by [*damnatio memoriae*](https://romanempiretimes.com/damnatio-memoriae-condemnation-and-eradication-in-the-political-sphere-of-rome/). Some interpret Elagabalus’s downfall as a cultural collision between the Roman West and Syrian East. However, the regime did attempt to market the god using familiar Roman imagery and language. Whether Elagabalus himself cared for Roman norms remains uncertain, but his advisors certainly tried to bridge the cultural gap. They branded him as an invincible priest-emperor, hoping to harmonize innovation with tradition. Ancient historians, however, offer no such nuance. Herodian portrays him as a **caricatured Eastern despot**, forcing alien rites upon an unwilling Rome. That depiction has endured. Instead of being remembered as a pious reformer or new Antoninus, Elagabalus is remembered as a **theatrical tyrant**—a tragic case of a ruler whose religious vision was rejected not only by Rome, but by history itself. (*From Priest to Emperor to Priest-Emperor: The Failed Legitimation of Elagabalus, by Martijn Icks*) ![A drawing by Jean Lepautre, showcasing the last moments of Emperor Elagabalus, as he is assassinated by his Praetorian Guard](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-drawing-by-Jean-Lepautre--showcasing-the-last-moments-of-Emperor-Elagabalus--as-he-is-assassinated-by-his-Praetorian-Guard.jpg) A drawing by Jean Lepautre, showcasing the last moments of Emperor Elagabalus, as he is assassinated by his Praetorian Guard. Public domain ### From Slandered Teen Emperor to Symbolic Enigma No definitive synthesis exists that successfully integrates Elagabalus’s political, economic, and religious initiatives into a unified historical portrait. Most authors have focused on what happened and why—but equally revealing are the layers of image-making that followed. From propaganda issued by the imperial court, to damning character sketches penned by Roman historians, from scholarly works to artistic and literary reimaginings, the emperor’s posthumous identity has been rewritten countless times. Like [Commodus](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-commodus-truly-the-megalomaniac-gladiator-emperor/) portrayed as Hercules or [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) as a pyromaniac monster, Elagabalus became a caricature. Ancient sources condemned him, while later generations turned him into a symbol—a pagan, a mad tyrant, or a [queer martyr](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-67484645?ref=romanempiretimes.com), depending on the era and agenda. The imperial propaganda of his reign, the hostile narratives of antiquity, and the many reinterpretations in art, fiction, and scholarship all orbit around the same elusive figure: a teenage high priest who ruled Rome from 218 to 222 CE. Why did such a short and obscure reign inspire so many vivid and conflicting portrayals? What aspects of Elagabalus’s character were exaggerated, erased, or reimagined—**and why?** ### Who Pulled the Strings? Although Elagabalus ascended to the imperial throne in 218 CE, he was only fourteen years old at the time—far too young to independently govern the Roman Empire. Most ancient and modern accounts agree that he was primarily a puppet for others, particularly his politically astute Syrian family. Chief among them was his grandmother Julia Maesa, the mastermind behind his rise, and his mother Julia Soaemias, both of whom wielded considerable influence during his reign. Inscriptions honor them with exalted titles such as Augusta, *mater castrorum et senatus*, and *mater Augusti*, suggesting not just familial reverence but real political agency. However, Elagabalus's regime did not solely rest in the hands of these powerful women. Figures such as P. Valerius Comazon, a former commander of *Legio II Parthica*, rose quickly through the ranks, becoming praetorian prefect, consul, and city prefect. Another official, whose name is partially lost in the sources but who held titles such as *comes* and *amicus fidissimus*, also climbed to the top of the imperial administration. Their careers, deeply rooted in military service, hint at the strong sway the army may have held—at least early on. Surprisingly, once Elagabalus was settled in Rome, there’s little evidence that military affairs continued to dominate. No wars were fought, and the army faded from coin imagery. ![The famous painting from Lawrence Alma-Tadema, The Roses of Heliogabalus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/The-famous-painting-from-Lawrence-Alma-Tadema--The-Roses-of-Heliogabalus.jpg) The famous painting from Lawrence Alma-Tadema, The Roses of Heliogabalus. Public domain Instead, continuity was observed in the senatorial elite: many men who served under Caracalla and Septimius Severus retained their positions under Elagabalus and were carried into the next reign under Severus Alexander. It’s likely that these senators, loyal to the Severan legacy, were integral in stabilizing the administration behind the scenes. Despite accusations by ancient authors that Elagabalus appointed unqualified favorites—[chariot](https://romanempiretimes.com/fury-on-wheels-the-legendary-chariot-races-of-ancient-rome/) drivers, dancers, and actors—to important positions, there is scant material evidence to support this. Figures like Hierocles and Aurelius Zoticus, frequently mentioned in literary sources as scandalous appointees, do not appear in inscriptions. While Elagabalus rewarded allies like Comazon with high office, this was not an unusual practice. Even controversial equestrian appointments to senatorial provinces had precedents in earlier reigns. Financially, the emperor continued Caracalla’s debasement of the denarius but maintained stable gold coinage. The four known *congiaria* (public gifts) during his short reign represent an unusually high frequency, possibly contributing to fiscal strain. Although the [*Historia Augusta*](https://amzn.to/43mYlLV?ref=romanempiretimes.com) accuses him of excessive building and spending, archaeological evidence shows that his main constructions included a circus and temples dedicated to the god Elagabal, as well as modest repairs to public infrastructure. In sum, the charges of mismanagement and nepotism made by ancient authors seem more rooted in moral disapproval than fact. The reign of Elagabalus was less a circus of chaos than a continuation—albeit with interruptions—of Severan governance. What truly undermined him was not incompetence, but his failure to satisfy the expectations of Rome’s traditional elite. As a teenage priest-king representing a foreign deity and flanked by powerful women, Elagabalus embodied a model of imperial rule that was too radical for the Roman establishment to accept. His administration may have tried to cloak its novelty in familiar iconography, but **the mask did not convince**. ![A gravure from Raphael Sadeler I, depicting the council of Heliogabalus and the Wise Women, another controversial move during his reign](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-gravure-from-Raphael-Sadeler-I--depicting-the-council-of-Heliogabalus-and-the-Wise-Women--another-controversial-move-during-his-reign.jpg) A gravure from Raphael Sadeler I, depicting the council of Heliogabalus and the Wise Women, another controversial move during his reign. Public domain ### The Final Curtain By 222 CE, Elagabalus had alienated the imperial elite and the praetorian guard through his foreign religious reforms, erratic behavior, and unpopular court appointments. When he adopted his cousin Alexander as Caesar, the young heir became a rallying point for those seeking a more traditional, Roman image of power. Despite efforts to reverse his unpopularity, Elagabalus’s authority crumbled. In a final act of desperation, he tried to eliminate Alexander—but the praetorians turned on him. On March 13, Elagabalus and his mother Julia Soaemias were murdered, their corpses dragged through the streets and dumped in the Tiber. His reign, and his god’s moment in the Roman sun, were obliterated by a *damnatio memoriae*. The religious policies of Elagabalus—foreign in appearance and uncompromising in implementation—were too radical for Rome's conservative elite. Even more dangerous, they alienated the praetorian guard, whose favor was essential for any emperor’s survival. Ancient sources like Cassius Dio, Herodian, and the Historia Augusta all attribute the young ruler’s downfall to his perceived immorality and misplaced favoritism, particularly toward his lover Hierocles. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Wall-painting-in-the-inner-courtyard-of-Castle-Forchtenstein-in-Austria--showing-Roman-emperor-Elagabalus.jpg) ## The image of a gender-defying priest-emperor in silk and gold, worshipping a conical black stone and elevating actors and charioteers to positions of power, was simply too much for the traditional order to bear. **Wall painting in the inner courtyard of Castle Forchtenstein in Austria, showing Roman emperor Elagabalus. Public domain* Sensing disaster, Julia Maesa orchestrated a strategic pivot. She persuaded Elagabalus to adopt her other grandson, Alexianus, as Caesar in the summer of 221 CE. The boy, renamed Marcus Aurelius Alexander, was styled as Elagabalus’s heir, but he was deliberately distanced from the emperor’s religious agenda. Coins bearing Alexander’s image emphasized pietas and traditional Roman rituals—*patera, lituus, and simpulum*—while Elagabalus continued to appear in “Oriental” dress sacrificing to Elagabal. If harmony ever existed between them, it was brief. Elagabalus, feeling increasingly threatened, attempted to murder Alexander, but the praetorian guard protected the young Caesar. Herodian writes that when the emperor tried to involve Alexander in his priestly rituals, his mother Mammaea intervened: > “She removed him from contact with such activities which were shameful and unbecoming for emperors… and gave him both a Latin and a Greek education.” Herodian, [*History of the Empire*](https://amzn.to/3T17vYn?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 5.7.1 The rift deepened. Elagabalus divorced Annia Faustina—whose ancestry linked her to Marcus Aurelius—and remarried the controversial Vestal Aquilia Severa. This move likely worsened tensions with the Roman elite. Meanwhile, his repeated attempts to sideline Alexander only bolstered the boy’s popularity. According to Dio, Elagabalus complained that “*he could not satisfy the praetorians, regardless how much he gave them.*” Eventually, the emperor's desperation led him to the praetorian camp in person. According to Dio, this was a fatal mistake: > “He made an attempt to flee, and would have got away somewhere by being placed in a chest, had he not been discovered and slain, at the age of eighteen. His mother, who embraced him and clung tightly to him, perished with him; their heads were cut off… his \[body\] was thrown into the river.” Cassius Dio, [*Roman History*](https://amzn.to/44YQHbR?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 80.20 Herodian’s account confirms the soldiers’ outrage. When Elagabalus spread a rumor that Alexander was dying, the guard demanded to see the boy. Once Alexander appeared unharmed, Elagabalus lost all credibility. Herodian recounts how the soldiers turned on the emperor, his mother, and his followers, dragged their bodies through the city, and cast them into the sewer. > “Since the sewer turned out to be too small to dump his corpse, it was finally plunged from the Aemilian Bridge into the Tiber, with a weight attached to it to make sure it would sink.” Suetonius, *Historia Augusta*, Vita Heliogabali 17.3 ![A female statue that suffered from damnatio memoriae, according to a recent study, it could represent Julia Aquilia Severa, the vestale who was married twice to Elagabalus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-female-statue-that-suffered-from-damnatio-memoriae--according-to-a-recent-study--it-could-represent-Julia-Aquilia-Severa--the-vestale-who-was-married-twice-to-Elagabalus.jpg) A female statue that suffered from damnatio memoriae, according to a recent study, it could represent Julia Aquilia Severa, the vestale who was married twice to Elagabalus. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 On March 14, 222 CE, the senate officially recognized Alexander as emperor. The *damnatio memoriae* against Elagabalus was swift and thorough: names erased from inscriptions, honors revoked, and his memory blotted from official records. Alexander, now styled as the son of Caracalla, wiped away all reference to his predecessor. Even Elagabal, the god who had stood above Jupiter, was removed. His sacred stone was not destroyed but returned to Emesa. The temple on the Palatine was rededicated—likely to Jupiter Ultor, the Avenger. **Rome’s divine order, had been restored**. ([*The Crimes of Elagabalus: The Life and Legacy of Rome’s Decadent Boy Emperor*](https://amzn.to/3ZehwoO?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Martijn Icks*) Elagabalus’s downfall was not simply the collapse of a reign—it was the rejection of a vision. The Roman world could tolerate strangeness, ambition, even youth—but not a priest-emperor who danced to a foreign rhythm, loved without shame, and dared to reorder the divine hierarchy. He ruled for less than four years. In death, he was denied burial, stripped of memory, and written into history as Rome’s cautionary tale. ### Gallienus: The Emperor who Reformed Rome amid Ruin URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/gallienus-the-emperor-who-reformed-rome-amid-ruin/ Last updated: 2025-06-01T00:52:55.000Z He ruled in an age when the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/) bled from every border. Goths crossed the Danube, Persians stormed the East, generals declared themselves emperors, and even his own father vanished into captivity. And yet, amid the fire and fragmentation of the third century, Gallienus stood firm—not just as a soldier, but as a thinker. Dismissed by later ancient sources as effeminate or aloof, modern historians are finally beginning to see him for what he was: a bold reformer, a patron of philosophy, and perhaps the only man who could have held a crumbling empire together for as long as he did. ## A Noble Beginning in an Unstable World Gallienus was born in 218 CE into a distinguished Roman senatorial family at a time of looming imperial unrest. His lineage was patrician on both sides. His father, Valerian, came from the Licinii—a [plebeian](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/) family of Etruscan origin that had risen to prominence in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)’s senatorial ranks—while his mother, Egnatia Mariniana, belonged to the equally influential Egnatii. Though some later questioned the purity of these familial ties due to the common use of names among freedmen, contemporary sources leave little doubt that Gallienus was born into [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s aristocratic [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). His later admiration for Plotinus and Greek philosophical thought hints at a deep engagement with intellectual life, possibly even including study in Athens. His childhood likely unfolded in the town of *Falerii Novi*, a stronghold of his maternal and paternal families, situated along the *Via Egnatia* near [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/). Though we know little about his early years, Gallienus would have received the full breadth of a noble Roman education—[Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) and Latin grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, and law—followed by military training that prepared him for command. ![A portrait of a young woman from the age of Gallienus, possibly Gallienus’s wife Cornelia Salonina, although never confirmed](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/A-portrait-of-a-young-woman-from-the-age-of-Gallienus--possibly-Salonina--although-never-confirmed.jpg) A portrait of a young woman from the age of Gallienus, possibly Gallienus’s wife Cornelia Salonina, although never confirmed. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 His wife, *Cornelia Salonina*, belonged to the ancient gens Cornelia and was of equally noble standing. The marriage, like many among Rome’s ruling elite, was likely political in origin—but evidence suggests it also became a genuine partnership. Their children—Saloninus, Valerian II, and Marinianus—were all born in the years leading up to Gallienus’s accession and were still very young when raised to the rank of Caesar. Before he ruled, Gallienus likely served in military campaigns and provincial postings, perhaps alongside his father Valerian. His career would have followed the senatorial *cursus honorum*—though by the mid-third century, this traditional ladder of offices was beginning to fracture. Still, his military experience and noble lineage made him a natural choice when Valerian ascended to the [purple](https://romanempiretimes.com/tyrian-purple-the-royal-dye-of-the-ancient-world-and-the-secrets-of-murex-extraction/) in 253 and named his son co-emperor. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Another-portrait-bust-of-Emperor-Gallienus.jpg) ## What followed was one of the most turbulent periods in Roman history—and Gallienus would be forced to lead not from the comfort of inheritance, but from the heart of crisis. **Portrait bust of Emperor Gallienus. Credits: Jamie Heath, CC BY-SA 2.0* ## Before the Storm: The Road to Power for Gallienus and Valerian In the years leading up to Gallienus’s accession, the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) endured a cascade of crises: military defeats, political betrayals, religious persecution, and devastating invasions. The ultraconservative Emperor Decius, seeking to restore Rome’s ancient values, launched a brutal campaign against Christians and centralized power through aggressive religious policy. But his efforts unraveled when Gothic tribes, led by Kniva, invaded the Balkans. Decius’s catastrophic military decisions culminated in his death at Abrittus in 251, leaving the empire vulnerable. His successor, Trebonianus Gallus, initially sought stability by adopting Decius’s son and continuing his policies but quickly lost public support through appeasement of the Goths and a failure to contain a deadly plague. In the East, Persian forces under Shapur I overran key cities, aided by local collaborators like the traitorous Myriades. Meanwhile, internal power struggles erupted as Aemilianus, a general in the Balkans, defeated Gothic raiders and declared himself emperor. As Gallus faltered, Valerian, a powerful senator and military commander, emerged as a contender for the throne. Backed by his son Gallienus and [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/) allies, Valerian was ultimately declared emperor after both Gallus and Aemilianus were eliminated in rapid succession. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Triumphal-Arch-of-Gallienus--built-after-his-time.jpg) ## With the empire fractured and under siege, Valerian and Gallienus would assume joint rule in 253—a bold experiment in dual leadership born out of necessity and upheaval. **Triumphal Arch of Gallienus, built after his time. Credits: PippaWest from Getty Images, by Canva* ## A Divided Rule and Immediate Crisis As Gallienus was elevated to co-emperor alongside his father, Valerian, he was tasked with securing the Western Empire while Valerian moved East. Their reign began during a time of profound instability—marked by invasions, economic disruption, and internal fragmentation. Valerian’s ultraconservative stance brought the senatorial class back into influence, evidenced by his harsh persecution of Christians in 257, possibly under the influence of his court magician Macrianus. ### A Collapsing Economy and Rural Shift Ongoing military catastrophes and plagues devastated the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/)’s agricultural and economic foundations. Small landholders sought refuge under powerful landowners to escape increasing taxation, eroding the urban tax base and shifting productivity to villa-based estates. Simultaneously, the Roman coinage was debased to such a degree that silver coins lost their value in international trade. This led to a collapse of confidence in currency, growing inflation, and a breakdown in traditional commerce and industry. ![Portrait bust of Roman Emperor Gallienus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Portrait-bust-of-Roman-Emperor-Gallienus.jpg) Portrait bust of Roman Emperor Gallienus. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 ### Gallienus’s Monetary Policies and Struggles Facing revolts, foreign invasions, and diminished revenues, Gallienus resorted to issuing debased coinage at an unprecedented scale to fund the military. Although initially inflation spurred some economic activity, by the 260s, chaos in monetary standards led to a loss of public trust and widespread hoarding of quality coinage. Emergency measures included confiscating wealth, imposing special taxes, and levying soldiers from aristocratic estates—all of which deepened elite resentment. ### Propaganda and Coinage Gallienus used coins not only to fund the army but also as a tool of imperial propaganda. His [coinage](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) emphasized military loyalty, heroic imagery, and divine favor—employing slogans like *Fides Militum*, *Victoria Augusti*, and *Virtus Augusti*. He also experimented with representations of civilian peace and Greek-inspired motifs, including coins featuring Sol, and possibly his own image in feminine form—a controversial move later interpreted as philosophical or symbolic. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Another-Roman-gold-Aureus-coin-depicting-Emperor-Gallienus.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Roman-gold-Aureus-coin-depicting-Emperor-Gallienus.jpg) 🏛️ Roman gold Aureus coins depicting Emperor Gallienus **Credits: Portable Antiquities Scheme, CC BY-ND 2.0* ### Military Innovation: The New Army A major legacy of Gallienus was the creation of a powerful, mobile cavalry corps and accompanying infantry comitatus. These forces included specialized units like the *Equites Dalmatae*, Moorish javelin throwers, and archers from Palmyra and Osrhoene. Command was entrusted to officers like Aureolus, and Gallienus is believed to have reintroduced the role of *Magister Equitum*. This military restructuring reflected Gallienus’s priority: maintaining loyalty and striking quickly in response to crises. ### The Role of the Protectores and Internal Security Gallienus expanded the bodyguard corps known as *Protectores Domestici*, possibly integrating intelligence, military training, and [imperial security](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/) into a unified institution. These protectores not only served as elite guards but may have acted as political monitors and recruiters, forming a loyal core around the emperor during a time of constant internal threat. ### Organizational Reform and Tactical Structure Sources suggest Gallienus’s army was divided into heavy shield-bearing cohorts and diverse light-armed units, supported by tactical deployments of cavalry. This structured and specialized military approach—potentially recorded by sixth-century author John Lydus—points to Gallienus’s broader attempt to modernize the imperial defense network in response to repeated emergencies. ![The triumph of Shapur I over the Roman emperors Valerian and Philip the Arab](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/The-triumph-of-Shapur-I-over-the-Roman-emperors-Valerian-and-Philip-the-Arab.jpg) The triumph of Shapur I over the Roman emperors Valerian and Philip the Arab. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 ## Gallienus Alone: Crisis, Reform, and Survival in the Mid-Third Century Gallienus’s sole reign began under dire circumstances in 259 CE, following the catastrophic capture of his father, Emperor Valerian, by the Persians. Simultaneously, barbarian invasions and internal revolts erupted across the empire. The Roman frontiers were under attack from the Alamanni, Iuthungi, and Franks, while generals and administrators questioned Gallienus’s legitimacy and leadership, partly due to his perceived negligence toward his father and his personal habits, which clashed with the military conservatism of the time. One of Gallienus’s earliest challenges was the massive invasion of Italy by the Alamanni and Iuthungi, who pushed deep into the peninsula, forcing the Senate to organize a temporary defense of Rome. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Cast-of-the-inscription-of-the-Roman-emperor-Gallienus-concerning-the-wins-of-the-Romans-against-the-Alamans.jpg) ## Gallienus responded decisively, defeating the Alamanni near Milan in a brilliant cavalry maneuver around 260 CE. **Cast of the inscription of the Roman emperor Gallienus concerning the wins of the Romans against the Alamans. Credits: Raimond Spekking, CC BY-SA 4.0* The Iuthungi were later repelled in Raetia. These campaigns demonstrated Gallienus’s growing reliance on his mobile cavalry force, which he developed into an elite, mobile central reserve army. Estimates suggest this cavalry force reached between 10,000 and 45,000 horsemen and included diverse elements from across the empire, from Moorish javelin throwers to Sarmatian archers. Facing widespread internal instability, Gallienus implemented sweeping military and administrative reforms. Most notably, he excluded senators from senior military commands, ending their traditional role as legionary commanders. He appointed experienced equestrian officers instead, many from the Balkans or drawn from his bodyguard units, the protectores. Gallienus also began replacing provincial governors with military officials holding temporary unified civil and military authority in critical regions. Though not universally applied, these changes effectively centralized power and increased efficiency—but alienated the Senate, earning Gallienus their lasting hostility. In tandem, Gallienus reversed his father's [persecution of Christians](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/), ending the anti-Christian edicts of 257 and 258 and adopting a policy of tolerance. This move had practical military benefits, encouraging Christian support within the army. ![Portrait of a man dressed as Bacchus, possibly the Emperor Gallienus, used as propaganda material](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Portrait-of-a-man-dressed-as-Bacchus--possibly-the-Emperor-Gallienus--used-as-propaganda-material.jpg) Portrait of a man dressed as Bacchus, possibly the Emperor Gallienus, used as propaganda material. Credits: Mary Harrsch, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 The Christian historian Orosius later claimed divine retribution struck those who had previously persecuted the faithful. Whether symbolic or administrative, the shift helped stabilize internal support and undermined the ideological justification for rebellion by conservative elites. Economically, Gallienus's reign saw continued crisis. Ongoing wars, plague, and inflation weakened the empire’s tax base. In response, he debased the silver coinage to historically low levels and increasingly [paid troops in kind](https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/) (*annona*) rather than currency. He also confiscated elite property—sometimes on dubious grounds—and converted it into imperial estates to fund [the army](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/). This alienated the wealthy but secured emergency resources. Despite accusations of monetary chaos, these measures temporarily stabilized military funding and allowed Gallienus to continue governing amid collapse. To maintain morale and authority, Gallienus continued using coinage as a vital propaganda tool. He issued vast numbers of coins extolling military virtues and victories, referencing Fides Militum, Virtus, and Victoria, and [depicting deities](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) such as Mars, Jupiter, Sol, and Hercules. His propaganda emphasized divine favor and heroic leadership, portraying him in godlike form and highlighting loyalty from the [army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/). Even eccentric coin types, such as the feminized “Galliena” portrait series, may have expressed his cultural philhellenism or allegorical aspirations—though they also invited [mockery and suspicion](https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/31856416/TMA34%5Fartikel%5Fhengel-libre.pdf?1391435420=&response-content-disposition=attachment%3B+filename%3DImperial%5FDrag%5FThe%5Fcoin%5Fportrait%5Fof%5FGalli.pdf&Expires=1748738348&Signature=eeZNKhxZ~UG5gfupI7uE1NZDAFKuiEzbsAF4k4Xky33JD6JGnH7zVa-1mLuChYX8Ih2GTmpnVig7ImWfQGXe1Aq9YNJMQqCJsFO2XXrC25sUOioW3xGRcqvE3xPuhrWfLjHx-IQDBmqWKocf0ETpNPAd5JvDuL764LvAKPhsLrj1KObHJDfKI88dk0Z6H8zyJJiw3LxKExthEwX4j2K9IS0kQyi4LroaiNfcWIpxc8oO0e2AZ7gRLl7SnvViNcBxeP9kIg-JpqsWlgUmMPHpjVLoP2TCgNHvVt3g4SF4Q4XdRmGkYhUczzAR8zt4-L0JvkrqBtZ4G-j0rtdYgMgRdQ%5F%5F&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA&ref=romanempiretimes.com). ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Photo-of-an-Aureus-golden-Roman-coin--featuring-Galliena-Augusta--Emperor-Gallienus---s-feminine-form.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/06/Photo-of-an-Aureus-golden-Roman-coin--featuring-Galliena-Augusta--Emperor-Gallienus---s-feminine-form--back-side.jpg) 🏛️ Photo of an Aureus golden Roman coin, featuring Galliena Augusta, Emperor Gallienus’s feminine form, 5.99gr. **Credits: Kent 1978* Overall, Gallienus’s sole rule was marked by unrelenting crises—foreign invasions, economic disintegration, Senate opposition, and religious tensions—but also by adaptive reforms, military innovations, and strong control over propaganda. His capacity to maintain imperial unity and security through institutional and strategic creativity ensured the empire’s survival during one of its most precarious decades. ([*The Reign of Emperor Gallienus-The Apogee of Roman Cavalry*](https://amzn.to/4krhaUq?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Dr. Ilkka Syvanne*) ## Reclaiming Gallienus: A Misunderstood Emperor Far from being the decadent and effeminate figure mocked by later Latin historians, Gallienus emerges in a different light when freed from the distortions of senatorial hostility. During a time of unrelenting crisis, when the Roman world seemed to be crumbling on every front, Gallienus attempted to impose stability through reform rather than reaction. He reshaped the military command structure, placing power in the hands of career officers rather than aristocratic amateurs, and nurtured a philosophical worldview shaped by Neoplatonism and Greek traditions. His tolerance toward Christians, his efforts to decentralize the army, and his embrace of a new kind of imperial ideology all point to a ruler who was forward-thinking, not feeble. Yet the price of alienating the traditional elite was high. Latin historians, often themselves products of the senatorial class, repaid Gallienus’ marginalization of their peers with a campaign of memory against him — one that turned a pragmatic reformer into a figure of ridicule. In the end, it is not Gallienus who failed the empire, **but history that failed Gallienus**. (*Gallienus: A Study in Reformist Leadership and Suppressed Memory, by Troy Kendrick*) ### Credit, Loans, and Risk: How Ancient Rome Handled Money Without a Central Bank URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/credit-loans-and-risk-how-ancient-rome-handled-money-without-a-central-bank/ Last updated: 2025-05-28T23:24:08.000Z They didn’t have paper bills or a central bank—but [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/foundations-of-justice-romes-twelve-tables/) ran on credit. Beneath the grandeur of forums and military conquests lay a humming financial world of bankers, brokers, and books of account. From the bustling stalls of the *Forum Romanum* to the private chambers of [aristocratic villas](https://romanempiretimes.com/domus-romana-the-roman-villa-of-rabat-malta/), Roman banking shaped trade, fueled construction, and underwrote the ambitions of senators and merchants alike. With no vaults as we know them, **trust** and **reputation** were the true currency of Roman finance—an economy built on silver, ink, and **the weight of one’s word**. ### How Rome Handled Credit When we speak of “banking and business” in the Roman world, we refer to financial activities centered on money itself—distinct from trade, which deals in goods. Money in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) served not only as a unit of account, a medium of exchange, and a store of value, but also rapidly emerged as a reference point for both personal wealth and broader economic interaction. Although much of Roman society still operated within a non-monetized framework, this sector could no longer be viewed in isolation. Its existence was increasingly defined by its relationship to the growing dominance of monetary exchange. Unlike later historical periods—such as the Middle Ages or early modern Europe—Rome did not employ financial instruments like bills of exchange. [Coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) were the sole structured monetary tool available, and while Romans did not always pay in physical coin, all systems of value and trust ultimately relied on them. The circulation of money among private individuals reshaped the social order, acting both as a source of division and as a common medium that symbolized political and communal unity, owing to the state's exclusive right to mint currency. In ancient Rome, lending at interest was a routine, even respectable activity among members of the elite. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-a-Roman-senator-lending-money-to-another-Roman-noble.jpg) ## Many senators and equestrians actively issued loans, often without concealing their creditor status. **A possible representation of a Roman senator lending money to another Roman noble. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney* Yet, this should not be confused with professional banking. The term “banking” in the Roman context applies specifically to professionals—*argentarii, coactores argentarii*, and later *nummularii*—who took deposits and lent out money not just from their own funds but also from client holdings. These men maintained accounts (*rationes*), a legal right reserved to registered bankers under Roman law. The distinction between elite lenders like [Crassus](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/) or [Atticus](https://romanempiretimes.com/herodes-atticus-a-bridge-between-greek-heritage-and-roman-power/) and professional bankers is critical. Unlike aristocrats who dabbled in finance without regulatory constraints, professional bankers were tradesmen governed by guild-like rules, trained by apprenticeship, and tied to fixed premises and working hours. They operated at a different level—economically, legally, and symbolically. ### Who were the Bankers of the Roman Empire? Roman financial society was thus stratified: - **Elite financiers** treated money as an extension of their estates, a means to preserve or augment their patrimony. - **Professional bankers**, on the other hand, treated it as capital. - Between these two poles stood a third group—**entrepreneurs**—whose approach to money was perhaps the most modern. They were willing to risk significant investment for future gain, even if only to ultimately secure a larger patrimony. This divide between elite wealth and professional finance recurs across many pre-industrial societies. While in some periods tradesmen influenced political life, in others they remained firmly under aristocratic dominance. The Roman case invites comparison not just with the Middle Ages but also with the economic shifts that would later lead to industrialization. Confusing elite moneylenders with true bankers risks blurring essential distinctions in economic and social function. The Roman state, of course, played its part. It minted currency (a notable example is [Domitian’s reforms](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/)), regulated trades, and engaged in large-scale financial ventures—from leasing public lands to managing army provisions and tax farming. Still, most economic activity remained private. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-a-Roman-noble---s-villa-interior.jpg) ## Although the elite profited immensely from their public and military roles, much of their income stemmed from inherited estates and investment. **A possible representation of a Roman noble’s villa interior. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney* This exploration of Roman finance fits within a broader scholarly debate on the nature of ancient economies. Were they fundamentally “modern” in structure but stunted by external forces? Or were they limited by internal constraints, inherently “primitive” in economic potential? Whether comparing Rome’s economy with medieval systems or evaluating its role in long-term historical development, one thing remains clear: understanding Roman banking requires a careful, comparative, and conceptually precise approach. ### Rome’s Banking Professions The origins of professional banking in the ancient world can be traced to fifth-century BCE Athens with the *trapezites*, but similar figures—argentarii—appeared in Rome by the early third century BCE. Far from being [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) imports, these Roman bankers were homegrown professionals, offering a range of services from money-changing and coin assaying to deposit handling and credit. The term *argentarius* had nothing to do with silversmithing in its original context—only centuries later did that semantic shift occur, reflecting the profession’s decline and transformation. Over time, Rome’s banking landscape diversified. Alongside the argentarii, we find the *nummularii*—originally coin testers who later became deposit bankers—and the *coactores*, or money receivers. A hybrid type, the *coactores argentarii*, emerged during the late Republic, handling both banking and collection services. While no [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) held official status as bankers, regional differences are apparent across the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/). In Egypt, both public and private banks thrived, while in [Palestine](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-emperor-hadrians-vengeance-led-to-modern-palestine/), money-changing was tied closely to the Temple tax system. Rome’s early banking system reached a high point in the late Republic and early Principate, with bankers deeply involved in auctions and credit operations. However, by the third century CE, cracks began to show. ![A banker wearing a toga sits behind his desk counting coins, with two chests at the sides. From of the funerary monument of the Fonteii, Museo Nazionale Romano nelle Terme di Diocleziano, Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-banker-wearing-a-toga-sits-behind-his-desk-counting-coins--with-two-chests-at-the-sides.-From-of-the-funerary-monument-of-the-Fonteii--Museo-Nazionale-Romano-nelle-Terme-di-Diocleziano--Rome.jpg) A banker wearing a toga sits behind his desk counting coins, with two chests at the sides. From of the funerary monument of the Fonteii, Museo Nazionale Romano nelle Terme di Diocleziano, Rome. Credits: Sebastià Giralt, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0\. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times Inflation, coin devaluation, and shifting economic patterns led to a sharp decline in professional banking activity—especially in the Latin-speaking West. The term argentarius faded from inscriptions and only reemerged, confusingly, to describe silversmiths. It was only in later centuries, notably during Justinian’s reign, that these trades began to converge again. Bankers operated at the grassroots level of society. Most were freedmen or [plebeians](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/), legally barred from the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/) and equestrian order. Yet a few, like the ancestors of Horace and [Vespasian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/), rose through the ranks. These men did not deal in aristocratic wealth management; they were practical financiers, running workshops, maintaining ledgers, and navigating legal obligations. Their client registers (*rationes*) were legally admissible documents in court, and they engaged in a range of financial practices—from sealed deposits and short-term loans to payment services and third-party guarantees (*receptum argentarii*). Despite their limited social status, these bankers democratized access to credit. Unlike elite lenders, they brought banking services to ordinary citizens, provincial towns, and urban markets. While modern historians debate whether ancient banking was “primitive” or “proto-modern,” the Roman system shows a nuanced middle ground. It was flexible, sophisticated, and integral to both everyday commerce and imperial scale operations—even if it never quite developed the institutional depth of later financial systems. ### Elite Credit: Moneylending and Finance Among Rome’s Ruling Classes From the early Republic through the Imperial period, debt and credit were woven into the political, social, and moral fabric of [Roman life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/). Ancient authors often recounted the unrest caused by widespread debt, especially among plebeians. Figures like Manlius Capitolinus took up the cause of the indebted poor, distinguishing between the exploitative tactics of moneylenders and the political dominance of the patricians. Though some aristocrats, including senators, extended loans for profit, they were not considered “professional” moneylenders. ![A sketch of Manlius Capitolinus, played in theatre by the famous French actor Francois Joseph Talma](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-sketch-of-Manlius-Capitolinus--played-in-theatre-by-the-famous-French-actor-Francois-Joseph-Talma.jpg) A sketch of Manlius Capitolinus, played in theatre by the famous French actor Francois Joseph Talma. Public domain Social expectations and obligations prevented members of the [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) from devoting themselves to any one economic activity—particularly one associated with profit-seeking. In the fourth century BCE, Rome still lacked minted coinage. Loans were likely made in kind or in bronze bars (*aes rude* or *aes signatum*), which functioned as primitive currency. By the late Republic, however, lending money had become an accepted part of elite wealth management. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)’s writings and Plautus’ comedies both reveal how widespread and normalized these transactions were. By the first century BCE, dozens of senators and equestrians had substantial holdings in debt-claims, and the [Emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) himself was no stranger to large-scale lending. Despite this ubiquity, elite lenders were never considered bankers. Their operations were informal and relied on a network of dependants, friends, and intermediaries to assess risk, enforce payments, and manage collections. Public places like the *columna Maenia* served as information exchanges for reputations and creditworthiness. The *fenerator*—a term that came to imply someone engaged exclusively in interest-bearing loans—was not a title aristocrats would claim, even when their actions matched the definition. These financial dealings ranged from personal loans and investment lending to politically motivated generosity or euergetic gestures. Lending without interest was sometimes a display of social virtue or political strategy, but profit was seldom far from the surface. The boundaries between economic, political, and social interests were fluid, and the motivations of aristocratic financiers often intertwined prestige with pragmatism. Aristocratic finance, though generally less specialized than professional banking, included a range of complex operations: intermediary lending, transfer of debt claims, and managing the patrimonies of absent senators. Men like Atticus and Cluvius served as trusted *chargés d’affaires* for others in their rank, without pay but with considerable influence. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-Marcus-Cluvius-Rufus.jpg) ## These men weren’t bankers, yet they handled loans, monitored estates, and moved substantial sums. **A possible representation of Marcus Cluvius Rufus. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney* Importantly, elite moneylenders did not receive sealed or banked deposits in the legal sense. That domain remained exclusive to professional bankers—the argentarii, coactores argentarii, and later the nummularii. The elite might invest through intermediaries or enter into *societas danistaria* contracts, but they did not operate accounts or keep client registers as bankers did. Their transactions, though financially significant, lacked the formalized structure of the deposit banking profession. Whether through loans to cities in the provinces, high-risk maritime loans, or debt-transfer arrangements, aristocratic financiers navigated a world in which legal, economic, and social considerations overlapped. Rome’s ruling class lent extensively but never stepped fully into the role of banker. Their investments, however substantial, were always tethered to their social rank, cultural values, and political ambitions—forming a distinctive system of elite finance that helped sustain both personal wealth and imperial power. ([*Banking and Business in the Roman World*](https://amzn.to/43ACgse?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Jean Andreau*) ## Vanished Vaults: The Rise and Fall of Rome’s Deposit Bankers [The Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/) once boasted a flourishing system of deposit banking, one sophisticated enough to channel savings from ordinary citizens into productive loans. But sometime after the mid-third century CE, this system disappeared—eerily and abruptly. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/Roman-coin-of-Trajan-Decius-Antoninianus.jpg) ## What happened to the argentarii, nummularii, and coactores argentarii who once played a vital role in the financial arteries of the Roman economy? And what do their fates reveal about Rome’s unraveling? **Roman coin of Trajan Decius Antoninianus. Credits: nevio3 from Getty Images, by Canva* The mystery of why Rome’s once-thriving banking network disappeared has long puzzled historians. In his captivating study, “*Finding the Roman Empire’s Disappeared Deposit Bankers*,” economist Morris Silver digs deep into the evidence—and the silence—to explain what really happened. Drawing from legal texts, inscriptions, and economic reasoning, Silver argues that it wasn’t a natural decline, but imperial mismanagement and inflationary policies that dismantled the deposit banking system. His work sheds new light on a financial world that was far more developed—and far more vulnerable—than we might expect. ### Banking in Bronze and Trust Roman bankers didn’t just store money—they invested it. As early as 85 BCE, the crisis in [Ephesus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) prompted authorities to grant local bankers a ten-year reprieve to repay their depositors, evidence of how deeply these institutions were embedded in financial life. The argentarius often operated on what modern economists call a fractional reserve system. They accepted "non-sealed" deposits (*deposita irregularia*), lent out those funds at interest, and returned a portion of the profits to depositors. A striking passage from [*The Digest of Justinian*](https://amzn.to/3SssKlI?ref=romanempiretimes.com) features Caecilius Candidus reassuring a client that: > “You do not have it lying idle. > I shall make it my business that you get interest on it.” This wasn’t merely a courtesy—it was a compact of confidence, the very essence of deposit banking. Unlike the image of Roman finance as a playground of senatorial elites, deposit banking was accessible to the middle classes. These banks served soldiers saving part of their pay, urban collegia managing funerary and charitable funds, and merchants navigating trade. Soldiers were even required to save, and in cities like Bonna, early bankers appear directly adjacent to legionary camps. According to Silver: > “the presence of a banking system may reasonably be viewed as a benchmark in determining the sophistication of financial markets.” These banks made capital mobile and allowed non-elites to participate in commerce without needing aristocratic intermediaries. And their reach was far from trivial: Scipio Aemilianus himself once kept **over 1.2 million sesterces** on deposit with a banker in 162 BCE. ![A fresco showing a money pouch between gold heaps and writing utensils (below), from the Praedia of Julia Felix in Pompeii, Naples National Archaeological Museum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-fresco-showing-a-money-pouch-between-gold-heaps-and-writing-utensils--below---from-the-Praedia-of-Julia-Felix-in-Pompeii--Naples-National-Archaeological-Museum.jpg) A fresco showing a money pouch between gold heaps and writing utensils (below), from the Praedia of Julia Felix in Pompeii, Naples National Archaeological Museum. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 ### From Confidence to Collapse But this vibrant banking network began to unravel by the third century CE. The roots of the decline lay not in some natural economic evolution but in destructive imperial policy. Successive emperors devalued Rome’s currency through aggressive coin debasement and failed to adjust lending laws accordingly. Inflation soared—by the time of [Diocletian](https://romanempiretimes.com/diocletian-architect-of-the-roman-empires-renewal/), it may have reached 23% annually—while a rigid interest rate cap of 12% remained legally enforced. This combination proved toxic. Banks could no longer offer depositors meaningful returns. They couldn’t charge borrowers enough to stay solvent. And they couldn’t refuse legal tender, even when its silver content had dwindled to near nothing. Roman jurists, once supportive of market autonomy, increasingly sided with debtors. > “The state did not have to rely entirely on its own limited means to enforce maximum rates of interest,” Silver writes— > “it could count on the active assistance of self-interested borrowers.” The public began to hoard older, purer coins, exacerbating the liquidity crisis. What remained in circulation—like the degraded *antoniniani*—were coins so debased and poorly minted that: > “many lost their coating as the public grew expert in extracting the silvered veneer,” Silver notes. Debasement became a visual cue of fiscal failure. In the absence of profitable deposit banking, people reverted to lending in kind. Grain and goods replaced coins in many transactions, not because Rome was “primitive,” but because inflation demanded a hedge. As Silver puts it: > "many in-kind transactions were hidden monetized transactions." Meanwhile, previously strict professional boundaries collapsed—argentarii disappeared, and silversmiths took their name and some of their functions. By the fourth century CE, there are virtually no attestations of deposit bankers in Italy outside major ports. The term argentarius vanished from the legal vocabulary of banking. Bankers were no longer mentioned in inscriptions. Public and private deposits likely dried up. What had once been an accessible network of financial intermediaries vanished into the fog of imperial overreach. One revealing case, recorded by the Christian writer Hippolytus, tells of Callistus—future pope and former [slave](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/)—who was entrusted with banking funds and failed disastrously, unable to return his depositors’ money. The episode reflects not just personal mismanagement but a broader fragility in late Roman banking. ![The Arch of the Argentarii (Arch of the Money-changers, is today partly incorporated into the church of San Giorgio Al Velabro) at sunset, Hercules in the detail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/The-Arch-of-the-Argentarii--Arch-of-the-Money-changers--is-today-partly-incorporated-into-the-church-of-San-Giorgio-Al-Velabro--at-sunset--Hercules-in-the-detail.jpg) The Arch of the Argentarii (Arch of the Money-changers, is today partly incorporated into the church of San Giorgio Al Velabro) at sunset, Hercules in the detail. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ### State Sabotage, Not Market Failure Why did the Roman banking system collapse? Silver's answer is blunt: **government sabotage**. > "The perverse decisions of Roman rulers during the third and fourth centuries had the ultimate effect of reducing the banking system to insignificance," he argues. Maximum interest rates, combined with unbridled inflation and the state's refusal to allow private actors to protect their capital, drove deposit banking to extinction. In a striking example of economic irony, Roman rulers sought to protect debtors so zealously that they wiped out the very institutions that allowed credit to flourish. In the end, both depositors and entrepreneurs lost, and so too did Rome’s broader economy. This tale of vanished vaults is more than a footnote—it’s a warning. Roman deposit banking had matured into a sophisticated network, capable of channeling savings into trade and consumption. Its disappearance curtailed investment, strangled credit, and likely accelerated the broader economic stagnation of [the late Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/). As Silver concludes: > "The absence of a viable banking system had to negatively impact economic growth and living standards... How large these effects were can be debated, but not the fact that they existed." (*Finding the Roman Empire’s Disappeared Deposit Bankers, by Morris Silver*) ## Rome’s Invisible Banks: How Credit, Coin, and Collapse Shaped the Empire’s Financial Soul Economist Peter Temin, in his pioneering paper “*Financial Intermediation in the Early Roman Empire*,” urges a radical reassessment. > "The issue turns out to be not whether financial markets in Rome resembled those in other advanced agricultural economies," he writes, > "but rather which 18th century European economy did it resemble most closely." ### Banking, Roman Style In modern terms, a bank is defined as a financial institution that accepts deposits and makes loans. This definition, Temin shows, was already in use among ancient historians like Bogaert and Andreau. As aforementioned, Roman argentarii, along with coactores argentarii and nummularii, did precisely this. They took in deposits, managed accounts, and extended credit. These bankers were not mere money-changers. They operated in a legally recognized framework, kept records in ledgers called rationes, and participated in credit arrangements that served local commerce, international trade, and even public finance. > "Deposits are bank liabilities," Temin explains, > "They pay a lower rate of interest than other loans partly because the bank furnishes services in place of interest payments." ### Deposits, Not Denarii One of the strongest indicators of Rome's financial maturity is the existence of what modern economists call deposit banking. Temin, echoing [*the Digest*](https://amzn.to/3Ftdoul?ref=romanempiretimes.com), notes that Roman law distinguished between sealed deposits (meant for safekeeping) and unsealed deposits, which banks were allowed to use for lending—a practice strikingly similar to today’s fractional reserve system. An example from the second century CE Egyptian papyri reads: > "Paid into the bank of Titus Flavius Eutychides... on condition that an equivalent amount should be paid at Alexandria to the official in charge." This is, Temin points out, an interbank transfer. Roman banks could communicate, transfer funds, and honor each other's obligations. And there were real consequences when credit failed. As Josephus recounts, debtors in Antioch once set fire to the city center to destroy debt records. This desperation only makes sense in a world where written contracts carried enforceable financial weight. ![A Mosaic of Iustinianus I, or Emperor Justinian](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-Mosaic-of-Iustinianus-I--or-Emperor-Justinian.jpg) A Mosaic of Iustinianus I, or Emperor Justinian. Credits: Petar Milošević, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### Not Just the Elite Unlike the elite moneylenders who extended personal loans to cities or clients, Rome’s deposit banks served ordinary people. *Collegia* (associations), municipal treasuries, and even soldiers used these services. One banker from [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/), Lucius Caecilius Jucundus, left behind tablets detailing receipts from auctions, credit extended, and tax allocations—suggesting that his business operated very much like a private financial institution. Furthermore, [temples](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/) and local governments acted as proto-financial intermediaries. Endowments held in temples were often loaned out at interest to fund rituals or maintenance. A remarkable inscription records a donor's instructions to a collegium to: > "loan out the funds and use the returns to fund their feasts and other activities." Temin summarizes: > "Temples were an important means of ‘pooling’ investment funds in the early Roman Empire." ### Rome and the Economic Modernity Debate The traditional view of Rome's economy, shaped by scholars like M.I. Finley, characterized it as a "primitive" agrarian society. Temin challenges this directly: > "Financial institutions in the early Roman Empire were better than those of 18th century France and not too far from those of 18th century England and Holland." He illustrates this with a **hierarchy of financial sophistication**: 1. From internal savings to informal credit, 2. to true financial intermediation, 3. and finally to capital markets. Rome, he argues, reached the third level. While it lacked public stock exchanges, it possessed the banking layer that allowed savers and borrowers to connect indirectly through trusted institutions. This structure enabled considerable investment and economic flexibility. Columella advised calculating vineyard yields based on interest from borrowed capital. [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) and Cicero recorded real-time shifts in market interest rates. Even the [Emperor Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/), when confronted with idle public funds in Bithynia, advised [Pliny](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/) to lower the interest rate to stimulate lending—an action Temin calls evidence that "*Romans conceptualized a demand curve for loans*." > “The public money, my Lord, which exists in the city of the Prusenses, has long remained unused. In order to bring it into some sort of productive use, I issued an edict inviting anyone who wanted to borrow to declare so. However, no creditors came forward, even though it was permissible to stipulate for interest well below 12 percent. Still, I thought it worthwhile to try, so that the custom, long fallen into disuse, might slowly grow back.” Pliny the Younger, [*Epistulae*](https://amzn.to/3FuUN0U?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 10.54 (Pliny to Trajan) > "You have done well, my dear Secundus, in attempting to bring back into use the public money that has long lain idle. What remains is for you to persist, and for those who can borrow to prove trustworthy. It is in the public interest that money be put to good use. If no one is found willing to borrow, the interest may be reduced, provided that private relief does not harm the public good.” Trajan’s response (10.55) ![A possible representation of Emperor Trajan, replying to one of Pliny the Younger’s letters](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-Emperor-Trajan--replying-to-one-of-Pliny-the-Younger---s-letters.jpg) A possible representation of Emperor Trajan, replying to one of Pliny the Younger’s letters. Credits: Roman Empire Times, OpenAI ### A System That Vanished Despite its reach and robustness, Rome’s deposit banking system disappeared by the third century CE. As Morris Silver has argued, it was likely destroyed not by market failure but by destructive imperial policies: rampant coin debasement, interest rate caps, and legal favoritism toward debtors. But during its prime, the Roman financial system channeled capital through banks, temples, and public treasuries with remarkable nuance. It facilitated trade across seas, enabled urban development, and extended financial tools to ordinary citizens. Rome did not lack banks. **It simply buried them**—beneath marble, memory, and legal complexity. Rediscovering them invites us to redefine what modern finance, **truly** means. ### Rome’s Hidden Cruelties: Disturbing facts about the Roman Empire (Part 2) URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/ Last updated: 2025-05-22T23:17:37.000Z [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s greatness was built not only on [engineering](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-engineering-the-backbone-of-an-empire/) and [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/), but on blood and fear. Beneath its triumphal arches and civic pride, the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/) maintained control through spectacle, exploitation, and silenced suffering. In the amphitheaters, death was staged as entertainment. In politics, betrayal was sharpened with daggers and poisoned [cups](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-lycurgus-cup-ancient-romes-marvel-of-art-and-nanotechnology/). In private, [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) and children were bought, sold, and violated with legal impunity. Even in matters of health, the façade of civilization masked practices that put lives at risk. These were not aberrations—they were Roman order, codified and glorified. This is [the world behind the marble](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/). ### When Killing Became Entertainment Across cultures and history, death is rarely ignored. It disturbs, compels, and demands acknowledgment—especially when it is public, violent, or untimely. While natural death evokes sadness or reflection, societies have often turned to unnatural death—killings that serve social, religious, or political functions. Whether in war, ritual sacrifice, state execution, or the slaughter of animals for meat and amusement, death has long served as a tool of control. All civilizations have shaped ways of justifying it. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-Murmillo-gladiator-fights-a-Barbary-lion-in-the-Colosseum-in-Rome-during-a-condemnation-of-beasts--by-Firmin-Didot.jpg) ## Rome, however, remains unmatched in how it elevated killing to public spectacle, applauding not just the outcome, but the style, skill, and spectacle of destruction. **A Murmillo gladiator fights a Barbary lion in the Colosseum in Rome during a condemnation of beasts, by Firmin Didot. Public domain* From early human history, killing has never been aimless—it has demanded meaning, method, and ritual. Societies surround death with customs and rites, not only to honor the dead, but to repair the community and restore order for the living. Yet in Rome, particularly under the Republic and [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), killing moved beyond necessity into the realm of orchestrated entertainment. [Gladiatorial games](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/), beast hunts, and public executions were not merely punishments or sacrifices—they were theatrical performances, expanded and refined for mass consumption. Bloodshed became a routine part of life in the amphitheater. The arena—*spectacula* as it was called in the dedication of the [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/) amphitheater (ca. 70 BCE)—offered the public a sanctioned view of death. Romans watched criminals, prisoners, [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/), and [exotic animals](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/) die as part of daily leisure. These were not secretive or shamed acts; the killing and the killers were to be seen. The philosopher [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/) protested that the Romans had come to view the reduction of a man to a corpse as a "satisfying spectacle" (Ep. 95.33). In this culture, the transformation of death into display wasn’t an accident—it was a social function. > “Now we need swift hands, now skill must be our teacher; pleasure is sought from every direction. No vice stays within its bounds—luxury rushes headlong into greed. The memory of decency has vanished. Nothing is shameful if it can be bought. Man, who is sacred to man, is now killed for sport and amusement. The one whom it was once unthinkable to train to give and receive wounds is now brought out naked and unarmed—and a man's death is spectacle enough.” Seneca, [*Moral Epistles*](https://amzn.to/4kA4vxX?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*,* 95-33 ![The chilling painting of Fedor Bronnikov, depicting a dying gladiator](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/The-chilling-painting-of-Fedor-Bronnikov--depicting-a-dying-gladiator.jpg) The chilling painting of Fedor Bronnikov, depicting a dying gladiator. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times Rome's violent shows were not isolated aberrations. They evolved from older traditions: sacrifices, [funerals](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/), punishments, and wartime executions. What made them distinct was the scale, ingenuity, and aestheticization of death. Political ambition and imperial wealth fed the games, while citizens were reassured and entertained. Few societies in antiquity rivaled the scale and ritualization of Rome’s public killings—perhaps only the Aztecs and Maya approached its complexity and intensity. In the end, Roman [spectacles of death](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/) were more than brutal distractions. They reaffirmed power, glorified violence, and conditioned an entire population to see killing as normal, even pleasurable. In the architecture of Rome’s greatest venues, the seats were fixed not just toward the stage, but toward a shared reality where death became the rhythm of daily life. ### The Arena and the Empire: Ritualized Violence as Social Order Scholars across disciplines have long debated why societies ritualize violence, and Rome provides one of the most vivid—and disturbing—examples. From anthropologists to historians, many suggest that public violence reflects a deeper social need: to control, symbolically manage, or make sense of disorder, mortality, and power. ![A painting depicting Roman Gladiators, by Howard Pyle](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-painting-depicting-Roman-Gladiators--by-Howard-Pyle.jpg) A painting depicting Roman Gladiators, by Howard Pyle. Public domain In Roman society, death was not hidden. Executions, beast hunts, and [gladiatorial combat](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-legends-about-gladiator-sweat-heres-what-we-found/) were choreographed performances, designed to be watched, remembered, and repeated. Some theories trace these spectacles to ancient religious roots—rituals of sacrifice transformed into public shows. Others tie them to [Rome’s militarism](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/), seeing the [arena](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-romans-flood-the-colosseum-for-naval-battles-in-the-arena/) as a theatrical extension of war, triumph, and conquest. In times of peace, the blood of [slaves,](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) criminals, and animals became substitutes for foreign enemies, offering both entertainment and civic reassurance. Games were staged during festivals, imperial birthdays, and military victories, reinforcing the emperor’s role as benefactor and protector. The arena was not just about domination from above. It was a social space, where [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) were expected to demonstrate generosity, where the crowd could express approval—or dissent—and where the Roman people collectively confronted ideas of life, death, justice, and identity. Scholars like Thomas Wiedemann and Paul Plass view the games as liminal rituals: controlled eruptions of violence that reaffirmed social order by confronting its limits. Others, like Carlin Barton, interpret them as psychological spectacles—obsessed with monsters, deformity, and self-annihilation—as a way to purge tension and reaffirm control. In this view, the Roman arena was a school of death and identity—a place where killing became a civic lesson. It reminded Romans who they were, who they weren’t, and who had the power to decide. ([*Spectacles of death in Ancient Rome*](https://amzn.to/45kiJP1?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Donald G.Kyle*) ![The emperor is bored, painting by Henri-Paul Motte, depicting Nero as he is passing by exotic animals and prisoners, ready to be thrown in the arena for his sake](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/The-emperor-is-bored--painting-by-Henri-Paul-Motte--depicting-Nero-as-he-is-passing-by-exotic-animals-and-prisoners--ready-to-be-thrown-in-the-arena-for-his-sake.jpg) The emperor is bored, painting by Henri-Paul Motte, depicting Nero as he is passing by exotic animals and prisoners, ready to be thrown in the arena for his sake. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### Bought Bodies: The Lives of Roman Prostitutes and Sex Slaves The figure of the enslaved or captive woman forced into prostitution has often been romanticized in Roman literature, but [graffiti](https://romanempiretimes.com/whispers-on-the-walls-graffiti-as-a-voice-of-ancient-rome/), legal texts, and epigraphic evidence tell a far grimmer story. In Pompeii, many graffiti openly advertise girls identified as *vernae*—slaves born in the household—offering their services for a few [coins.](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) The fact that their status as homeborn is emphasized suggests that it was considered a selling point, pointing to a broader norm: that enslaved people, especially women, were routinely prostituted by their owners. Some scholars argue that for many enslaved women, sex work was considered a form of domestic labor, especially when it took place within the household. Graffiti found near the entrances of private homes suggest that enslaved prostitutes may have received clients in their owners' residences. In contrast, the literary figure of the full-time brothel prostitute is largely the creation of elite male authors, while historical evidence shows that sex work for many Roman women—free or enslaved—was occasional, coerced, or circumstantial. ![A painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme, on one of his favourite topics, women sold as sex slaves in Ancient Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-painting-by-Jean-L-on-G-r-me--on-one-of-his-favourite-topics--women-sold-as-sex-slaves-in-Ancient-Rome.jpg) A painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme, on one of his favourite topics, women sold as sex slaves in Ancient Rome. Credits: leo.jeje, CC BY 2.0, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### The Silent Entry of Children into the Trade Legal texts reveal the long shadow cast by prostitution on a woman’s legal and social status. For example, the jurist Modestinus wrote that cohabiting with a free woman should be considered [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/), unless she had been a prostitute. This shows how deeply prostitution stigmatized women, making even their personal relationships legally suspect. Sex work was not confined to brothels. Roman sources frequently associate prostitution with [baths,](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/) taverns, [theaters](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-epic-roman-theater-of-philadelphia-amman/), and [markets](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/), and entertainers like dancers and actresses were often conflated with prostitutes. Whether they sold sex or were merely sexualized by association, they shared in the same cultural marginalization. Disturbingly, Roman sources also reveal that many prostitutes entered the trade as children. Seneca refers to fathers forced by poverty to hand over their children to prostitution with their own hands, and Roman plays and epigrams echo this trope—abandoned or impoverished children raised for profit by brothel owners. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-gravure-depicting-a---0ARoman-Brothel-in-the-Imperial-Era.jpg) ## While some literary sources condemned the prostitution of freeborn children as immoral, there were no laws prohibiting it. **A gravure depicting a Roman Brothel in the Imperial Era. Credits: Wellcome Collection, CC BY 4.0* Children, like slaves, were treated as property. > “Deny now that nature has bestowed a great benefit by making death necessary. > > Many are prepared to make even worse bargains: to betray a friend so they might live longer, or to hand over their children to sexual abuse with their own hands, just to see the light of day—a light that bears witness to so many of their crimes. > > We must shake off our desire for life and learn that it makes no difference when we endure what must be endured eventually.” Seneca, [*Moral Epistles*](https://amzn.to/4kA4vxX?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 101.14–15 It’s also important to note that a significant number of Roman prostitutes were male. Despite later claims that same-sex prostitution was a foreign import, Roman sources attest that boys were freely prostituted and even honored in the calendar—April 25 was marked out for *pueri leonii*, “*the pimp’s boys*.” These youths, expected to serve male clients passively, were just as much a part of Rome’s exploitative system. Whether any sex workers served female clients is uncertain. Juvenal jokes about women lavishing gifts on pretty-boy lovers, but his intent is satire, not documentation. Even graffiti like “*Glyco licks c\*nt for 2 as\*es*” leaves modern readers unsure—was it a real transaction, a boast, or a slur? What is clear is that sex in Rome was deeply entangled with power, status, and survival, and those with the least of all three paid the highest price. ([*Women in antiquity*](https://amzn.to/4duABJ1?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, edited by Stephanie Lynn Budin and Jean Macintosh Turfa*) ![A possible representation of a male prostitute in Ancient Rome, waiting for his clientele to arrive](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-a-male-prostitute-in-Ancient-Rome--waiting-for-his-clientele-to-arrive.jpg) A possible representation of a male prostitute in Ancient Rome, waiting for his clientele to arrive. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### The Overlooked Victims: Child Sexual Exploitation in Ancient Rome Children in ancient Rome, especially those enslaved or born into poverty, were among the most vulnerable members of society. While Roman literature often romanticized or obscured the realities of youth, inscriptions and legal ambiguities suggest that the line between childhood and commodification was dangerously thin. As aforementioned, graffiti from Pompeii openly advertise girls identified as *vernae*—slaves born in the household—offering sexual services for a few coins. Their homeborn status was treated as a mark of value, suggesting that enslaved minors were routinely prostituted by their owners. Many of these inscriptions appear not in brothels but near the entrances of private homes, indicating that such acts often occurred within domestic spaces. ([*The Economy of Prostitution in the Roman World*](https://amzn.to/4kC8KsZ?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Thomas A. J. McGinn*) Although Roman moralists occasionally condemned the prostitution of freeborn children, no laws prohibited it—especially when the child was under the legal authority (*patria potestas*) of the father. Children, like slaves, were considered part of the household’s property, and their use for profit, including sexual exploitation, was largely unrestricted. ([*Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian*](https://amzn.to/44KlgSu?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Susan Treggiari*) The literary tradition reinforces this troubling norm. In *Cistellaria*, Plautus presents a girl raised in a brothel after being abandoned as a baby, and [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/)’s epigrams echo the theme of impoverished or discarded children raised for sexual use. These recurring motifs reflect a cultural familiarity with the idea that children could be commodified through the sex trade. (*from Plautus,* [*Cistellaria*](https://amzn.to/4k54e6f?ref=romanempiretimes.com) *38–40 and Martial,* [*Epigrams*](https://amzn.to/3H3p1IL?ref=romanempiretimes.com) *9.5.6–9; discussed in “*[*Medicine and the Making of Roman Women*](https://amzn.to/3H5avQM?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*” by Rebecca Flemming*) ![A possible representation of an impoverished Roman child, facing the hardships of a cruel society](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-an-impoverished-Roman-child--facing-the-hardships-of-a-cruel-society.jpg) A possible representation of an impoverished Roman child, facing the hardships of a cruel society. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney Male children were also exploited. Like we underlined above, the *Fasti Praenestini*, a Roman calendar inscription, assigns April 25 to the *pueri lenonii*—“the pimp’s boys”—indicating institutional acknowledgment of their role. Servius, in his commentary on Vergil’s Eclogues, affirms that Romans had long used boy prostitutes, contradicting the idea that the practice was a [Greek import](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/). (*from the* [*Fasti Praenestini*](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/encyclopaedia%5Fromana/calendar/praenestini.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com) *(CIL I² 236) and* [*Servius, ad Ecl*](https://amzn.to/4mqFWoO?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*. 8.29; analyzed in “*[*Roman Homosexuality*](https://amzn.to/45llRKu?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*” by Craig A. Williams*) In Rome’s sex economy, children were not spared. They were groomed, advertised, bought, sold, and used—often in spaces considered respectable, and with few voices raised in their defense. The absence of legal protection, combined with economic desperation and cultural indifference, left them exposed to the cruelest fates in a society that codified hierarchy in both law and flesh. ### Power in the Shadows: Political Assassinations and Poisonings in the Roman Empire In ancient Rome, power was rarely secure—and death was often the price of ambition. [Political assassinations](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/) and poisonings were not aberrations; they were tools of the statecraft, practiced as ruthlessly in palaces as they were whispered about in the streets. Behind every imperial succession lay a story of betrayal, ambition, or opportunistic removal. The murder of [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) on the [Ides of March](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-are-the-ides-of-march-why-are-they-important/) 44 BCE was not the first such act in Roman history, but it became the most iconic. His stabbing in the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/) was carried out not by outsiders but by senators—many of them his own allies—who claimed to be defending the Republic. Yet far from restoring order, [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/)’s death opened the floodgates to a new age of imperial intrigue where conspiracies flourished and poison became a political weapon. ([*The Death of Caesar*](https://amzn.to/3ZqlXgc?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Barry Strauss*) ![The Assassination of Julius Caesar, by Heinrich Füger](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/The-Assassination-of-Julius-Caesar--by-Heinrich-F-ger.jpg) The Assassination of Julius Caesar, by Heinrich Füger. Credits: CC BY 4.0, Foto: Birgit und Peter Kainz, Wien Museum From the first emperors onward, poison was regarded as the most insidious form of political murder. The feared female poisoner [Locusta](https://romanempiretimes.com/locusta-of-gaul-the-imperial-poisoner-of-ancient-rome/) was employed by [Agrippina the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/agrippina-the-younger-the-first-empress-of-rome-in-a-male-dominant-society/)—mother of [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/)—who, according to [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/), orchestrated the poisoning of her husband Emperor Claudius to elevate her son. Locusta also reportedly crafted the fatal draught used by Nero to eliminate his stepbrother Britannicus. ([*Agrippina: Sex, Power, and Politics in the Early Empire*](https://amzn.to/45klrUM?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Anthony A. Barrett*) > “Under this great burden of anxiety, he had an attack of illness, and went to Sinuessa to recruit his strength with its balmy climate and salubrious waters. > > Thereupon, Agrippina, who had long decided on the crime and eagerly grasped at the opportunity thus offered, and did not lack instruments, deliberated on the nature of the poison to be used. > > The deed would be betrayed by one that was sudden and instantaneous, while if she chose a slow and lingering poison, there was a fear that Claudius, when near his end, might, on detecting the treachery, return to his love for his son. > > She decided on some rare compound which might derange his mind and delay death. > > A person skilled in such matters was selected, Locusta by name, who had lately been condemned for poisoning, and had long been retained as one of the tools of despotism. > > By this woman's art the poison was prepared, and it was to be administered by an eunuch, Halotus, who was accustomed to bring in and taste the dishes.” Tacitus, [*Annales*](https://amzn.to/44PW78V?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*,* 12.66–67 > “He began the practice of parricide and murder with Claudius himself; for although he was not the contriver of his death, he was privy to the plot. > > Nor did he make any secret of it; but used afterwards to commend, in a Greek proverb, mushrooms as food fit for the gods, because Claudius had been poisoned with them. > > He traduced his memory, both by word and deed in the grossest manner; one while charging him with folly, another while with cruelty. > > For he used to say by way off jest, that he had ceased morari amongst men, pronouncing the first syllable long; and treated as null many of his decrees and ordinances, as made by a doting old blockhead. > > He enclosed the place where his body was burnt with only a low wall of rough masonry. > > He attempted to poison Britannicus, as much out of envy because he had a sweeter voice, as from apprehension of what might ensue from the respect which the people entertained for his father's memory. > > He employed for this purpose a woman named Locusta who had been a witness against some persons guilty of like practices. > > But the poison she gave him, working more slowly than he expected, and only causing a purge, he sent for the woman, and beat her with his own hand, charging her with administering an antidote instead of poison; and upon her alleging in excuse, that she had given Britannicus but a gentle mixture in order to prevent suspicion, "Think you," said he, " that I am afraid of the Julian law;" and obliged her to prepare, in his own chamber and before his eyes, as quick and strong a dose as possible. > > This he tried upon a kid: but the animal lingering for five hours before it expired, he ordered her to go' to work again; and when she had done, he gave the poison to a slave, who dying immediately, he commanded the poison to be brought into the eating-room and given to Britannicus, while he was at supper with him. > > The prince had no sooner tasted it than he sunk on the floor, Nero meanwhile pretending to the guests, that it was only a fit of the falling sickness, to which, he said, he was subject. > > He buried him the following day, in a mean and hurried way, during violent storms of rain. > > He gave Locusta a pardon, and rewarded her with a great estate in land, placing some disciples with her, to be instructed in her trade.” Suetonius, [*Nero*](https://amzn.to/3SUUaAJ?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 33 The image of poison as a “woman’s weapon” was often invoked in elite Roman discourse, not to reflect biological reality, but to moralize about power wielded from the shadows. In practice, both men and women used poison. It was ideal for eliminating rivals discreetly in an age where even suspicion could ruin reputations. ![A sketch of Joseph-Noël Sylvestre, depicting Locusta testing poison on a slave](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-sketch-of-Joseph-No-l-Sylvestre--depicting-Locusta-testing-poison-on-a-slave.jpg) A sketch of Joseph-Noël Sylvestre, depicting Locusta testing poison on a slave. Upscaling: Roman Empire Times [The Praetorian Guard](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/), who were sworn to protect emperors, often played a double role—as bodyguards and assassins. It was they who killed [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-caligula-mad-or-just-sick/) in 41 CE and then, decades later, struck down the tyrant [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/) in his own palace. [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) recounts the conspiracy against [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-caligula-really-declare-war-on-neptune/), highlighting the involvement of the Praetorian Guard: > "Such frantic and reckless behaviour roused murderous thoughts in certain minds. > > One or two plots for his assassination were discovered; others were still awaiting a favorable opportunity, when two men put their heads together and succeeded in killing him, thanks to the co-operation of his most powerful freedmen and the Guards' commanders. > > These commanders had been accused of being implicated in a previous plot and, although innocent, realized that Gaius hated and feared them." Suetonius, [*De Vita Caesarum*](https://amzn.to/45lnBDw?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*,* Caligula 56 In describing Domitian's assassination, Suetonius notes the role of Stephanus, a steward, in the plot: > "Concerning the nature of the plot and the manner of his death, this is about all that became known. > > As the conspirators were deliberating when and how to attack him, whether at the bath or at dinner, Stephanus, Domitilla's steward, at the time under accusation for embezzlement, offered his aid and counsel. > > To avoid suspicion, he wrapped up his left arm in woollen bandages for some days, pretending that he had injured it, and concealed in them a dagger." Suetonius, [*The Lives of the Twelve Caesars*](https://amzn.to/3SkCLRX?ref=romanempiretimes.com), Domitian 17 [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) provides an account of [a macabre banquet hosted by Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/dining-with-domitian-and-the-enigma-of-domitian-black-dinner/), reflecting the emperor's tyrannical nature: > "After this all the things that are commonly offered at the sacrifices to departed spirits were likewise set before the guests, all of them black and in dishes of a similar colour. > > Consequently, every single one of the guests feared and trembled and was kept in constant expectation of having his throat cut the next moment, the more so as on the part of everybody but Domitian there was dead silence, as if they were already in the realms of the dead, and the emperor himself conversed only upon topics relating to death and slaughter." Cassius Dio, [*Historia Romana*](https://amzn.to/4muISku?ref=romanempiretimes.com),67.15 ![A possible representation of a woman-poisoner, delivering her poison into the cup of an unsuspecting victim](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-a-woman-poisoner--delivering-her-poison-into-the-cup-of-an-unsuspecting-victim.jpg) A possible representation of a woman-poisoner, delivering her poison into the cup of an unsuspecting victim. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney Historians have noted how poisonings and assassinations were rarely about personal vendettas. Instead, they were strategies embedded in the political machinery of the Empire. [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/) and Nero alike used "forced suicide" as a method to eliminate senators and generals under the guise of propriety. Victims were given the choice to die “with dignity” or face public disgrace and execution. This theatre of death served the state—it neutralized threats while maintaining a façade of lawful conduct.([*Nero: The End of a Dynasty*](https://amzn.to/3HkZ7Ak?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Miriam Griffin and Tacitus,* [*Annals*](https://amzn.to/3ZqxeNp?ref=romanempiretimes.com) *6.19*) The weaponization of poison extended beyond the palace. Roman texts describe herbs, powders, and slow-acting toxins used not only to murder but to manipulate wills, sabotage pregnancies, or cripple political adversaries. *The Lex Cornelia de Sicariis et Veneficiis* (Cornelian Law on Murderers and Poisoners) shows how deeply the state was concerned with such practices—and how often it failed to stop them. ([*The Criminal Law of Ancient Rome*](https://amzn.to/4k2yYF3?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Olivia Robinson*) In this environment, paranoia was not a flaw—it was a survival strategy. Senators were cautious about their dinner hosts; emperors obsessed over tasters and trusted no one. Suetonius tells of Domitian lining palace walls with polished stone **so he could watch behind him**. (*Suetonius,* [*Domitian*](https://amzn.to/45oJC4l?ref=romanempiretimes.com) *14*) Assassination was not merely political—it became symbolic. Removing a ruler often came with ritualistic overtones: stabbed in the heart of power, poisoned at the imperial banquet, or forced to open their veins in the [Roman bath](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/). The deaths were messages. Each body silenced was also a sign to others. In Rome, to live close to power, **was to live close to death**. ### Rome’s Hidden Cruelties: Disturbing facts about the Roman Empire (Part 1) URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-1/ Last updated: 2025-09-23T13:33:46.000Z Marble temples, [paved roads](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/), and [military brilliance](https://romanempiretimes.com/testudo-the-military-formation-that-lasted-from-ancient-rome-to-today-2/)—the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/) is often remembered for its grandeur and legacy. But behind the statues and triumphal arches lies a world far more brutal than many imagine. Beneath its polished veneer, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) was a society built on domination, where power was etched in blood, and cruelty was a daily instrument of control. From infanticide and public torture, to a legal system that [normalized slavery](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-zoninus-collar-the-iron-collar-that-spoke-for-the-silenced/) and rape, the empire’s foundations were as dark as they were enduring. ### Unwanted from Birth: The Normalization of Infant Abandonment in Rome In Roman society, decisions about a newborn’s fate rested entirely with the family, most often with the father. Contrary to later romanticized interpretations, there was no formal ceremony in which a child was lifted to be symbolically accepted into the household. The term *tollere liberum*, sometimes misrepresented as such a ritual, simply meant “to raise a child,” and it had no legal or ceremonial force. Exposure of infants was practiced in cases of illegitimacy, visible disability, or when the family determined it could not or would not support the child. Literary sources, including [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/)’s telling of the [Romulus and Remus myth](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-and-remus-the-legendary-founders-of-rome/), reflect how familiar this act was in Roman thought. The philosopher [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/), writing in the first century CE, refers to this practice with dispassionate clarity: > “We destroy monstrous births; and we also drown children at birth if they are weak or abnormal. > > It is not anger, but reason, to separate the useless from the healthy.” Seneca, [*De Ira*](https://amzn.to/3FeutrS?ref=romanempiretimes.com) *1.15.2* The [Twelve Tables](https://romanempiretimes.com/foundations-of-justice-romes-twelve-tables/) do not mention exposure, nor do they offer protection against it. While it is often claimed that the Roman father had a legal right to kill or expose his children, the idea of *ius vitae necisque*—the right of life and death—was rooted more in rhetorical and moral tradition than in actual law. Stories of fathers executing sons, such as that of Titus Manlius Torquatus, were recorded by historians like Livy as moral exempla rather than evidence of legal precedent. Even in the Republic, such extreme acts were subject to scrutiny, and by Late Antiquity, laws such as Constantine’s edict of 318 CE classified the killing of one’s child as a form of parricide. Still, the cultural image of paternal supremacy endured. There is also **no archaeological or literary evidence** of any state-sanctioned ritual for accepting or rejecting infants. The decision to rear or abandon a child left no formal trace—it was a private act carried out in silence. Although later Christian and legal texts sometimes portrayed fathers as having extensive powers over life and death, this representation reflects cultural ideology more than legal fact. The Roman legal system itself shifted over time, but the stories of control and authority remained, sustained by a tradition that prized discipline, hierarchy, and the supremacy of the household head. (*Raising and Killing Children: The Roman Way, by Brent D. Shaw*) ![A possible representation of a Roman abandoned baby, in the back alleys of Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-a-Roman-abandoned-baby--in-the-back-alleys-of-Rome.jpg) A possible representation of a Roman abandoned baby, in the back alleys of Rome. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### Slavery as a Foundation of Daily Life Slavery was not a side effect of Roman prosperity—[it was its structure](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/). The empire was home to **millions of enslaved people**, many of whom were born into servitude or captured during Rome’s relentless military campaigns. In cities like [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) and Ostia, [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) formed up to one-third of the population. They worked in markets, kitchens, workshops, and public buildings, making Roman daily life function at every level. ([*Slavery in the Roman World*](https://amzn.to/43EFtrL?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Sandra R. Joshel*) The Roman household (*familia*) was not a private refuge—it was a system of control, centered on the master’s authority over enslaved people. Slaves had no legal personhood. They could not legally [marry](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/), testify in court without torture, or own property. Roman jurists classified them as *instrumenta vocalia*—“talking tools”—with no more autonomy than carts or ploughs. Enslaved individuals were branded, whipped, sold, and forced into sexual labor without legal consequence for their owners. This level of dehumanization was not questioned by the legal system—it was built into it. ([*Slavery and Society at Rome*](https://amzn.to/4mw2swQ?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Keith Bradley*) The public infrastructure of Rome also relied heavily on enslaved labor. The state maintained an entire category of “public slaves” who cleaned streets, repaired [aqueducts](https://romanempiretimes.com/marvel-ancient-roman-aqueducts/), built roads, and served in temples and archives. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-an-Ancient-Greek-paedagogus-or-ludi-magister--a-Roman-slave-tasked-with-teaching-young-Romans-arithmetic--reading-and-writing.jpg) ## Even highly specialized and literate slaves—doctors, scribes, teachers—remained legally property. **A possible representation of an Ancient Greek paedagogus or ludi magister, a Roman slave tasked with teaching young Romans arithmetic, reading and writing. Credits: Roman Empire TImes, Midjourney* The paradox of literacy without liberty, education without rights, was normalized. Some slaves did attain freedom through manumission, but even freedmen remained socially marked by their former status and often continued to work for their ex-masters. ([*Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275–425*](https://amzn.to/3YUruLV?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Kyle Harper*) What made Roman slavery particularly disturbing was not just its brutality, but its banality. It was deeply embedded in economic production, household life, and political symbolism. The enslaved were expected to be invisible, obedient, and silent—yet everywhere in the Roman world, their labor made Roman culture visible and powerful. This invisibility of oppression, despite its omnipresence, is what defines Roman slavery not only as a historical fact, but as a disturbing foundation of ancient civilization. ### Crucifixion and Public Executions: Terror, Torture, and Display Crucifixion was not solely an [execution method](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-romans-kill-jesus/)—it was a carefully crafted spectacle of prolonged suffering, combining punishment, torture, and public humiliation. Although largely historical, it has not entirely disappeared: the process still retains its legal status in modern Iran and there are reports of its use against women from the Karen ethnic minority in Burma. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-pierced-heel-bone-by-an-iron-nail--indicating-that-the-feet-of-the-victim-were-nailed-to-the-side-of-the-vertical-bar-of-the-cross--from-the-Museum-of-Israel--Jerusalem.jpg) ## Unlike most known execution methods, which aim to end life swiftly, crucifixion stood out for its deliberate slowness. **A pierced heel bone by an iron nail, indicating that the victim‘s feet were nailed to the side of the cross, from the Museum of Israel, Jerusalem. Credits: Nick Thomson, CC BY-SA-NC 2.0* From the medieval period onward, public executions in many societies were designed to project authority and shame the condemned, yet they typically relied on methods such as hanging, beheading, burning, stoning, drowning, or, in modern times, electrocution and lethal injection—all of which, while violent, generally resulted in a quick death. These techniques were rarely intended to extend suffering. In contrast, torture today is more often associated with the extraction of information rather than the imposition of death. Crucifixion, however, straddled both categories. Though its end was death, the process itself was prolonged—sometimes taking hours, but in many cases **stretching over days**. In this way, crucifixion functioned not only as execution but as sustained torment, making it exceptional in the history of capital punishment. The suffering inflicted was deliberate and prolonged. Victims might endure hours or even days of agony—hanging exposed, pierced with nails or bound with rope, dehydrated, and left to be mocked by crowds. Roman writers describe flogging with metal-laced whips, forced marches carrying the crossbeam, and the humiliation of nakedness. Seneca, describing such executions, wrote: > “I see crosses there... not for a brief hour, but so contrived that the victim may die enduring long drawn-out agony.” *To Marcia,* [*On Consolation*](https://amzn.to/4mmhG7j?ref=romanempiretimes.com) *(Dialogues, 20.3)*, Seneca the Younger This was not only execution—it was torture. The process, referred to in Roman texts as *addita ludibria* (“additional mockeries”), was designed to degrade both body and soul. The condemned often died of asphyxiation, organ failure, blood loss, or even infection from open wounds exposed for days to heat and insects. Burial was usually denied. The body was left to rot on the cross, be devoured by animals, or thrown into mass graves. This post-mortem humiliation further erased the personhood of the victim. Modern medical studies have attempted to reconstruct the physical ordeal of crucifixion—not to dramatize, but to understand the mechanisms of death in what was a deliberately drawn-out process. We should be cautions against viewing crucifixion through the narrow lens of the New Testament narrative, and remind ourselves that methods varied across regions and periods. Still, by analyzing the physiological effects, scholars have outlined a grim profile of what victims likely endured. ![The famous Caravaggio painting on the Crucifixion of Saint Peter, a key moment in Christian faith](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/The-famous-Caravaggio-painting-on-the-Crucifixion-of-Saint-Peter.jpg) The famous Caravaggio painting on the Crucifixion of Saint Peter, a key moment in Christian faith. Public domain The crucified person would suffer intense trauma from the outset, possibly triggering cardiac arrest. Dehydration over multiple days would induce confusion, hallucinations, and heatstroke. Pain from the nailing—especially if the median nerve in the wrist was struck—would be excruciating and unrelenting. The scourged back rubbing against a coarse wooden surface would reopen wounds and intensify blood loss. Muscle cramps in the arms, shoulders, and legs were constant, and movement to relieve them was virtually impossible. Some victims remained alive long enough for maggots to form in open wounds while flies swarmed around them. Incontinence added further degradation. As the body failed, organs shut down one by one. Some researchers cite multi-organ collapse as the primary cause of death, while others emphasize asphyxiation—caused by the slow weakening of respiratory muscles. The raised position of the arms, while allowing blood to circulate and delaying death, also amplified pain with every breath. (*Dishonour, Degradation and Display: Crucifixion in the Roman World, by Philip John Hughes*) What mattered most was who was eligible. Roman citizens were protected from crucifixion, except in extreme cases of treason. For most others—especially slaves and foreigners—it was the default punishment for serious crimes, real or alleged. After the revolt led by [Spartacus](https://romanempiretimes.com/spartacus-the-gladiator-who-defied-rome/) in 71 BCE, 6,000 enslaved men were crucified along the [Appian Way](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-appian-way-europe-most-travelled-road-is-not-a-modern-highway/) in a display of state power that stretched from Rome to Capua. ([*Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275–425*](https://amzn.to/3YUruLV?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Kyle Harper*) Crucifixion functioned as a public affirmation of the social hierarchy. As [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) put it: > “To bind a Roman citizen is a crime; to flog him is an abomination; to execute him is almost murder; to crucify him—there is no fitting word.” [*Against Verres*](https://amzn.to/4kPxazp?ref=romanempiretimes.com), Cicero The true horror for Cicero was not the cruelty of the act itself but that it might be applied to a citizen. The punishment was thus a declaration of status, subjugation, and exclusion—a spectacle in which dignity was stripped alongside life. The staging of these executions was deliberate. Crucifixions often occurred near [marketplaces](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/), amphitheaters, or along travel routes to maximize audience impact. The Campus Esquilinus in Rome, just outside the city gates, became a known site for such deaths—its landscape reshaped over centuries by the memory of these performances. ## Crucifixion turned spaces into zones of social memory, where terror, dishonour, and imperial control became imprinted on the geography itself. ### Human Experimentation in Medicine: The Alexandrian Threshold In the third century BCE, Alexandria was a city of bold ideas. Founded by [Alexander the Great](https://romanempiretimes.com/alexander-the-great-in-roman-thought-hero-rival-and-legend/) as a beacon of [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) culture and scientific inquiry, it attracted scholars, physicians, and philosophers from across the fractured Hellenistic world. Among them were the pioneering anatomists Herophilus and Erasistratus, who, under the patronage of the Ptolemaic kings, were reportedly granted permission to dissect and vivisect living human beings—specifically, condemned criminals. These acts, conducted not to heal but to observe, stirred moral and philosophical debate that still echoes today. Controversy over these procedures was reflected centuries later in the writings of the Roman medical historian Celsus, who preserved the arguments of rival medical schools. The *empiricists*, grounded in Hippocratic tradition, rejected all forms of dissection, arguing that it yielded only pathological distortions and violated the physician's role as healer. For them, observation during treatment was sufficient. > “It is not cruel to use the bodies of criminals, who by their actions have forfeited their lives, for the benefit of the living.” Celsus, [*De Medicina*](https://amzn.to/4je4heG?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, Proemium (Preface), sections 26–27* ![A possible representation of the Roman physician Aurelius Cornelius Celsus, based on historical sources](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-the-Roman-physician-Aurelius-Cornelius-Celsus--based-on-historical-sources.jpg) A possible representation of the Roman physician Aurelius Cornelius Celsus, based on historical sources. Credits: Roman Empire Times, OpenAI By contrast, the dogmatists, to whom Herophilus and Erasistratus belonged, believed that knowledge of internal structures was essential—and could only be achieved through dissection of the dead and, at times, the living. Their position echoed Aristotle’s belief that nature should be studied as it exists, even when that meant crossing long-held taboos. While Greek and Egyptian traditions normally forbade the cutting of human bodies—whether for medical or punitive reasons—the intellectual climate of Alexandria briefly allowed these taboos to be set aside. Embalming practices and philosophical arguments provided a cultural framework that made human dissection, and even vivisection, temporarily possible. Herophilus, for instance, made crucial discoveries about the nervous system, identifying the brain—not the heart, as Aristotle had thought—as the center of thought and sensation. He was the first to distinguish sensory and motor nerves, and he described the retina and optic nerve in detail. His anatomical terminology survives in modern medicine. Erasistratus contributed significantly to the understanding of the vascular system, studying the heart’s valves and comparing its function to a pump. He conducted live experiments on animals and proposed a theory in which arteries carried air, a misunderstanding rooted in observations of dead bodies. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/Bust-of-Erasistratus--a-painting-by-Jean-Auguste-Dominique-Ingres.jpg) ## Despite this error, his work on circulation laid the groundwork for discoveries not confirmed until the seventeenth century. **Bust of Erasistratus, a painting by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres. Credits: Didier Descouens, CC BY-SA 4.0* Though these experiments represent a high point in ancient anatomical study, their methods drew fierce opposition, even in antiquity. Critics accused Herophilus and Erasistratus of crossing ethical boundaries, and later Christian authors cited their practices as evidence of pagan cruelty. Still, at the time, the lives of slaves, criminals, and prisoners were considered expendable. Torture was legal and common in Roman courts, and dissection of condemned bodies was seen as a logical extension of that logic. **The concept of pain**, or of suffering as morally significant, had not yet taken root as it would in later periods. The scientific boldness of Alexandria did not last. Changing political climates and reasserted cultural taboos brought an end to human vivisection. But the knowledge gained lived on—in the texts, techniques, and ambitions of later physicians, especially one who looked back on the Alexandrians with a mixture of envy and admiration: [**Galen of Pergamum**](https://romanempiretimes.com/galen-of-pergamon-rome-most-famous-physician-galenus/). ### Galen: Anatomy by Any Means Galen of Pergamum, the most influential physician of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/), conducted his research in a world where anatomy was not just science—it was performance. Public dissections were attended by crowds, and reputations were built through anatomical displays. Galen himself once dissected an elephant to prove a rival wrong, and a live animal experiment in which he tied off an artery and cut between the ligatures—releasing blood, not air—earned applause from onlookers and established his authority. His early training took place in Pergamum’s [gladiator](https://romanempiretimes.com/ave-imperator-morituri-te-salutant-what-did-gladiators-actually-say-before-fighting/) school, where he treated severe wounds. This experience allowed him to observe internal structures in real clinical conditions, echoing the empiricist approach of learning through observation. However, Galen **did not align with the empirics**. He was an advocate of the dogmatist school, arguing that a physician must not only treat but understand—through direct observation—the purpose of each body part. He studied in Alexandria, where he reportedly saw a complete human skeleton, though by his time dissection of human cadavers was no longer permitted. Human dissection was banned in Rome, so Galen relied on animal dissection and vivisection, especially of Barbary apes, pigs, and goats. ![Galen finding a skeleton](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/Galen-finding-a-skeleton-1.jpg) Galen finding a skeleton. Credits: Wellcome Collection, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times His manual [*On Anatomical Procedures*](https://amzn.to/3HlDz6A?ref=romanempiretimes.com), delivered as a lecture in 177 CE, and [*On the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body*](https://amzn.to/3Sbh7j0?ref=romanempiretimes.com), written around 175 CE, remain landmarks in anatomical writing. Galen believed that all living things had *physis* (life) and *psyche* (consciousness), but only humans possessed reason. Inspired by Aristotle’s teleological worldview, Galen held that every part of the body had a purpose. Anatomy was not only about healing—it was about understanding the order of nature. While Galen declared early in his writing that the goal of anatomy was to better treat wounds, his passion for knowledge often took precedence. He dissected animals to trace nerves, muscles, and vessels, and performed **live experiments** to observe organ function. He documented in clinical detail how cutting different nerves would mute an animal’s voice, or how removing parts of the brain affected its movement. In one experiment, he described how cutting into the chest of a live animal could silence its cries—until the wound was covered again. **The animal's suffering was part of the procedure**. Galen famously instructed his students: > “Cut without pity or compassion... > The cries of the animal are part of the procedure.” Galen, [*On Anatomical Procedures*](https://amzn.to/438GAjn?ref=romanempiretimes.com) *(De Anatomicis Administrationibus), Book I* Despite never dissecting a human, Galen's detailed anatomical work—extrapolated from animals and informed by Alexandrian knowledge—was taken as authoritative for centuries. He viewed animals as inferior beings with diminished awareness of pain. When a slave lost part of his sternum and lived, Galen reasoned, a non-rational animal could surely survive worse. His attitude toward animals was pragmatic; **they were tools in the search for truth**. Galen's work helped form the basis for Western biological research, both in method and in attitude. His dispassionate style and vivid descriptions still challenge modern readers. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-Galen--the-famous-Roman-physician--based-on-historical-sources.jpg) ## He was the last great anatomist of antiquity, and after his time, experimentation of this kind vanished from the West for a thousand years. **A possible representation of Galen, the famous Roman physician, based on historical sources. Credits: Roman Empire Times, OpenAI* That his methods endured—through Christian and Islamic translations—speaks to the power of his system. In Galen’s Rome, where bodies were sites of performance, discipline, and control, the physician’s knife followed the same logic. ([*Experimenting with humans and animals: from Galen to animal rights*](https://amzn.to/3H1lmLx?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Anita Guerrini*) So, while the most explicit cases of live human dissection occurred in Hellenistic Alexandria, the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/) was by no means exempt from exploitative medical practices. In Rome, human dissection was legally prohibited, but **that did not mean vulnerable bodies were protected**. Enslaved people, [gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/), prisoners, and [the poor](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/) were routinely used for invasive procedures, surgical training, and observational medicine—all without consent or recourse. As aforementioned, Galen, the most renowned physician of the empire, gained much of his anatomical expertise by treating severely wounded slaves and gladiators in a combat [arena](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/). Meanwhile, Roman doctors continued to rely on discoveries made in Alexandria, fully embracing knowledge acquired through vivisection. Pain relief was rarely offered. Legal protections did not apply. These practices were accepted as normal, even necessary. In Rome, the boundary between healing and harm **depended entirely on status**. ### The Zoninus Collar: The Iron Collar that Spoke for the Silenced URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-zoninus-collar-the-iron-collar-that-spoke-for-the-silenced/ Last updated: 2025-05-16T22:42:50.000Z The Zoninus Collar is one of the most disturbing yet revealing artifacts of Roman slavery. Discovered in or near Rome and now held in a museum collection, it is an iron neck ring bearing a stark Latin inscription. These collars were used as a form of punishment, deterrent, and identification—branding the enslaved as both runaway and possession. ![The Zoninus Roman Slave Collar](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/The-Zoninus-Roman-Slave-Collar.jpg) The Zoninus Roman Slave Collar. Credits: Sebastià Giralt, CC BY-SA-NC 2.0, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### Held by Iron, Traced by History: Reading the Zoninus Collar Housed at the Museo Nazionale Romano–Terme di Diocleziano in Rome, is a striking artifact: an iron slave collar with an attached bronze tag. The tag bears five lines of Latin inscription: > FVGITENEME > CVMREVOCV > VERISMEˇDMˇ > ZONINOACCIPIS > SOLIDVM When expanded and punctuated, the message reads: > "*Fugi, tene me. Cum revocaveris me domino meo Zonino, accipis solidum*." In English: > “I have run away; hold me. When you return me to my master Zoninus, you will receive a gold coin.” The inscription ends with a carved palm frond. This collar is part of a known group—around 45 similar items survive today—used to identify [enslaved people](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/), particularly those who had tried to escape. Such inscriptions often instruct the finder to detain the wearer, name the owner, and sometimes include a return address. Christian symbols like the *Chi-Rho* (XP) or a palm, as seen here, are also occasionally present. The Zoninus collar is exceptional in one detail: it offers a reward, a rare feature among these devices. These collars weren’t standard issue for all enslaved individuals. Rather, scholars believe they were a punitive alternative to the more traditional Roman method of tattooing a runaway’s face. Wearing such a collar publicly marked the person as a fugitive, branding them both socially and physically. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/Roman-bronze-slave-collar-from-Piazza-Cairoli--the-inscription-reads-I-am-the-slave-of-my-master-Scholasticus--a-respectable-man--hold-me-lest-I-flee-from-the-domus-Pulverata-2.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/Roman-bronze-slave-collar-from-Piazza-Cairoli--the-inscription-reads-I-am-the-slave-of-my-master-Scholasticus--a-respectable-man--hold-me-lest-I-flee-from-the-domus-Pulverata-3.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/Roman-bronze-slave-collar-from-Piazza-Cairoli--the-inscription-reads-I-am-the-slave-of-my-master-Scholasticus--a-respectable-man--hold-me-lest-I-flee-from-the-domus-Pulverata-4.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/Roman-bronze-slave-collar-from-Piazza-Cairoli--the-inscription-reads-I-am-the-slave-of-my-master-Scholasticus--a-respectable-man--hold-me-lest-I-flee-from-the-domus-Pulverata-1.jpg) 🏛️ Roman bronze slave collar from Piazza Cairoli. The inscription reads: **I am the slave of my master Scholasticus, a respectable man; hold me lest I flee from the domus Pulverata* Credits: Dan Diffendale, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 As an object, the Zoninus collar stands out because it offers immediate, tangible proof of the realities of Roman slavery. It reveals how enslaved people were managed, controlled, and perceived—not merely as laborers, but as property subject to recovery. Slavery formed the backbone of Roman society, and its influence is deeply embedded in the material remains of the era—from architecture to everyday tools. These items, shaped by the hands of enslaved laborers and by the ideologies of ownership, have the potential to shed light on the lived experiences of those in bondage. Yet studying slavery through archaeology is fraught with challenges. Legal categories like “enslaved” are not easily detected in material remains. The archaeological record reflects the perspectives of elites far more than the marginalized, making physical traces of enslaved lives difficult to identify. Often, it’s unclear whether an object or space was specifically linked to slavery unless explicitly marked. These interpretive problems are not limited to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)—they mirror those faced in the study of slavery across cultures and time periods. However, new scholarly approaches are beginning to address these issues, combining comparative frameworks with innovative methodologies. Still, a persistent challenge remains: the tendency to separate textual evidence from physical artifacts, a divide rooted in outdated academic traditions. This separation continues to influence how we understand the role of material culture in studying the institution of slavery. ![Oscar Pereira da Silva’s painting of a Roman Slave, the inscription on her neck stating she is a 21-year old virgin](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/Oscar-Pereira-da-Silva-s-painting-of-a-Roman-Slave--the-inscription-on-her-neck-stating-she-is-a-21-year-old-virgin-1.jpg) Oscar Pereira da Silva’s painting of a Roman Slave, the inscription on her neck stating she is a 21-year old virgin. Credits: Google Art Project, Public domain ### From Artifact to Inscription: How the Antiquarians Reframed the Zoninus Collar The Zoninus Collar first emerged in the historical record during the 18th century, featured in Museum Veronense, a 1749 publication by the antiquarian Francesco Scipione Maffei. Maffei, passionate about showcasing Verona’s ancient heritage, created a museum centered around inscriptions, and toward the end of his catalogue, he included items from other collections in the area. The collar was listed among the possessions of marchese Alessandro Capponi, another aristocrat who shared Maffei’s deep interest in Greco-Roman antiquity. Only the Latin text of the collar was printed—there were no images, no physical description beyond it being “on a bronze collar,” and no discussion of where it was found or what it was used for. The transcription followed the 18th-century norm: it kept the line breaks but introduced spaces between the words that weren’t present in the original. Some textual corrections were made, and decorative details like the palm frond were left out. The inscription was published alongside others from various object types—gravestones, a dedication to Mithras—treating them all as interchangeable texts rather than contextualized objects. This treatment was typical of the antiquarian tradition, which began collecting and publishing Roman slave collars in the late 1500s. For centuries, these items were not viewed as evidence of slavery but simply as examples of Latin epigraphy, gathered for their textual value. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-Jacob-Spon--based-on-historical-sources.jpg) ## Collectors like Jacob Spon, a French physician and scholar, reflected this mindset in his 1679 work [**Miscellanea* **eruditae antiquitatis*](https://amzn.to/4knfk6k?ref=romanempiretimes.com) **A possible representation of Jacob Spon, based on historical sources. Credits: Roman Empire Times, OpenAI* He defined archaeology as the study of ancient remains, such as [coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/), inscriptions, and artifacts, and arranged his material typologically, including seven slave collars grouped with unrelated items like amulets and weights. While Spon noted which inscriptions he transcribed from objects and which from earlier publications, he showed no concern for their visual or physical form. His presentations ignored the actual layout of the texts on the objects, excluded symbols, and altered line breaks and lettering. For these early collectors, the objects themselves had a social and intellectual function. They were shown to guests, gifted to peers, and displayed as signs of scholarly devotion. Jean Mabillon, a French Benedictine and intellectual, recorded such moments in his travel diary [*Iter Italicum*](https://books.google.pt/books?id=yrYf8eZ6E7QC&printsec=frontcover&hl=pt-PT&source=gbs%5Fge%5Fsummary%5Fr&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false). During a 1685 visit to Naples, he documented a Roman slave collar and a coin of Procopius that he saw in a private collection. These encounters, steeped in personal exchange and intellectual curiosity, helped fuel the eventual publication and wider circulation of such artifacts. But there was a contradiction in how these collars were treated. In private, they were tangible, handled and admired. In print, they were reduced to texts. Raffaello Fabretti’s 1699 catalogue of his own antiquities reflects this split: although he owned multiple slave collars, he only illustrated one—a circular tag with a hanging loop and five lines of text. The others were mentioned only as inscriptions, without drawings, contextual notes, or consideration of their meaning or use. This approach has shaped how the Zoninus Collar and others have come down to us. On one hand, it is **thanks to the efforts of these antiquarians** that many of the known examples survive today. Of the more than 40 slave collars known to modern scholars, several were first recorded between the 16th and mid-19th centuries—seven of them in the 18th century alone, including Zoninus’. Yet their collecting priorities had long-lasting effects. Items with inscriptions were far more likely to be preserved, while other associated finds—such as bones or burial goods—were often discarded. This explains why many of the surviving slave tags have lost their iron collars, with the Zoninus Collar being a rare exception. Moreover, for the 24 collars and tags discovered before the late 1800s, no findspots or associated archaeological data have survived. While most are thought to have been found in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/), no details confirm this. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-copy-of-a-Roman-slave-collar--by-Antoine-Mellies.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-copy-of-the-Zoninus-Collar--by-Tematika.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-copy-of-a-Roman-slave-collar--by-Tematika.jpg) 🏛️ Copies of Roman slave collars, used for modern fashion purposes. **Image #1: A copy of a Roman slave collar, by Antoine Mellies* **Image #2: A copy of the Zoninus Collar, by Tematika* **Image #3: A copy of a Roman slave collar, by Tematika* Although no serious doubts have been raised about the authenticity of the Zoninus Collar, the absence of excavation context leaves open the theoretical possibility of forgery—an issue that applies to other pieces from the same antiquarian pipeline. The typological approach of early collectors, which grouped objects based solely on shared features, further removed them from their ancient environments and uses. In this way, Roman slave collars were transformed into isolated, decontextualized artifacts. Today, the Zoninus Collar feels like a direct link to antiquity, seemingly offering raw, unfiltered access to the world of Roman slavery. But this impression is itself a legacy of 18th-century antiquarianism. The object, and even the idea of a “corpus” of Roman slave collars, owes as much to early modern collectors as it does to the ancient world. ### From Latin Inscriptions to Lives in Chains: The Evolving Interpretation of the Zoninus Collar The legacy of antiquarian scholarship still shapes how Roman slavery is understood today—often subtly and without recognition. The Zoninus Collar is a compelling example of this phenomenon. After the death of Alessandro Capponi in 1746, his collection, including the collar, passed to the Museo Kircheriano in Rome, which had been established by Athanasius Kircher, a polymath of the 17th century. Even as late as the 19th century, catalogues from the museum continued to emphasize the inscription over the object itself, omitting any image of the collar. Yet signs of a shift were emerging: the same catalogue provided measurements for the first time and speculated—incorrectly—that the collar might have been intended for an animal, as it appeared too small for a human neck. This entry reflected a transitional moment between antiquarian traditions and new 19th-century approaches to ancient material culture. ![An Ancient Roman portrait bust of a house-born slave child, named Martial, who lived two years, ten months, and eight days, and was probably the child of the house owner and an enslaved mother](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/An-Ancient-Roman-portrait-bust-of-a-house-born-slave-child--named--Martial--who-lived-two-years--ten-months--and-eight-days--and-was-probably-the-child-of-the-house-owner-and-an-enslaved-mother.jpg) An Ancient Roman portrait bust of a house-born slave child, named Martial, who lived two years, ten months, and eight days, and was probably the child of the house owner and an enslaved mother. Credits: Getty Museum, CC0 1.0 The Zoninus Collar remained in the Kircheriano collection until the newly unified Italian state took over in the late 1800s. The museum’s holdings were then redistributed according to modern principles of categorization: Etruscan artifacts went to the Museo Nazionale Etrusco, ethnographic material to the Museo Nazionale Preistorico Etnografico, and Roman antiquities—including the Zoninus Collar—were relocated to the Museo Nazionale Romano at the [Baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/) of [Diocletian](https://romanempiretimes.com/diocletian-architect-of-the-roman-empires-renewal/). Today, the collar is on display at the museum’s epigraphy section. Contemporary catalogues recognize it not only for its text but also as a significant material artifact that contributes to our understanding of slavery, communication, and society in Rome. This is part of a broader movement to reintegrate inscriptions with their physical and spatial contexts. The late 19th century was a turning point for the study of Roman slavery and material culture more broadly. Scholars began prioritizing historical context and accuracy over mere collection and typology. At this time, slave collars became relevant to conversations about early Christianity—although they would only later be fully integrated into studies of slavery. Ten new collars were discovered in this period alone, with more unearthed in the 20th and 21st centuries, and crucially, archaeologists began recording findspots and related contextual details. A major milestone was the 1899 publication by Heinrich Dressel of thirty slave collars in the [*Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum*](https://amzn.to/43jllu1?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (CIL). While Dressel maintained the antiquarian habit of treating the collars as texts, organizing them typologically with domestic artifacts like amphorae and lamps, his contribution was groundbreaking in terms of scope and scholarly rigor. He documented more collars than anyone before him, conducted deep bibliographic research, and showed a new interest in archaeological context—evidenced by his work on [Monte Testaccio](https://romanempiretimes.com/monte-testaccio-the-roman-hill-composed-of-53-million-amphorae-fragments-2/) and his lasting typology of amphorae. Giovanni Battista de Rossi, another pivotal figure in late 19th-century archaeology, helped shift attention toward the collars' function and visual features. In 1874, he published the first comprehensive study of about twenty collars, focusing on their date, materials, and appearance. Some examples, with Christian symbols like the *Chi-Rho* (XP) or the palm frond, could be confidently dated to the fourth and fifth centuries—after Constantine’s 313 CE Edict of Toleration. Others mention ecclesiastical roles, suggesting that Christian institutions also owned slaves. ![A probable representation of a Germanic slave around the year 375 AD, wearing a slave collar and tag](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-probable-representation-of-a-Germanic-slave-around-the-year-375-AD--wearing-a-slave-collar-and-tag.jpg) A probable representation of a Germanic slave around the year 375 AD, wearing a slave collar and tag. Credits: Rabax63, CC BY-SA 4.0 De Rossi and others revived an idea first proposed in the 17th century by Lorenzo Pignorio: that the collars may have replaced facial tattoos as punishment for fugitives after Constantine banned such tattoos for convicts in 315 CE. Support for this theory includes the collars' rarity, their focus on identifying runaways, and their distribution near [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/)—possibly indicating that Roman slaveholders, especially in official roles, adhered more closely to the law. However, the theory is not without problems. It assumes that Constantine’s ban on penal tattoos applied to slaves, despite the fact that tattooing continued into Late Antiquity. Moreover, some collars contain inscriptions discouraging interference with the wearer, suggesting their purpose was not punitive but preventive—to deter theft of valuable slaves. The collars were not uniform in use or meaning. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/Detail-from-a-marble-relief-found-in-Smyrna--showing-collared-slaves.jpg) ## This raised difficult moral questions for Christian scholars: How could the religion’s followers wear the symbols of faith while owning and branding human beings? **Detail from a marble relief found in Smyrna, showing collared slaves. Credits: D Smith, CC BY-SA 2.0* In response, some 19th-century scholars tried to reinterpret the collars, suggesting they were for animals or that they represented a more humane alternative to facial branding. Neither idea holds up to modern scrutiny. Inscriptions like “*I am the slave of…*” are clear in their intent, and some collars have been found still locked around human remains. Christianity, it appears, was **as complicit in the institution of slavery** as the rest of Roman society. In the 20th century, scholarship began to move beyond this apologetic framing, driven in part by social history and, later, by postcolonial and civil rights movements. The focus expanded from the owners to the enslaved themselves. The collars, once viewed narrowly as Late Antique Christian artifacts, came to be recognized as evidence of Roman slavery more generally. Historians like Kyle Harper have argued that major changes in the institution of slavery occurred only after the long fourth century, not during it. Still, the legacy of earlier scholarship lingers. Even modern treatments often separate text from object. Influential works such as Wiedemann’s [*Greek and Roman Slavery*](https://amzn.to/4mlReLc?ref=romanempiretimes.com) present these collars as inscriptions alone, and major studies like Thurmond’s 1994 work on Roman collars, while rich in textual analysis, include no visual documentation. Conversely, when the visual aspect is emphasized—such as the prominent image of the Zoninus Collar on the cover of [*The Cambridge World History of Slavery*](https://amzn.to/4jTCnpy?ref=romanempiretimes.com)—the object is often not discussed in the text itself. This reflects a deeply ingrained habit of separating word from artifact. This division also shapes the broader archaeological study of Roman slavery. Over the 19th and 20th centuries, academic disciplines developed in ways that entrenched the split: historians focused on texts, while archaeologists, particularly classical ones, continued to work within antiquarian frameworks or focused largely on elite monuments. Only more recently have archaeologists begun shifting toward studying entire contexts and networks, though slavery often remains overlooked. To make real progress, modern scholarship must actively confront and bridge the artificial divide between textual and material evidence—only then can we fully understand the world that produced the Zoninus Collar. ![A Roman slave collar, from the British Museum collection, reading: “Hold me, lest I flee, and return me to my master Viventius on the estate of Callistus”](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-Roman-slave-collar--from-the-British-Museum-collection--writing-Hold-me--lest-I-flee--and-return-me-to-my-master-Viventius-on-the-estate-of-Callistus.jpg) A Roman slave collar, from the British Museum collection, reading: **“Hold me, lest I flee, and return me to my master Viventius on the estate of Callistus”* ### Voices of Control: How Slave Collars made Ownership Visible and Inescapable The easiest perspective to recover in the study of Roman slave collars is that of the master—after all, it was the owner (or someone acting on their behalf) who commissioned the collar, chose the inscription, and had it fastened around the slave’s neck. Scholars have most often focused on what these texts say, but Jennifer Trimble in her work [*The Zoninus Collar and the Archaeology of Roman Slavery*](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.120.3.0447?ref=romanempiretimes.com) also urges us to examine the visual and physical characteristics of the collars to better understand what slave owners hoped to achieve and how their power was made manifest. Though it’s often assumed these collars served as punishments for attempted escape—perhaps replacing the older custom of tattooing slaves’ faces—a closer inspection reveals more diverse possibilities. The Zoninus collar, for instance, is made of iron and bronze, materials as harsh and utilitarian as the inscription’s blunt message. The tag itself was cut from a bronze sheet into a rounded rectangle, with an extended strip at the top that folded back to form a hoop. This hoop was then riveted shut, creating a permanent attachment point. The iron neck ring, now heavily corroded, seems to have been formed by twisting doubled wire, which was then threaded through or enclosed by the hoop before being sealed. The collar’s circumference measures about 37.7 cm—roughly between a small and medium men’s collar size today in the U.S., or a medium to large in women’s sizes. While modern necks may be larger on average, this size would have fit an adult man, woman, or older child in antiquity. These collars were snug enough that they couldn’t simply be pulled off, but they weren’t designed to choke or inflict immediate pain. Their purpose lay elsewhere. ![A Roman Bronze Statuette of a Captive Gaul](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-Roman-Bronze-Statuette-of-a-Captive-Gaul.jpg) A Roman Bronze Statuette of a Captive Gaul. Photo courtesy of Ariadne Galleries That purpose becomes clearer through the language of the inscription. The Zoninus collar begins with *fugi, tene me*—“I have run away, hold me.” Many similar collars use nearly identical phrases: *tene me ne fugiam* (“hold me so I do not run”) or *tene me quia fugi* (“hold me because I have run”). Around half also request that the wearer be returned to the owner, with phrases like *revoca me* or the phonetic variant *reboca me*. These messages reflect the anxieties of slaveholders, documented in Roman texts: runaways were commonly punished by flogging, chaining, or tattooing. These collars were physical extensions of that fear. Unlike neck shackles, however, they didn’t physically restrain the wearer. Their power was communicative, not coercive. One interpretation is that these collars were practical tools to assist in recovering runaway slaves. Some included return addresses or indicated the master’s location—for instance, a slave of Minervinus belonged to the 12th Urban Cohort in Rome, and another worked in the office of the urban prefect. However, the Zoninus collar and several others omit such details. Owners had many other strategies at their disposal: magic spells, public notices, hired slave catchers, friends, and officials. Captured slaves could even be tortured to extract the owner's identity. In that context, the collar was just one element within a complex network of recovery methods. Another possibility, and the most widely accepted among scholars, is that such collars were imposed as punishment after an escape. The tight fit, public visibility, and first-person wording may have been meant to humiliate the slave, make future flights more difficult, and assert control through both spectacle and shame. A third theory is that these collars functioned as deterrents, worn even before any escape had occurred. By marking a person as someone to be detained, the collar discouraged attempts in the first place—much like a striped prison uniform today. Including an owner's name or return address reinforced the futility of fleeing. Economics may also have played a role. Roman law required sellers to disclose if a slave had tried to escape, which lowered the slave’s value. A metal collar could be removed more easily than a tattoo, allowing an owner to conceal a fugitive past if needed before selling the person. Some collars weren’t about flight at all. A few rare examples—like one preserved in Liverpool—explicitly instruct others not to interfere with the slave: > “By order of our three lords, let no one shelter this slave belonging to someone else.” These warnings suggest another motivation: preventing the theft or reappropriation of enslaved individuals. No matter their specific purpose, all these collars projected ownership. On the Zoninus example and others, the owner is named as *dominus meus*—“my master.” In some cases, the phrase *servus sum* followed by a name in the genitive is used: “*I am the slave of so-and-so*.” ![A rare Roman slave armille collar made of gold and glass, depicting a snake with engraved inscription DOM(I)NUS ANCILLAE SUAE](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-rare-Roman-slave-armille-collar-made-of-gold-and-glass--depicting-a-snake--with-engraved-inscription-DOM-I-NUS-ANCILLAE-SUAE.jpg) A rare Roman slave armille collar made of gold and glass, depicting a snake with engraved inscription DOM(I)NUS ANCILLAE SUAE. Photo courtesy of the Archaeological Park of Pompeii A riveted metal collar, especially one bearing an inscription that commands strangers to detain the wearer, made the master’s dominion visible at all times. The command *tene me* ("hold me") invited others to physically enforce this control, defining a permitted space of presence for the slave—and punishing their movement beyond it. The act of collaring a slave was not just functional, but also deeply visual. The very shape of the collar, the engraved words, and symbols marked the wearer in ways others could instantly recognize. These symbols could imbue the act with divine legitimacy or public authority. Across Roman history, marking the bodies of slaves—by whip, ink, or iron—was a persistent motif. In the later empire, this practice expanded: even [soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) and laborers were marked to indicate their group and designated location. Slave collars thus form part of a larger visual and spatial culture that encoded hierarchy and containment on the body itself. Interestingly, the collars spoke in the first person. The Zoninus inscription reads “*I have run away... hold me... return me to my master...*”—as though the slave had authored the plea. This ventriloquized voice is typical. The second person also appears: “*you will receive a gold coin*.” These rhetorical choices mirror Roman traditions of speaking objects—inscribed tombstones, vessels, or even walls that directly address viewers, instructing them to act on behalf of someone absent. In the case of slave collars, the absent figure is the master, and the enslaved person becomes the medium through which his will is transmitted. The collar transforms a human into a speaking object—a possession that pleads, commands, and testifies to its owner's enduring claim. (*The Zoninus Collar and the Archaeology of Roman Slavery, by Jennifer Trimble*) What the Zoninus Collar ultimately reveals is not just the severity of Roman slavery, but the ingenuity of domination. With iron and inscription, the Roman master wrote his authority onto the body of another, making obedience portable and permanent. This was not just punishment—it was presence. The collar **turned the enslaved into a walking message**, a silent servant who spoke only in the voice of their owner. Yet centuries later, what survives is more than ownership. In its twisted wire and worn bronze, we see the faint trace of a life once shackled—unnamed, unheard, but no longer entirely forgotten. ### Cato the Younger: The Last Roman of the Republic URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-younger-the-last-roman-of-the-republic/ Last updated: 2025-05-16T19:31:49.000Z What is virtue in the face of ruin? For Cato the Younger, it was everything. A [Stoic by philosophy](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/) and unyielding by nature, he stood firm as the Roman Republic crumbled around him. In an age of shifting loyalties, civil war, and rising autocracy, Cato chose principle over power, and resistance over compromise. To his allies, he was the conscience of the Republic; to his enemies, an obstacle to unity. But to posterity—through the words of [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/), the poetry of Lucan, and the example of his own death—Cato became something greater than a man. He became the **last Roman of the Republic**. ### Virtue Without Power in Sallust's Republic The Roman historian [Sallust](https://romanempiretimes.com/sallust-details-on-the-historian-of-roman-elite-and-the-republic-decline/) witnessed firsthand the slow unraveling of the Republic in the final years of the first century BCE. Among the many towering personalities who defined this tumultuous era, Sallust made a remarkable claim: that [Gaius Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) and Marcus Porcius Cato were the two most virtuous Romans of living memory. ![Cato the Younger’s famous statue displayed in the Louvre, where he reads Plato’s Phaedon, before his death](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/Cato-the-Younger-s-famous-statue-displayed-in-the-Louvre--where-he-reads-Plato-s-Phaedon--before-his-death.jpg) Cato the Younger’s famous statue displayed in the Louvre, where he reads Plato’s Phaedon, before his death. Credits: GrandPalaisRmn (musée du Louvre) / Franck Raux That Caesar should be singled out is expected—his political and military career was unparalleled, his name became synonymous with imperial power. But what makes Sallust's comparison striking is that he placed Cato on equal footing, despite Cato's lack of military commands, high office, or popular legacy. As Sallust famously wrote: > "But within my own memory there have been two men with exceptional virtue, albeit with differing characters: M. Cato and C. Caesar… > > Their birth, age, and eloquence were very nearly the same, they had the same greatness of spirit, and their glory was evenly matched, although different to each. > > Caesar was held to be great because of his benefactions and munificence, but Cato for the integrity of his life. > > The first became famous for his mildness and mercy, while severity added distinction to the latter. > > Caesar obtained glory through his giving, his assisting, and his pardoning, while Cato achieved this by engaging in no amount of bribery. > > The one was a shelter for those suffering, while the other was a bane for evil-doers. > > The courtesy of the first was praised, but the constancy of the second... He preferred to be good rather than to seem good, and so the less he sought glory, the more it attended on him." Sallust's evaluation may strike the modern reader as unusual. Cato lacked many of the traditional measures of power in Roman political life. He never reached the [consulship](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-consuls-in-ancient-rome-a-pillar-of-republican-governance/), did not command armies, had no great fortune or extensive client base, and often frustrated his allies as much as his enemies. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-closeup-of-Cato-the-Younger-s-statue-from-the-Louvre-1.jpg) ## Yet Cato stood as Caesar’s equal in Sallust's eyes because he exemplified an unyielding, almost radical embodiment of Roman virtue. **A closeup of Cato the Younger’s statue from the Louvre. Credits: 1996 Musée du Louvre, Dist. GrandPalaisRmn / Pierre Philibert* Cato's influence came not from traditional avenues of command but from his calculated manipulation of tradition. Romans deeply revered their ancestors and customs, and senators were especially dependent on claims of continuity with Rome's noble past. Cato made himself into a symbol of these ancestral values—not through birth or wealth, but through behavior. He adopted old-fashioned habits, dress, and speech, projecting the image of a man rooted in the Republic's earliest, most virtuous days. Whether these practices were authentic revivals or stylized inventions, they worked. Cato's **deliberate archaism** cast a powerful spell over a [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/) desperate for symbols of legitimacy. But the power of that image had limits. Cato's extreme conservatism often alienated voters who respected tradition but did not want to return to a mythical past. His inflexible commitment to what he believed the *mos maiorum* (ancestral custom) demanded often placed him at odds with public opinion and even his fellow senators. While many admired him, few followed him into political danger. Though he united senators in moments of crisis, his uncompromising style repeatedly undermined more pragmatic attempts at consensus. Still, Cato was a force in Roman politics. Without military power or high office, he exerted influence through moral authority. He helped block [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/), [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/), and [Crassus](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/) at key moments, undermining their efforts to dominate the Senate. He opposed the First Triumvirate, fought reforms he saw as corrupt or demagogic, and pushed the Republic toward civil war by rejecting compromise with Caesar. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/Johann-Heinrich-Tischbein-s-painting-of-Cato-the-Younger-reading-Plato-s-Phaedon-before-his-death.jpg) ## He was not solely responsible for the Republic's collapse, but he was essential in shaping the conditions that made it possible. **Johann Heinrich Tischbein’s painting of Cato the Younger reading Plato’s Phaedon before his death. Public domain* Cato’s methods reveal how Roman tradition could be repurposed into political strategy. He built a career as a living symbol of Roman virtue and liberty, and while he could wield this identity to great effect, it also exposed the fragility of such appeals. Roman voters respected liberty but still supported Caesar when it suited their interests. Senators admired ancestral virtue but often preferred expedience. Cato embodied the tension between [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s ideals and its political realities. He also reminds us how personal Roman politics could be. Cato opposed Caesar long before Caesar acted like a dictator. During the Catilinarian Conspiracy, he falsely tried to implicate Caesar in treason, which could have led to Caesar’s execution. Whether motivated by foresight or personal hostility, Cato's actions helped drive Caesar into opposition to the Senate. His feud with Caesar—possibly more personal than principled—contributed to the dynamics that led to civil war. Understanding Cato means understanding how ideas of virtue, liberty, and tradition were used in Roman politics. Cato's austerity and moralism made him a symbol of resistance, even if they often limited his practical effectiveness. His opposition to Caesar was framed in cultural terms: **freedom versus tyranny**. But as Sallust’s nuanced portrayal shows, this wasn't a clash of good and evil—it was a contest between two very different kinds of Roman greatness. After his suicide at Utica in 46 BCE, Cato became more than a man: **he became a myth**. Later writers, especially [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/), reimagined him as a Stoic martyr. His death was recast as a philosophical stand for liberty, likened to that of Socrates. But the historical Cato was not a [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) sage—he was a Roman senator, fierce, inflexible, and deeply embedded in the political culture of his time. His legacy was shaped as much by his enemies and admirers as by his own actions. In the end, Sallust was right. Cato's virtue, though austere and sometimes self-defeating, made him one of the central figures of the Republic's last days. He did not command armies or write laws that endured, but he fought, in his way, for a Republic he believed still could be saved. He may not have won—but his integrity was his triumph. ([*Cato the Younger: Life and death at the end of the Roman Republic*](https://amzn.to/4j1YetB?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Fred K. Drogula*) ![An etching from Bartolomeo Pinelli, showcasing the death of Cato the Younger](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/An-etching-from-Bartolomeo-Pinell--showcasing-the-death-of-Cato-the-Younger.jpg) An etching from Bartolomeo Pinelli, showcasing the death of Cato the Younger. Public domain ### A Stoic’s Calculated Distance Though often remembered as an unyielding [Stoic](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/) and principled senator, Cato the Younger’s relationship with the [Roman people](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/) was more complex than later legend admits. Cato did not avoid popular assemblies (*contiones*) nor shrink from dramatic public gestures—in fact, he often used them deliberately to reinforce his austere brand. Cato’s early acts as *quaestor*, particularly his rigorous oversight of the treasury and prosecution of corruption, earned him admiration for integrity if not affection. As tribune in 62 BC, he even proposed an expansion of the grain dole—an act of political pragmatism designed to calm public anger after the executions of the Catilinarian conspirators. Yet when another tribune, Metellus Nepos, sought to recall Pompey, Cato resorted to obstruction and confrontation, physically blocking the measure. Theatrics became a tool in his arsenal: he filibustered in the Forum, shouted from the rostra, claimed thunder had disrupted proceedings, and even allowed himself to be dragged to prison as a statement of resistance. Far from courting popularity, Cato's gestures aimed at protecting what he viewed as the *res publica*, often against figures like Caesar and Pompey whom he considered tyrannical. He rarely flattered the crowd. He refused to canvass for the consulship and appeared in public barefoot and without a tunic—a symbol of his disdain for electoral theatrics. ![A possible representation of Cato the Younger, walking the streets of Rome without his official tunic](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-Cato-the-Younger--walking-the-streets-of-Rome-without-his-official-tunic.jpg) A possible representation of Cato the Younger, walking the streets of Rome without his official tunic. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney Yet, he knew how to make the people look and listen when it served his cause. During aedilician games, for instance, he handed out vegetables and firewood instead of lavish prizes—and the people loved it. Cato’s relationship with the Roman people, then, was strategic, not sentimental. He was not a man of the people, but a man who understood how to use them. His ultimate loyalty lay not with the crowd, but with a stern vision of the Republic: a Rome steered by incorruptible senators and guided by virtue, not applause. ### Cato Against Caesar and Pompey Cato the Younger’s political life was defined by relentless resistance to what he saw as creeping tyranny—embodied most clearly in Pompey and Caesar. From the early 60s BC, Cato opposed Pompey’s attempts to consolidate power, blocking proposals to grant him extraordinary commands or to delay consular elections for his benefit. He famously rejected Pompey’s offer of a [marriage](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/) alliance and denounced him as a *privatus* dictator—a private citizen behaving like an autocrat. His opposition to Caesar was no less dramatic. In 59 BC, when Caesar attempted to pass his agrarian law, Cato filibustered so persistently that Caesar ordered him dragged off to prison—either from the Senate or the rostra, depending on the source. Cato responded by turning the moment into political theatre, calling on the crowd for help and transforming the episode into a performance of principled defiance. He used obstruction, shouting, even spurious religious omens to delay proceedings—he once claimed to have heard thunder to stop the *lex Trebonia* that handed consular provinces to Pompey and Crassus. He wasn’t above spectacle, but it was always for the sake of the *res publica* as he understood it. ![A fantasy diorama of the moment Cato the Younger claims he heard thunder inside the Roman senate](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-fantasy-diorama-of-the-moment-Cato-the-Younger-claims-he-heard-thunder-inside-the-Roman-senate.jpg) A fantasy diorama of the moment Cato the Younger claims he heard thunder inside the Roman senate. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney Cato’s efforts failed to block the dynasts, but they defined his public identity. He was no friend of the people’s idols—and he paid the price. Pompey’s camp sabotaged Cato’s electoral run for the praetorship in 55 BC, and although he eventually gained office, he remained politically isolated. Still, he continued his campaign for a Republic untainted by ambition, using every legal and rhetorical tactic available to him. ### The Death of Cato: More than a Gesture Cato’s final act—his suicide at Utica in 46 BC—cemented his posthumous image as the last true Roman republican. This powerful gesture may have distorted how we view his political life. Later admiration for Cato as a martyr of liberty can overshadow the strategic, pragmatic, and at times theatrical politician he actually was. What his suicide proves, more than anything, is that he was not simply a cynic or a power-seeker playing at virtue. If his sole aim had been political influence, he could have survived defeat and negotiated a place in Caesar’s new order. But Cato’s death was consistent with the life he had lived—rooted in Stoic conviction, loyalty to an idealized res publica, and a refusal to bow to a would-be autocrat. His principled exit was the culmination of decades of effort to align rhetoric, public persona, and political action under a single moral code. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-third-iteration-of-Cato-the-Younger-s-death--by-Giovanni-Battista-Langetti.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/Giovanni-Battista-Langetti-s-painting-of-Cato-the-Younger-s-death.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/Another-iteration-of-Cato-the-Younger-s-death--by-Giovanni-Battista-Langetti.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-dramatic-painting-of-Cato-the-Younger-s-death--by-Luca-Giordano.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/Johann-Carl-Loth-s-painting-of-Cato-the-Younger-s-death.jpg) 🏛️ The suicide of Cato the Younger has been a subject that intrigued artists for decades, often depicting it based on the dramatic description from Plutarch, that immortalised this famous moment in history. ***Painting #1** *: Giovanni Battista Langetti* ***Painting #2** *: Giovanni Battista Langetti* ***Painting #3** *: Giovanni Battista Langetti* ***Painting #4** *: Luca Giordano* ***Painting #5** *: Johann Carl Loth* **Ιmages 1, 2, 3, 5: Public domain* **Image 4: jean louis mazieres, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0* In life, Cato may not have been the people’s darling, nor always effective. But in death, he became a symbol whose legacy outlived even the Republic he had tried to preserve. (*Cato and the People, by Henriette van der Blom*) > “…Cato drew his sword from its sheath and stabbed himself below the breast. > > His thrust, however, was somewhat feeble, owing to the inflammation in his hand, and so he did not at once dispatch himself, but in his death struggle fell from the couch and made a loud noise by overturning a geometrical abacus​ that stood near. > > His servants heard the noise and cried out, and his son at once ran in, together with his friends. > > They saw that he was smeared with blood, and that most of his bowels were protruding, but that he still had his eyes open and was alive; and they were terribly shocked. > > But the physician went to him and tried to replace his bowels, which remained uninjured, and to sew up the wound.​ > > Accordingly, when Cato recovered and became aware of this, he pushed the physician away, tore his bowels with his hands, rent the wound still more, and so died.” Plutarch, [*The life of Cato the Younger*](https://amzn.to/43jqTVg?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ### Some recipes date back to ancient Rome: French toast, foie gras… and braised flamingo URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/some-recipes-date-back-to-ancient-rome-french-toast-foie-gras-and-braised-flamingo/ Last updated: 2025-05-15T08:14:15.000Z Ancient Rome is often seen as synonymous with [culinary excess](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-unknown-lucullus-far-more-than-just-lucullan-meals/). Images of exotic – even orgiastic – feasts perpetuate its reputation for [strangeness and decadence](https://books.google.com.au/books?id=aLBBptXe1T0C&printsec=copyright&redir%5Fesc=y&ref=romanempiretimes.com#v=onepage&q&f=false). ![CTA Image](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/IMG_2242.jpeg) Article by [Christopher D Parkinson](https://theconversation.com/profiles/christopher-d-parkinson-2365277?ref=romanempiretimes.com), PhD Candidate in Classics, [**The University of Melbourne*](https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722?ref=romanempiretimes.com) It may come as no surprise, therefore, that one of the world’s oldest surviving cookbooks, [*De Re Coquinaria*](https://amzn.to/3EVB7mO?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (“On the Topic of Cooking”) is ancient Roman. But while many recipes within this collection may seem strange or extravagant to a modern palate, (flamingo braised in vinegar, peacock in a rich, peppery wine sauce, roast parrot …) the work offers more than just glimpses into elite Roman tastes. Instead, it reveals much about culinary practices, daily diet, and food culture in the ancient world that challenges modern assumptions. Most recipes in De Re Coquinaria focus on relatively ordinary fare, though often dressed up with sauces and garnishes. [Puls](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#r179), a porridge that was a staple for Rome’s poor, appears several times. [Legumes, vegetables](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#bkv%5Fchi), and [fish](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#bkix%5Fchi), are often preferred over rarer meats. The book uses costly spices with surprising restraint, advising readers how to stretch the use of an expensive herb called *laserpitium*, (said to have aphrodisiac qualities). Even desserts are nearly absent. Where De Re Coquinaria appears exotic to modern eyes, it may also reflect unfamiliar ingredients that were common in Rome. Since potatoes, for example, were unknown, cooks instead used [chestnuts](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#r184) or [colocasia](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#r172) (a relative of taro) in a dish that called for starch. Similarly, flavour enhancers came not from refined MSG, but from [garum](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#r49), a [fermented fish sauce](https://romanempiretimes.com/garum-the-unami-of-ancient-rome/) similar to that still found in Southeast Asian cuisines. And while its recipe for [dormouse](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#r396) (stuffed with pork mince, nuts and herbs, then roasted) may seem odd at first sight, it is hardly unique. Similar rodents are found in [Slovenian](https://www.atlasobscura.com/foods/edible-dormouse?ref=romanempiretimes.com) and [Peruvian](https://www.eatperu.com/eating-cuy-guinea-pig-peruvian-delicacy/?ref=romanempiretimes.com) dishes even today. ![A dormouse on a branch.](https://images.theconversation.com/files/666323/original/file-20250507-56-fe5jh.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip) The book contains a recipe for dormouse. Edwin Butter/shutterstock In fact, much of the cooking the book describes feels surprisingly familiar. Many flavors and preparations are still recognisable in modern Mediterranean cuisine: pestos, brined [olives](https://romanempiretimes.com/olive-oil-in-the-roman-empire-how-the-romans-discovered-the-liquid-gold/), fruit preserves, dried fish, cured meats. As translator [Joseph Dommers Vehling](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#Page%5F15) notes, precursors to contemporary dishes appear throughout – from [amulum](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#r54) (a roux-like base) to sauces resembling [vinaigrette](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#r113) and [bouillabaisse](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#r481). The work even includes early versions of [coq au vin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#r155) (though with fish rather than chicken), [foie gras](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#r259) (using fig-fattened pig liver), [casseroles](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#r468), pumpkin pie, [scrambled eggs](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#r153) (with fish rather than bacon) and French toast, with crustless bread broken into pieces, fried in oil and drizzled in honey. While De Re Coquinaria often does showcase alien Roman extravagance, its techniques and flavours reveal an unbroken thread from ancient kitchens to modern ones. ![Portions of foie gras on a table](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/Portions-of-foie-gras-on-a-table.jpg) Portions of foie gras on a table. Credits: SpiritProd33 from Getty Images Pro, by Canva ## Who wrote it? Unlike the literary works typically associated with antiquity – epics, dramas, and philosophical treatises – De Re Coquinaria is a technical manual divided into ten books, separated by topic, and containing nearly 500 recipes. Its authorship is attributed to Marcus Gavius Apicius, a Roman aristocrat who lived during the [reign of Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/). But the style of its Latin is far too late and inconsistent to be the work of a single writer or even a single period. Instead, scholars such as [Sally Grainger and Christopher Grocock](https://www.amazon.com.au/Apicius-Critical-Introduction-English-Translation/dp/1903018137?ref=romanempiretimes.com) agree the text is more likely a compilation of recipes from both the [Greek and Roman traditions](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/), written and revised between the first and 5th centuries AD. Regardless, the book is closely associated with Apicius, who, while a real historical figure, also became a kind of culinary myth. According to [Seneca](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Sen.+Cons.+Helv.+11.10&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0017&ref=romanempiretimes.com), Apicius squandered a fortune of 100 million [sesterces](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) ([approximately US$1.09 billion today](https://testamentpress.com/ancient-money-calculator.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com)) on his lavish dining habits. When only 10 million sesterces remained – an amount he deemed insufficient to sustain his extravagant tastes – he chose suicide by poison rather than endure a simpler diet. ![A possible representation of the legendary culinary master of Ancient Rome, Apicius](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-the-legendary-culinary-master-of-Ancient-Rome--Apicius.jpg) A possible representation of the legendary culinary master of Ancient Rome, Apicius. Credits: Roman Empire Times, OpenAI Whether true or not, many stories like this circulated in the ancient world. Indeed, the Alexandrian author [Apion](https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-585?p=emailAieieKmQmYa3c&d=/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-585&ref=romanempiretimes.com) purportedly wrote an entire work critiquing Roman culinary excesses called “[On the Luxury of Apicius](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/gfc.2007.7.2.71?seq=5&ref=romanempiretimes.com)”. Just as today we might call a food lover an “Epicurean”, indulgent recipes in De Re Coquinaria are named after famous Roman gourmands – including a few dishes labelled “[Apician](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#r126)”. Even the ancients likely knew many – if not all – of the recipes were not the work of Apicius. Nevertheless, attaching his name to a cookbook lent it prestige, perhaps ensuring its survival through the Dark Ages. While the [oldest surviving manuscripts](https://www.facsimilefinder.com/facsimiles/apicius-de-re-coquinaria-facsimile?ref=romanempiretimes.com) of this cookbook date to the 9th century, the book’s popularity ebbed and flowed through the Middle Ages and Renaissance, influencing culinary writing up to the first printed cookbook, [(Bartolomeo Platina’s “On Honest Pleasure and Good Health”)](https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Platina%5Fs%5FOn%5FRight%5FPleasure%5Fand%5FGood%5FHea.html?id=3lEAAAAACAAJ&redir%5Fesc=y&ref=romanempiretimes.com) (1474). By the Enlightenment, however, De Re Coquinaria had faded from practical use, becoming little more than a historical curiosity. As a result, it was not fully translated into English until [1936](https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Cookery%5Fand%5FDining%5Fin%5FImperial%5FRome/22bOitPwJhwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=apicius+vehling+1936&printsec=frontcover&ref=romanempiretimes.com). Even today, it remains largely overlooked, except by those seeking obscure examples of Rome’s culinary eccentricities. ## The world’s first? Despite its influence and reputation, calling De Re Coquinaria the world’s first cookbook is not entirely accurate. Food was a frequent topic in ancient literature, and earlier culinary texts are known. The oldest existing collection of recipes comes from the [Yale Babylonian Cooking Tablets](https://babylonian-collection.yale.edu/about/babylonian-cooking?ref=romanempiretimes.com), dating to around 1700 BC – though they contain only 25 stew recipes. ![Apicius De Re Coquinaria Book](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/Apicius-De-Re-Coquinaria-Book.jpg) Apicius [De Re Coquinaria](https://amzn.to/3EVB7mO?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Book. Credits: Roman Empire Times Likewise, among the many Greek food writers, [Archestratus](https://books.google.com.au/books/about/The%5FLife%5Fof%5FLuxury.html?id=ebRfAAAAMAAJ&redir%5Fesc=y&ref=romanempiretimes.com), a 4th-century BC poet and philosopher, wrote what is often considered the first treatise on gastronomy, although only fragments survive, and it is not technically a cookbook. Beyond the Mediterranean, several texts either predate or parallel De Re Coquinaria. In China, for example, the now-lost Shíjīng ([食经](https://www.zgbk.com/ecph/words?SiteID=1&ID=585837&Type=bkztb&SubID=847&ref=romanempiretimes.com), “Book of Foods”) was compiled during the Western Han dynasty, while the Shízhēnlù ([食珍录](https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hans/%E9%A3%9F%E7%8F%8D%E9%8C%84?ref=romanempiretimes.com), “Record of Rare Delicacies”) survives from the 5th century AD. Even in Rome itself, many authors wrote about food prior to De Re Coquinaria. Writers such as [Cato the Elder](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cato/De%5FAgricultura/home.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com), [Pliny the Elder](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/thayer/e/roman/texts/pliny%5Fthe%5Felder/home.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com), and [Columella](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/columella/de%5Fre%5Frustica/1%2A.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com) included recipes and practical culinary advice in their works. De Re Coquinaria’s format as a technical handbook was likewise typical of a trend in the 4th-5th centuries AD, when a number of other technical manuals were also written. So if De Re Coquinaria was not written by Apicius, is not truly the first cookbook, and reflects the broader literary trends of its time, what is its value to a modern audience? The answer lies in the recipes themselves: for within them, modern readers gain a rare window into the spectrum of foods that formed the real diet of Romans across different social classes. ## Practical cookbook or curiosity? The mixed nature of De Re Coquinaria – with its extravagant dishes alongside humble, practical advice – makes its intended audience hard to pinpoint. [Bruno Laurioux](https://www.jstor.org/stable/43026831?ref=romanempiretimes.com), a medieval historian, argues that, given its lack of precise quantities or cooking instructions, it could not have been a practical manual, but instead was a symbolic artefact of Roman luxury. This, however, overlooks a key detail: the text’s terse, prescriptive language more readily suggests it was written for professionals who needed no explanation of basic techniques. For example the recipe for sow’s udder reads hardly more than a list of ingredients: > Sterile sow’s womb (also udder and belly) is prepared in this manner: take laserpitium from Cyrene or Parthia, vinegar and broth. Even a longer recipe, such as that for an “Apician Jelly” (strikingly similar to the savoury gelatin salads popular in the 1950s), lacks basic cooking times, temperatures, and methods: > Put in the mortar celery seed, dry pennyroyal, dry mint, ginger, fresh coriander, seedless raisens, honey, vinegar, oil and wine; crush it together \[in order to make a dressing of it\]. \[Now\] place 3 pieces of Picentian bread in a mould, interlined with pieces of \[cooked\] chicken, \[cooked\] sweetbreads of calf or lamb, cheese, pignolia nuts, cucumbers \[pickels\] finely chopped dry onions \[shallots\] covering the whole with \[jellified\] broth. Bury the mould in snow up to the rim; \[unmould\] sprinkle \[with the above dressing\] and serve. Unlike modern cookbooks aimed at home cooks, De Re Coquinaria assumes fluency in the kitchen. This suggests it was designed for chefs in affluent households or commercial kitchens such as taverns and inns. There are practical tips, such as masking the taste of [spoiled broth](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#r9) and [elevating or disguising](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#Page%5F32) cheap ingredients. Such inclusions reveal a tension between aspiration and practicality, spectacle and sustenance, which is still ubiquitous in cooking media. In an era without refrigeration, food preservation was an important topic. There are many descriptions such as this: > Cover fresh meat with honey, suspend it in a vessel. Use as needed; in winter it will keep but in summer it will last only a few days. Cooked meat may be treated likewise. Even when food had spoiled, the work contains practical (albeit somewhat unscupulous) advice: > How bad honey may be turned into a saleable article is to mix one part of the spoiled honey with two parts of good honey. ![There is a significant usage of honey in De Re Coquinaria, image of a jar of organic honey](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/There-is-a-significant-usage-of-honey-in-De-Re-Coquinaria--image-of-a-jar-of-organic-honey.jpg) There is a significant usage of honey in De Re Coquinaria, image of a jar of organic honey. Credits: da-kuk from Getty Images Signature, by Canva This book allows modern readers to connect with ancient Rome on a tangible, human level. Much of the modern perception of ancient culinary practices has been formed by its depictions in other ancient writings, mostly imbued with either moral philosophy or social satire. Philosophers such as [Plato](https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9781848883246/BP000004.xml?ref=romanempiretimes.com) and [Seneca](https://books.google.co.ao/books?id=PIVfAAAAMAAJ&hl=pt-PT&source=gbs%5Fbook%5Fother%5Fversions%5Fr&cad=3) employed food as a metaphor for human attachment to physical pleasure. Satirists such as [Martial, Juvenal, and Petronius](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm?ref=romanempiretimes.com#Page%5F4) used food to represent the decadent excesses of a corrupt upper class. Most modern media descriptions of Rome depict it as a place of grotesque sexual and culinary excesses. Yet such reports reflect exaggerated literary moralising about an elite few rather than broader reality. There is a much longer Roman tradition of relative temperance forced upon them by the harsh realities of the ancient world. De Re Coquinaria thus presents the most unbiased view of ancient dining habits to have survived into modern times. This is a practical, working document, valuable not because it was first, nor because of its recipes for ostrich and brain sausage. Through food, we can glimpse the textures of lived experience. In the recipes of De Re Coquinaria, we encounter not just a distant past, but a deeply familiar one. This article is republished from [The Conversation](https://theconversation.com/?ref=romanempiretimes.com) under a Creative Commons license. [Read the original article ](https://theconversation.com/some-recipes-date-back-to-ancient-rome-french-toast-foie-gras-and-braised-flamingo-254073?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ### Does the Word ‘Salary’ Derive from Salt? What is the Connection with Roman Soldiers? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/does-the-word-salary-derive-from-salt-what-is-the-connection-with-roman-soldiers/ Last updated: 2026-08-17T08:45:22.000Z The idea that [Roman soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/) were paid in salt is a claim repeated so often that it feels almost unquestionable. Yet, a closer examination of historical sources reveals a more complex—*and far more interesting*—story. How did salt come to be linked with salary, and what role did it actually play in Roman military life? What makes things more confusing is that the term salary, derives from the Latin '*salarium*', which was a stipend given to Roman soldiers, **possibly to purchase salt**, but more broadly as a monetary allowance. This distinction reinforces the idea that soldiers were not paid in salt itself. ### Salt and Salary: The Origins of a Persistent Roman Myth Thus, the core of the myth is simple: Roman soldiers were supposedly paid in salt, or given an allowance specifically for purchasing it—‘salt money’. This idea is often accompanied by a cluster of related inaccuracies. Consider this widely circulated, but deeply confused passage: > "I thought you might like to know just where your salary comes from. The word, at least. > > The source seems to be the Latin ‘salarium’ (‘sal’ being salt) which is a word tied to the payments made to soldiers in the early Roman salt trade. > > In those days, salt (regular ordinary table salt) was a prized and valuable commodity. If you’ve ever heard the phrase ‘you are the salt of the earth’ or ‘worth your salt,’ both are referring to the high value of salt. > > A soldier’s pay – consisting in part of salt – came to be known as solarium argentum, from which we derive the word salary. > > A soldier’s salary was cut if he ‘was not worth his salt,’ a phrase that came into being because the Greeks and Romans often bought slaves with salt." Time, “[*A Brief History of Salt*](https://time.com/3957460/a-brief-history-of-salt/?ref=romanempiretimes.com),” March 15, 1982 Let’s begin with what’s actually correct. First, the English word salary does indeed come from the Latin *salarium*, meaning a money allowance or stipend. Second, salarium is linguistically connected to *sal* (salt), likely through the adjective *salarius*, meaning "pertaining to salt." ## But that is where historical accuracy ends. The appeal of the myth lies in the surface-level connection between sal and salarium, prompting people to seek explanations—despite the fact that no surviving ancient source tells us what this link originally meant. In the absence of evidence, the gap is filled by speculation and attractive storytelling. Those who perpetuate the myth rarely cite primary sources. When they do try, they often refer to two Roman writers. The first is [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/), who in his [*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/4lWmAHU?ref=romanempiretimes.com) reflects on salt’s cultural and practical importance: > “We may conclude, then, by Hercules! that the higher enjoyments of life could not exist without the use of salt: indeed, so highly necessary is this substance to mankind, that the pleasures of the mind, even, can be expressed by no better term than the word "salt," such being the name given to all effusions of wit. > > All the amenities, in fact, of life, supreme hilarity, and relaxation from toil, can find no word in our language to characterize them better than this. > > Even in the very honours, too, that are bestowed upon successful warfare, salt plays its part, and from it, our word "salarium" is derived. > > That salt was held in high esteem by the ancients, is evident from the Salarian Way, so named from the fact that, by agreement, the Sabini carried all their salt by that road. > > King Ancus Martius gave six hundred modii of salt as a largess to the people, and was the first to establish salt-works. > > Varro also informs us, that the ancients used salt by way of a relishing sauce; and we know, from an old proverb, that it was the practice with them to eat salt with their bread. > > But it is in our sacred rites more particularly, that its high importance is to be recognized, no offering ever being made unaccompanied by the salted cake.” Pliny the Elder, [*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/4lWmAHU?ref=romanempiretimes.com), Book 31, Chapter 41 ![A possible representation of a typical Roman dining table, salt at the center](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-a-typical-Roman-dining-table--salt-at-the-center.jpg) A possible representation of a typical Roman dining table, salt at the center. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney This misquotation exemplifies how modern interpretations can distort historical texts, underscoring the necessity of consulting original sources to avoid perpetuating inaccuracies. The second reference often used is to Roman state taxation of salt: In 204 BCE, the [historian Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) recounts how [Roman censors](https://romanempiretimes.com/guarding-the-word-speech-censorship-and-power-in-ancient-rome/) introduced a new source of public revenue: > "They also established a new revenue from the yearly production of salt. Both at Rome and throughout Italy salt was then sold at one-sixth of an as. > > The censors let contracts for the sale of salt at the same price at Rome, at a higher price even in market-towns and local centres, and at prices which varied from place to place. > > This source of revenue was generally believed to have been devised by only one of the censors, who was angry with the people because he had formerly been condemned by an unjust verdict; and that in the price of salt those tribes by whose efforts he had been condemned were most heavily burdened. > > Hence the cognomen Salinator was bestowed upon Livius." Livy, [*History of Rome*](https://amzn.to/3GF8kDu?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Elsewhere, [Cato the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/) is also said to have referred to officials managing the salt tax, the *salinatores aerarii*, as a recognized public office during the early 2nd century BCE (cited by Servius in his commentary on Aeneid 4.244). But beyond these economic and religious references, **no ancient source claims soldiers were paid directly in salt**. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/An-illustration-of-Pliny-the-Elder--reimagined-as-a-modern-person-browsing-the-web-through-his-smartphone.jpg) ## Despite that, a **fabricated* quotation from Pliny circulates widely on Wikipedia and across the internet: **Illustration: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney* **“If I had a denarius for every fake quote…”* > "Similarly, the Latin word salarium linked employment, salt, and soldiers, but the exact link is not very clear. > > This link goes back to the Roman historian Pliny the Elder, who stated as an aside in his Natural History's discussion of sea water, that '\[I\]n Rome... the soldier's pay was originally salt and the word salary derives from it...'" 🏛️ ****The problem?** This quotation is not found in Pliny at all. It misattributes content, inaccurately suggests he was writing about seawater (he wasn’t), and introduces invented wording. Yet this fabricated quote has been copied and repeated in countless books, articles, and online posts. In short, while *salarium* may linguistically relate to salt, there’s no historical basis for the belief that Roman soldiers were paid in it. The myth continues because of the pleasing neatness of the etymology, and because it feels like it should be true—despite what the actual sources reveal. (“[Salt and salary: were Roman soldiers paid in salt?](https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2017/01/salt-and-salary.html%20 ?ref=romanempiretimes.com),” by Dr Peter Gainsford) ### Salt in the Roman Empire: Uneven Sources and the Challenge of Scale Pliny the Elder’s [*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/434Oucd?ref=romanempiretimes.com), along with accounts from Aristotle and Strabo, offer valuable entry points into understanding salt in the ancient world. As Adshead (*S.A.M. Adshead is a historian renowned for his comprehensive work on the global history of salt, particularly in his 1992 book Salt and Civilization*) noted in 1992: > “Thanks to Strabo and Pliny we are reasonably well informed about how salt was produced in the Roman Empire” Yet despite these sources, one quickly encounters the fragmented and inconsistent nature of the available evidence. Literary references are patchy, while epigraphic and archaeological findings do little to resolve the gaps. One of the major obstacles is the absence of statistical data, which makes it difficult to grasp salt’s spatial and temporal significance across the empire. To address this, it becomes essential to investigate what the scale of production and demand might have been in specific periods and regions—considering both recorded and yet-to-be-inventoried sites such as salt marshes, rock salt mines, lakes, and springs. Equally important is recognizing the broad range of salt’s applications. Beyond its culinary role—in cooking, seasoning, preservation, and sauces like [garum](https://romanempiretimes.com/garum-the-unami-of-ancient-rome/)—salt was also vital for livestock feed and numerous non-food uses: tanning hides, fixing [dyes](https://romanempiretimes.com/tyrian-purple-the-royal-dye-of-the-ancient-world-and-the-secrets-of-murex-extraction/), metallurgy, cosmetics, medical therapies, and pharmacology. Estimating the quantities involved is not merely academic curiosity. For instance, by the end of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/)’s reign (14 AD), the Italian peninsula likely represented a market of around **50,000 tonnes of salt**. It is doubtful this demand could have been met solely by Ostia’s salt flats. Given the lack of direct statistical records, it remains worthwhile to explore to what degree we can compensate for this absence—however cautiously—in order to shape a more grounded and constructive understanding of salt's role in Roman economic and [social life](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-ancient-rome-from-dawn-till-dusk/). (*Archaeology and Anthropology of Salt: a Diachronic Approach, edited by Marius Alexianu, Olivier Weller, Roxana-Gabriela Curcă*) ![A possible representation of salt mounds in the coast of ancient Sicily](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-salt-mounds-in-the-coast-of-ancient-Sicily.jpg) A possible representation of salt mounds in the coast of ancient Sicily. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### Tracing the *Salarium*: Between Fiction and Administrative Reality Although the term salarium is often loosely linked to salt in popular etymologies, its appearance in historical documents demands closer scrutiny. A passage in the [*Historia Augusta*](https://amzn.to/4iIaoaZ?ref=romanempiretimes.com) claims to record the stipend—*salarium*—bestowed on Marcus Aurelius Claudius (later Emperor Claudius Gothicus) by Emperor Valerian. While the Historia Augusta is widely regarded as an unreliable and at times fictionalized source, C. E. Van Sickle has argued that the inclusion of such administrative details may reflect echoes of genuine bureaucratic practices. His 1954 study suggests that even forged or embellished texts might preserve traces of historical reality, particularly when the terminology and structure used—such as in the recording of a salarium—align with known Roman conventions. In this case, the salarium mentioned does not refer to salt or goods in kind but rather to monetary compensation within the imperial framework. Though its authenticity remains uncertain, the passage invites reflection on how Roman authors framed pay, prestige, and imperial favor. (*The ‘Salarium’ of Claudius Gothicus (Claudius XIV, 2-15) Viewed as a Historical Document, by C. E. Van Sickle*) ### Too Much Salt: The Impracticality of Salt as Pay Even if we allow for salt’s value in antiquity, the notion that Roman soldiers were compensated in salt quickly collapses under logistical scrutiny. Consider the arithmetic: in the third century CE, a Roman legionary might earn around 1,350 denarii per year. According to [Diocletian](https://romanempiretimes.com/diocletian-architect-of-the-roman-empires-renewal/)’s Edict on *Maximum Prices* (301 CE), salt cost approximately 100 denarii for 17 liters. A literal translation of salary into salt would therefore amount to over 230 liters annually—roughly 4.5 liters per week. Such quantities would have been wildly impractical for soldiers who were already burdened with [weapons](https://romanempiretimes.com/forged-for-battle-the-six-century-reign-of-the-roman-gladius/), [armor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/), and supplies. Carrying sacks of salt as pay—not to mention storing or exchanging it—would have made little sense, especially in a monetized imperial economy with [well-established silver coinage](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) and supply chains. Salt, while indispensable for preserving food and tanning hides, was simply too bulky and perishable to function as standardized pay. More plausibly, salt was a state-controlled commodity, and any association it had with military logistics would have related to provisioning and taxation—not direct remuneration. ![A possible representation of a Roman soldier struggling to carry two large sacks of salt, a logistical nightmare that probably never existed](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-a-Roman-soldier-struggling-to-carry-two-large-sacks-of-salt--a-logistical-nightmare-that-probably-never-existed.jpg) A possible representation of a Roman soldier struggling to carry two large sacks of salt, a logistical nightmare that probably never existed. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### Salt Networks and the Environmental Geography of Early Rome Gabriele Cifani’s work emphasizes the importance of salt not just as a valued substance in antiquity, but as a geographic and administrative factor shaping early Roman development. His research points to a radial model of salt distribution emerging from natural sources—such as springs and outcrops—which influenced the placement of settlements and infrastructure. Some towns near salt-rich zones bore names reflecting their connection to salt and likely served as nodes of Roman control over coastal industrial production. These areas had ready access to port facilities, suggesting that salt was organized, transported, and possibly taxed within a broader imperial system, rather than being dispersed informally or used as direct payment. Cifani underscores the need to interpret the archaeological landscape in terms of administrative control, environmental accessibility, and transport logistics, reinforcing the idea that salt’s real value in Roman times lay in provisioning and power—not payroll. (*The salt of early Rome: historical, economic and environmental contexts, by Gabriele Cifani*) ### The Via Salaria: A Road for Salt, Not a Route to Wages The *Via Salaria*—Latin for "Salt Road"—is often invoked to support the claim that Roman soldiers were paid in salt. In reality, it was a trade route used to transport salt from the Adriatic coast to central Italy, particularly to the [Sabine](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-truly-happened-with-the-sabine-women/) region. Pliny the Elder mentions the Via Salaria in connection with salt’s distribution, noting that the Sabines transported their salt along this route. The Via Salaria reflects the infrastructure of Roman logistics and commerce, but not the means of military compensation. So, although Roman soldiers weren’t paid in salt, the state treated it as a valuable resource. As aforementioned, Livy records that in 204 BCE Roman censors created the new stream of public revenue from the sale of salt, standardizing prices at Rome and adjusting them across different regions. This centralized management demonstrates the commodity’s importance in fiscal policy, not payroll. Later, Cato the Elder referred to officials called *salinatores aerarii*—treasurers managing salt taxation. Salt thus appears in Roman administration, but always in the context of taxation and provisioning, not military wages. ![A possible representation of a Roman soldier holding a sack of salt](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/05/A-possible-representation-of-a-Roman-soldier-holding-a-sack-of-salt-1.jpg) A possible representation of a Roman soldier holding a sack of salt. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney The enduring belief that Roman soldiers were paid in salt has persisted largely because it feels intuitively true—salt was valuable, the word salarium exists, and modern idioms reinforce the connection. **But historical evidence simply does not support the notion**. Thus, while salt may have been included among army provisions or played a broader role in Roman logistics and taxation, no ancient source—Pliny included—ever states that salt was a form of military pay. The word salary may indeed derive from salarium, a term possibly once connected to salt in a more symbolic or administrative way, but any concrete financial relationship between salt and soldierly wages remains speculative at best. As modern readers, we inherit not only the Latin roots of our language but also the myths that have attached themselves to them. **Salt sustained the empire** *—but it did not fund it.* ### Who were the Praetorian Guard, Rome’s Elite Bodyguards? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/ Last updated: 2025-10-15T10:11:38.000Z From the shadows of Rome’s palaces to the bloodstained floors of imperial chambers, the Praetorian Guard stood as both protectors and executioners of emperors. Established by [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) as an elite force sworn to defend the throne, they quickly evolved into something far more dangerous—the true power [behind the purple](https://romanempiretimes.com/tyrian-purple-the-royal-dye-of-the-ancient-world-and-the-secrets-of-murex-extraction/). For centuries, they dictated the fate of [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), raising some to power and cutting others down in cold betrayal. From Sejanus’ ambition to [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-caligula-really-declare-war-on-neptune/)’s assassination, from the [infamous auction of the empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-imperial-auction-fact-or-fiction-unraveling-the-reign-of-didius-julianus/) to their final downfall under Constantine, the Praetorian Guard’s story is one of loyalty, corruption, and ruthless ambition. 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in March 2024\. It was updated in April 2025.* ### Protectors, Enforcers, and Political Players The Praetorian Guard was primarily responsible for safeguarding the life of the emperor and, when necessary, his immediate family. While their role as protectors is often overshadowed by their political involvement, their effectiveness in security operations was significant. In the early empire, [assassinations](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/) were typically carried out by individuals with pre-existing personal access to the emperor, allowing them to bypass security measures. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-possible-representation-of-how-a-lone-assassin-would-look-in-the-Roman-Empire.jpg) ## Random attacks by lone assassins, which are a primary concern for modern intelligence agencies, were rare in the Roman world. A possible representation of how a lone assassin would look in the Roman Empire. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney Beyond imperial protection, the Guard’s responsibilities extended into state security and law enforcement. The Guard acted as an instrument of **political control**, conducting arrests and executions on behalf of the emperor. In some cases, their mere presence was enough to pressure political enemies into committing suicide, allowing the emperor to avoid direct association with their deaths. A well-documented instance of this is the fate of Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, whose constant surveillance by the Guard contributed to his eventual demise ([Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/), [*Annals*](https://amzn.to/3RzoVLd?ref=romanempiretimes.com)). ### Public Security and Firefighting The Praetorian Guard also played a key role in maintaining order during public events, particularly those attended by the emperor. Their presence was both a protective measure and a demonstration of imperial authority, ensuring the safety of [Rome’s citizens](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/). Beyond their responsibilities in political and public security, the Guard also had a firefighting role. Archaeological evidence and inscriptions indicate that Praetorians actively participated in [extinguishing fires](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) in the capital, a duty not commonly associated with elite military forces. One inscription from Ostia commemorates a Praetorian who died while combating a blaze (ILS 9494), highlighting their involvement in urban safety beyond military and political functions. ### The Paradox of Power: Loyalty and Threat The stationing of the Guard in Rome presented a paradox for emperors. As the closest military force to the imperial palace, the Praetorians served as the emperor’s first line of defense, yet they also posed a significant internal threat. The command of the Guard was a highly sensitive position, requiring careful management to prevent any one individual from gaining excessive power. To mitigate the risk of a Praetorian coup, emperors structured the prefecture as a collegiate office, appointing two equally ranked prefects rather than a single commander. The association of the prefecture with the equestrian order also served as a safeguard, preventing high-ranking [senatorial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/) figures from controlling the empire’s most powerful military unit. Despite these measures, some emperors took extraordinary precautions to ensure the loyalty of their protectors. [Commodus](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-commodus-truly-the-megalomaniac-gladiator-emperor/), for instance, replaced his Praetorian Prefects frequently, at times appointing individuals to the position for mere hours. According to the [*Historia Augusta*](https://amzn.to/447lhQ7?ref=romanempiretimes.com), one prefect’s tenure **lasted only six hours** before being dismissed, illustrating the emperor’s deep mistrust of the Guard’s leadership. ![Ranking structure of the ranks of the Roman Praetorian Guard](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Ranking-structure-of-the-ranks-of-the-Roman-Praetorian-Guard.jpg) Ranking structure of the Roman Praetorian Guard. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Sora ### Casperius Aelianus and the Politics of Loyalty Among the many figures who commanded the Praetorian Guard, Casperius Aelianus stands out for his unique political influence. Aelianus first served as Prefect under [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/), later returning to the role under[ Nerva](https://romanempiretimes.com/nerva-the-first-of-the-good-roman-emperors/), likely as a concession to the Praetorians angered by Domitian’s assassination ([Dio Cassius](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/)) Tensions between Nerva and the Guard came to a head when Aelianus led the Praetorians in demanding the execution of high-ranking officials responsible for [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/dining-with-domitian-and-the-enigma-of-domitian-black-dinner/)’s murder—despite the emperor’s reluctance. The situation was only resolved when [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/trajan-bridge-ancient-world-first-to-surpass-1km-kilometer-2000-years-ago/) intervened, removing Aelianus from power. However, Dio’s account is ambiguous, leaving room for debate as to whether [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/) executed Aelianus or simply allowed him to retire. > “He sent for Aelianus and the Praetorians who had mutinied against Nerva, pretending that he was going to employ them for some purpose, and then put them out of the way. > > When he came to Rome, he did much to reform the administration of affairs and much to please the better element; to the public business he gave unusual attention, making many grants, for example, to the cities in Italy for the support of their children, and upon the good citizens he conferred many favours”. Cassius Dio, [*Roman History*](https://amzn.to/4cSsSEq?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Some modern scholars suggest that Aelianus may have played an unspecified role in securing [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/)’s rise to power, possibly explaining why he was not immediately executed. Alternative theories propose that his loyalty was not to [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/) but rather to the Flavian dynasty, as some sources claim he had served under [Vespasian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/) in Judaea. It is also possible that Aelianus’ career began under Domitius Corbulo, whose legions contributed key supporters to the Flavian bid for power. If this is the case, his actions may have been motivated more by a personal commitment to the Flavian cause than by any allegiance to Trajan. Given Trajan’s own public loyalty to Domitian, Aelianus may have expected clemency rather than removal. Regardless of his ultimate fate, Trajan had no choice but to eliminate a prefect who had openly defied imperial authority (*The Classical Review, Jonathan Eaton for "The Praetorian Guard. A History of Rome’s Elite Special Forces" by Snadra Bingham*) ![A possible representation of the commander of the Praetorian Guard, Casperius Aelianus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-possible-representation-of-the-commander-of-the-Praetorian-Guard--Casperius-Aelianus.jpg) A possible representation of the commander of the Praetorian Guard, Casperius Aelianus. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### The Political Influence of the Guard in Roman History The Praetorian Guard has frequently been described as a politically motivated force, often associated with self-interest and opportunism. In modern discourse, it is sometimes referenced as a symbol of an authoritarian security presence. Within the field of ancient history, contemporary sources typically portray the Guard as a pragmatic and calculating entity, engaged in numerous political maneuvers and betrayals. From the ascension payments extracted from [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-caligula-mad-or-just-sick/) and [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) to their involvement in the assassination of [Commodus](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-commodus-truly-the-megalomaniac-gladiator-emperor/) and the [auctioning of imperial power to Didius Julianus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-imperial-auction-fact-or-fiction-unraveling-the-reign-of-didius-julianus/), the Guard has been the subject of significant historical scrutiny. Although many accounts document their actions, there has been little analysis of their broader consequences. While existing studies examine specific incidents involving the Guard, few attempt to trace a larger narrative connecting these events to the political shifts in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/foundations-of-justice-romes-twelve-tables/), particularly in relation to the reforms of [Diocletian](https://romanempiretimes.com/diocletian-architect-of-the-roman-empires-renewal/) and Constantine. Understanding the Guard’s development and influence requires an examination of key moments in their history, considering both their actions and their effects. It is important to recognize that not all members of the Praetorian Guard participated in these events in the same manner. Some plots and assassinations were initiated by Prefects without broader Guard involvement, while others were carried out by the rank and file independent of their commanders. Despite these distinctions, it is possible to observe a broader development in how the imperial position was perceived. The concept of what it meant to be emperor in the Early Principate differed significantly from its meaning in the later empire, particularly by the reigns of Philip the Arab or [Macrinus](https://romanempiretimes.com/macrinus-true-story-gladiator-2-power-player-rome-brief-emperor/). Various explanations have been proposed to account for this transformation, and one factor that warrants further examination is the political role and influence of the Praetorian Guard within these broader shifts in Roman governance. ![Remains of the Praetorian gate, La Porta Praetoriana in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/03/Porta_Praetoria_29_09_2019.jpg) Remains of the Praetorian gate, **La Porta Praetoriana* in Rome. Credits: Gustavo La Pizza, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### The Origins and Influence of the Praetorian Guard in Imperial Rome The Praetorian Guard is widely regarded as a defining feature of imperial Rome, a distinction justified by its absence during the Republican era. The earliest reference to a praetorian appears in 63 BCE, as noted by [Sallust](https://romanempiretimes.com/sallust-details-on-the-historian-of-roman-elite-and-the-republic-decline/), and later, [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) used the term for a cavalry unit in his army. However, these early mentions of praetorians differ from the force established by the Second Triumvirate. At the outset of their rule, the Triumvirs entered Rome with their own personal "praetorians," though these were not yet organized as a structured military unit. It was only after the Battle of Philippi that the first Praetorian cohorts were formally established, taking their name from the late Republic but not yet functioning in the way they would under the emperors. These early guards were not yet a centralized force but served primarily as personal bodyguards for [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/), similar to his Germanic bodyguards. Upon becoming princeps, Augustus formalized their role, creating a structured Praetorian Guard to secure his position as Rome’s sole ruler while avoiding the appearance of a military dictatorship. He officially established the Guard in 27 BCE, forming nine cohorts of 500 men each, strategically stationed outside the city to avoid an overt military presence while ensuring that their influence could be deployed when necessary. Unlike regular legionaries, Praetorians dressed in civilian attire, carrying [swords](https://romanempiretimes.com/forged-for-battle-the-six-century-reign-of-the-roman-gladius/) but no [armor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/), reinforcing their role as enforcers of imperial power rather than a conventional army. Though often portrayed as an elite force, early Praetorians were primarily recruited from the legions. Over time, their ranks expanded to include civilians and, under Septimius Severus, even non-Italians. Their privileges distinguished them from ordinary soldiers: initially earning 1.5 times the legionary wage, their pay later increased to three times that amount. Additionally, their length of service was considerably shorter—set at 12 years in 13 BCE and extended to 16 years in 5 CE—a significant benefit for soldiers who rarely saw combat beyond Rome's walls. These advantages compensated for their lack of foreign campaigns and war plunder, ensuring their loyalty to the emperor. Unlike later emperors who relied on lavish payments, Augustus did not "purchase" the Guard’s allegiance outright but demonstrated his appreciation for their support through measured rewards. Augustus’ final innovation was the creation of the Praetorian Prefect, a position —as aforementioned— designed to manage the Guard’s operations while acting as an intermediary between the emperor and the cohorts. Though some emperors appointed a single prefect, Augustus initially divided power between two equestrian officers, a decision aimed at preventing any individual from accumulating excessive influence. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-drawing-by-Jean-Lepautre--showcasing-the-last-moments-of-Emperor-Elagabalus--as-he-is-assassinated-by-his-Praetorian-Guard.jpg) ## The role was officially limited to organizing the Guard and ensuring the emperor’s protection, yet as later events would show, Prefects often extended their authority beyond these confines. **A drawing by Jean Lepautre, showcasing the last moments of Emperor Elagabalus, as he is assassinated by his Praetorian Guard. CC0 1.0* Under [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/), the dangers of consolidating power within a single Praetorian Prefect became apparent. Preferring to govern from [Capri](https://romanempiretimes.com/villa-jovis-the-secret-lair-for-the-dark-pleasures-of-an-old-emperor/), Tiberius entrusted administration and military oversight to Sejanus, the sole prefect of the Guard. Sejanus' reputation among ancient sources is complex — some depict him as the first prefect to challenge imperial authority, orchestrate assassinations within the imperial family, and consolidate power for himself. However, historical accounts also highlight his competence and dedication, qualities that earned him numerous honors, including an unprecedented double consulship despite his equestrian status. His influence extended to the legions, as his image was carried alongside Tiberius’, a rare distinction. Given his extensive authority and recognition, the question arises: **why would he attempt a coup against Tiberius?** Some sources, particularly Tacitus, who was critical of both the imperial system and the Praetorian Guard, portray Sejanus as ambitious and manipulative. His reorganization of the Guard—centralizing them within Rome’s *Castra Praetoria*—was perceived by citizens as a move toward military dictatorship. Further suspicions arose following the death of Drusus, Tiberius’ heir, with many blaming Sejanus for the event. Convinced that his prefect had overstepped, Tiberius orchestrated Sejanus’ downfall, summoning him under false pretenses before the Senate, where he was condemned, arrested, and executed: > “For the man whom at dawn they had escorted to the senate-hall as a superior being, they were now dragging to prison as if no better than the worst... and him whom they were wont to adore and worship with sacrifices as a god, they were now leading to execution.” Cassius Dio ![A gravure by Hubert François Gravelot, showcasing Seianus convicted and sentenced to death by the Council](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-gravure-by-Hubert-Fran-ois-Gravelot--showcasing-Seianus-convicted-and-sentenced-to-death-by-the-Council.jpg) A gravure by Hubert François Gravelot, showcasing Seianus convicted and sentenced to death by the Council. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times Sejanus’ punishment extended beyond himself—his entire family was executed, serving as a warning that any Praetorian Prefect attempting to challenge imperial authority would meet the same fate. However, rather than dismantling the Praetorian Guard, Tiberius replaced Sejanus with Quintus Macro, reinforcing the Guard’s continued influence in imperial politics. Following Tiberius’ death, his successor Caligula sought to secure the Praetorian Guard’s loyalty through donatives—a practice that would become a defining feature of imperial successions. Caligula’s relationship with the Guard, however, was strained, particularly with Prefect Cassius Chaerea, whom the emperor frequently insulted. This hostility culminated in [Caligula’s assassination](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), orchestrated by Chaerea and other conspirators who, as Dio Cassius notes, initially hesitated but ultimately acted for both personal and political reasons: > “both on their own account and for the common good.” Despite their involvement in the plot, the Praetorian Guard did not immediately impose a successor. Instead, a faction of Praetorians discovered Claudius hiding in the palace, recognized him, and escorted him to the *Castra Praetoria*, where he was proclaimed emperor. To consolidate his rule, Claudius issued a generous donative, reinforcing the link between military support and imperial authority. At the same time, he ordered the execution of Chaerea while allowing his fellow prefect Sabinus to commit suicide. By doing so, Claudius both punished the assassins and reaffirmed the Guard’s essential role in upholding imperial power. Claudius’ rise marked a turning point: the illusion that emperors ruled independently of military backing had faded. His coinage prominently displayed the Castra Praetoria, bearing the inscription **IMPER. RECEP.**, underscoring the Guard’s role in his ascension. Though Claudius occasionally criticized the Guard’s complacency, he did not attempt to curtail their influence, instead maintaining their privileged status through continued payments. Their loyalty, however, appeared tied less to the emperor’s person and more to the financial rewards granted upon each succession. ![Proclaiming Claudius Emperor, by Lawrence Alma-Tadema, oil on canvas, 1867. According to one version of the story of Claudius' accession, members of the Praetorian Guard found him hiding behind a curtain in the aftermath of the assassination of Caligula in AD 41, and proclaimed him emperor](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/03/Proclaiming_claudius_emperor.png) Proclaiming Claudius Emperor, by Lawrence Alma-Tadema, oil on canvas, 1867\. According to one version of the story of Claudius' accession, members of the Praetorian Guard found him hiding behind a curtain in the aftermath of the assassination of Caligula in AD 41, and proclaimed him emperor. Public domain Upon Claudius’ death, Nero ascended the throne, continuing the tradition of issuing a donative to the Guard. His reign was initially guided by his mother Agrippina and Prefect Sextus Burrus, though over time, Nero distanced himself from their influence. By 65 CE, a conspiracy arose involving Praetorian Prefect Sulpicius Asper and Senator Gaius Piso, motivated not by personal ambition but by concerns over Nero’s conduct: > “disgraceful behaviour, his licentiousness, and his cruelty.” Cassius Dio Although this plot failed, discontent among the Guard grew, culminating in 68 CE, when they abandoned Nero and declared support for Galba, marking a pivotal moment in their history. From this point forward, emperors could no longer claim absolute authority without the explicit backing of the Praetorian Guard. (*What Impact did the Praetorian Guard have on the Political Climate of the Roman Empire?, by Adam Renner*) This episode, and subsequent events, illustrate how the Guard’s political influence shaped the imperial system. Rather than remaining mere protectors, they evolved into kingmakers, directly influencing succession, stability, and governance within the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/). ### The Praetorian Prefect: More Than a Commander The Praetorian Prefect was one of the most powerful figures in the empire, second only to the emperor. Unlike ordinary military commanders, the prefect’s responsibilities extended into governance, law enforcement, economic management, and intelligence operations. While the emperor was the "first citizen" (princeps), the prefect functioned as a prime minister, overseeing matters that went beyond military affairs. Some of the key administrative areas under Praetorian control included: - **Food supply management** – The Praefectus Annonae ensured the stable distribution of grain, particularly in Rome, preventing shortages and social unrest. - **Law enforcement and city security** – The Praefectus Vigilum oversaw public order, including crime prevention and firefighting operations. - **Provincial governance** – The Praefectus Aegypti governed Egypt, Rome’s most vital grain-producing province. By centralizing these critical sectors under military oversight, the Guard ensured that imperial rule was not just enforced through arms but also through control over Rome’s essential resources and political stability. ### Espionage and Counterintelligence Operations The Praetorian Guard was instrumental in intelligence gathering, ensuring that threats to the emperor and the state were identified, monitored, and neutralized before they could manifest. Among their most specialized units were the *speculatores*, a group of spies and military scouts responsible for: - Infiltrating enemy territories and collecting information on foreign powers. - Monitoring political dissidents within Rome and the provinces. - Providing reconnaissance in military campaigns, giving commanders strategic intelligence. The Roman postal system, under military control, played a key role in intelligence operations. This system allowed the emperor to monopolize communication networks, ensuring that vital information from the provinces reached him directly, without interference. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-possible-representation-of-a-Roman-Praetorian-Guard-securing-a-letter-that-contains-crucial-information-for-the-Empire--as-part-of-their-espionage.jpg) ## Inspired by Persian intelligence networks, the militarized postal system enabled surveillance across the empire, making it difficult for political conspiracies or foreign threats to go unnoticed. **A possible representation of a Roman Praetorian Guard securing a letter that contains crucial information for the Empire, as part of their espionage. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney* Beyond simple intelligence gathering, the Guard also acted as an early counter-terrorism force. Roman authorities operated under the principle "*Hospis, hostis est"* (The guest is an enemy), which led to constant surveillance of foreigners in Rome. The Guard monitored diplomats, traders, and envoys to ensure that external threats were swiftly detected and addressed. ### The Dacian Wars: The Guard’s Intelligence Capabilities in Action A striking example of the Praetorian Guard’s intelligence role was its involvement in the Dacian Wars. Rome’s first campaign against Dacia was inconclusive, but it provided a crucial opportunity for the Guard to gather intelligence that would lead to Rome’s victory in the second war. During the armistice between Rome and Dacia, the Guard: - Infiltrated Dacian society, gathering intelligence on fortifications, water sources, and supply lines. - Monitored Decebalus’ alliances, identifying potential threats and neutralizing diplomatic efforts to unite anti-Roman forces. - Used elite cavalry units (*equites singulares*) to intercept Dacian messengers, preventing communications with Rome’s enemies. This intelligence ensured that, by the time of the second Dacian War, Rome had detailed information on Dacia’s vulnerabilities, allowing for a far more decisive campaign. The Guard’s espionage efforts directly contributed to Rome’s ability to conquer and assimilate Dacia into the empire. ### Control Over Economic and Political Structures The Praetorian Guard’s authority extended into economic policy and governance, playing a role in enforcing imperial decrees and maintaining stability. Their influence was particularly evident in: - Supervising taxation and financial policies, ensuring imperial revenues remained stable. - Overseeing trade and commerce, particularly in Rome and key provinces. - Maintaining road security and supply chains, which was vital for the movement of troops, goods, and intelligence. Through these roles, the Guard acted as a stabilizing force within the empire, ensuring that imperial control was upheld not just through military might but also through economic regulation and administrative oversight. Their involvement in governance also extended into Roman law. Many Praetorian Prefects were legal scholars, and their interpretations of imperial law influenced judicial decisions. Their presence ensured that the legal system operated in alignment with imperial authority, reinforcing the emperor’s role as the ultimate arbiter of justice. ![A possible representation of a Roman Praetorian Guard, scribbling notes for new legal reforms](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-possible-representation-of-a-Roman-Praetorian-Guard--scribbling-notes-for-new-legal-reforms.jpg) A possible representation of a Roman Praetorian Guard, scribbling notes for new legal reforms. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### From Guardians to Kingmakers Although the Guard was initially intended to protect the emperor, their role evolved into something far more politically influential. Over time, the Praetorians became deeply involved in imperial successions, deciding who would rule Rome. By the 3rd century CE, their authority had expanded so significantly that the term “praetorianism” came to symbolize military rule over civilian governance. The Guard’s ability to install and remove emperors demonstrated that their loyalty was not necessarily to the ruler but to the stability of Rome as they defined it. Their actions ensured that only those with sufficient military and financial backing could ascend to the throne, making them one of the most powerful institutions in Roman politics. (*The Praetorian guard, Rome's intelligence service, by Mădălina Strechie*) The Praetorian Guard was one of the most complex and influential institutions of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), balancing roles in military security, intelligence, law enforcement, economic oversight, and governance. Their influence was felt not just in the halls of the imperial palace but across the entire structure of the empire, shaping its politics, economy, and military strategies. From their espionage efforts in foreign campaigns to their role in economic and political administration, the Guard’s actions played a significant part in maintaining the stability of the empire. While their later years were marked by political interference and imperial assassinations, their core function remained the same—to ensure the continuity and security of Rome’s imperial rule. Though the Guard was eventually disbanded by Constantine, the systems they pioneered in intelligence, counterintelligence, and administrative control would influence future military and security organizations for centuries to come. Their legacy remains one of control, enforcement, and the **unrelenting pursuit of imperial stability**. 📜 For more information about the praetorians, we hope you’ll enjoy [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG77CHJEvUg&ref=romanempiretimes.com): ### Another Day, Another Zuckerberg Announcement Riddled with Roman Empire Messages URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/another-day-another-zuckerberg-announcement-riddled-with-roman-empire-messages/ Last updated: 2025-04-29T21:43:43.000Z Mark Zuckerberg’s ongoing fascination with the Roman Empire continues to surface in his public appearances — and nowhere is this clearer than in Meta’s latest AI announcement. In a new promotional video for the Meta AI app (shared via [Zuckerberg’s Facebook Reel](https://www.facebook.com/reel/1194067775494747?fs=e&fs=e)), Zuckerberg showcases the new AI capabilities, subtly weaving Roman imagery and references once again into the conversation. In the video, Zuckerberg demonstrates the AI’s versatility by prompting it with two distinctly Roman-inspired queries. The first involves a request for Meta AI to “*drop some Roman history questions so Max can ace her history be\[…\]*,” a touching nod to his daughter Max and her education. The second is a more imaginative exercise, asking the AI to “*imagine a Roman bust made entirely out of diamonds, and place it in a museum*.” After so many iterations of the same thought pattern, these can’t just be random ideas — they are part of a growing pattern that confirms Zuckerberg’s almost personal obsession with the grandeur, permanence, and legacy of Rome. 0:00 /1:12 1× 🏛️ Meta AI’s new App Announcement by Mark Zuckerberg through a Facebook Reel, with a couple of new Roman Empire references. ### A Consistent Pattern: Zuckerberg’s Roman Obsession This is far from an isolated incident. Zuckerberg’s recent public appearances and announcements have been peppered with Roman allusions, creating a clear thematic line. In our previous analyses — [Mark Zuckerberg’s Secret Hidden Roman Message in His T-Shirt](https://romanempiretimes.com/mark-zuckerberg-secret-hidden-roman-message-t-shirt-tee-ai-llama-announcement-reel-instagram/), [The Roman Meaning Behind Zuckerberg’s Sculpture for His Wife Priscilla](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-meaning-behind-zuckerbergs-sculpture-for-his-wife-priscilla/), and [Is Zuckerberg Just a Roman Empire Nerd, or Augustus’ Descendant?](https://romanempiretimes.com/is-mark-zuckerberg-just-a-roman-empire-nerd-or-augustus-octavian-descendant-ancestor/) — we have documented his increasing reliance on Roman symbology as a framework for presenting himself, his ambitions, and now, his company’s AI future. Previously, Zuckerberg wore a T-shirt with the Latin phrase ‘*Annos undeviginti natus exercitum privato consilio et privata impensa comparavi*,’ directly quoting [Augustus’](https://romanempiretimes.com/is-mark-zuckerberg-just-a-roman-empire-nerd-or-augustus-octavian-descendant-ancestor/) [*Res Gestae Divi Augusti*](https://amzn.to/3EDJgfr?ref=romanempiretimes.com). In another instance, he revealed he had commissioned a sculpture of his wife Priscilla in a deliberate revival of Roman customs honoring family legacy. Each of these gestures points not just to a passing interest but to a carefully curated self-image, deeply intertwined with Roman ideals of power, permanence, and personal mythology. ### Why Rome? The Roman Empire represents not only conquest and technological prowess but also the careful cultivation of an eternal legacy — a theme Zuckerberg seems increasingly intent on echoing. In the case of [Meta’s new AI app](https://about.fb.com/news/2025/04/introducing-meta-ai-app-new-way-access-ai-assistant/?ref=romanempiretimes.com), invoking Rome isn’t incidental. It’s a continuation of presenting Meta’s offerings as tools that aim for a similarly enduring impact. [Rome’s influence lasted centuries](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-roman-empire-a-brief-history/), shaping the Western world’s language, law, and infrastructure. Similarly, Zuckerberg appears to envision Meta’s AI as a foundational cornerstone of the digital future. Zuckerberg’s choice to frame even a casual demonstration of AI capabilities with Roman references subtly positions his technology within a grand narrative of human achievement. Teaching his daughter Roman history, imagining opulent Roman busts in modern museums, referencing Augustus in fashion — these aren’t random flourishes; they are deliberate markers of a broader, almost mythological ambition. ### The Diamond Bust: More Than Just Fantasy The demo prompt showcased in the video reel, to imagine “*a Roman bust made entirely out of diamonds*” may seem whimsical, but one can argue it too ties into Zuckerberg’s fascination with permanence and immortality. Diamonds, often symbols of enduring value and strength, fused with the image of a Roman bust — a monument to power and dignity — create a vision of unshakable legacy. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Meta-AI-s-interpretation-of-a-Roman-bust-made-out-of-diamonds--inside-a-museum.jpg) ## In the context of AI, it suggests Zuckerberg sees the creative and cultural potential of his new platforms as something monumental, timeless, and glitteringly indestructible. **Meta AI’s interpretation of a Roman bust made out of diamonds, inside a museum* At a deeper level, this could be seen as Zuckerberg’s personal artistic vision for Meta’s role in society: just as Roman emperors commissioned marble busts to be remembered through the ages, Zuckerberg envisions digital monuments — in AI, in augmented and virtual reality — that will outlive even the fleeting eras of technology. ### A Fascination That Doesn’t Seem to Fade Outside of his business ventures, Zuckerberg’s social media behavior has increasingly reflected this Roman fixation. In one of his birthday celebrations earlier this year, he famously wore a t-shirt referencing Carthage and Rome’s eventual dominance, symbolizing Meta’s intended victory over competitors like Apple. At the same event, he used Latin phrases like **Aut Zuck Aut Nihil** (“*Either Zuck or nothing*”) in an oversized hoodie, merging humor with imperial aspiration. This repeated signaling reflects more than branding; it suggests that Zuckerberg has internalized Rome’s narratives of empire building, family honor, technological achievement, and personal immortality — and is actively weaving them into his corporate and personal mythologies. ### Not Just Nostalgia: A Strategy When viewed as a cohesive strategy, Zuckerberg’s references to the Roman Empire seem less eccentric and more like a carefully curated public persona. Rome was [a civilization built on innovation](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/), law, power, and cultural prestige. By aligning himself and his company with these ideals, Zuckerberg taps into powerful, enduring archetypes that can resonate far beyond tech circles. This Roman fascination also allows Zuckerberg to differentiate himself in an increasingly crowded AI space. While competitors like Apple, Google, and OpenAI frame their advancements around utility and safety, Zuckerberg is subtly framing Meta’s AI evolution within a story of **greatness**, **cultural significance**, and **historical continuity**. ### Mistress of Rome: Servilia, Caesar, and the Politics of Passion URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/mistress-of-rome-servilia-caesar-and-the-politics-of-passion/ Last updated: 2025-04-26T21:10:13.000Z [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/), gifted her a black pearl worth fortunes, and rumors claimed she had more influence in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/foundations-of-justice-romes-twelve-tables/) than any [consul](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-consuls-in-ancient-rome-a-pillar-of-republican-governance/). In the heart of a collapsing Republic, their affair wasn’t just scandalous, it was dangerous. Was it love, power, or both? And how did this forbidden relationship ripple through the downfall of Caesar himself? ## A Letter in the Senate: Scandal, Suspicion, and a Sister’s Secret The [Roman Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/) was no stranger to drama, but what happened during a tense debate in 64 B.C. could have come straight from a stage. As tempers flared over the explosive Catiline Conspiracy, [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/) found himself at odds with the fiercely moralistic Cato the Younger. (*The Catilinarian conspiracy, sometimes Second Catilinarian conspiracy, was an attempted coup d'état by Lucius Sergius Catilina (Catiline) to overthrow the Roman consuls of 63 BC – Marcus Tullius Cicero and Gaius Antonius Hybrida – and forcibly assume control of the state in their stead*.) Just then, a note was quietly handed to Caesar—fueling Cato’s suspicion that his rival was conspiring with the traitors. Demanding that the letter be read aloud, Cato forced Caesar into a corner. But when the parchment was finally unfolded, it wasn’t a secret message from revolutionaries—it was **a private love letter**. According to [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/)’s Life of Cato the Younger, Caesar was initially reluctant to share the note, but when pressed, handed it to Cato himself. To Cato’s dismay, the letter turned out to be a personal missive from a woman—not the evidence of treason he had hoped for. Plutarch does not name the sender, but given Caesar’s well-known affair with Servilia, Cato’s half-sister, many historians and storytellers have drawn the tantalizing conclusion that the letter came from her. Whether this moment was a personal humiliation for Cato or a [clever move by Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/) to defuse suspicion, it reveals the deeply entangled nature of private relationships and public power in the final years of the Republic. ![A possible representation of the incident between Julius Caesar and Cato the Younger, concerning Servilia’s love letter to Caesar](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-possible-representation-of-the-incident-between-Julius-Caesar-and-Cato-the-Younger--concerning-Servilia-s-love-letter-to-Caesar.jpg) A possible representation of the incident between Julius Caesar and Cato the Younger, concerning Servilia’s love letter to Caesar. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Sora > “Now, since we must not pass over even the slight tokens of character when we are delineating as it were a likeness of the soul, the story goes that on this occasion, when Caesar was eagerly engaged in a great struggle with Cato and the attention of the senate was fixed upon the two men, a little note was brought in from outside to Caesar. > > Cato tried to fix suspicion upon the matter and alleged that it had something to do with the conspiracy,​ and bade him read the writing aloud. > > Then Caesar handed the note to Cato, who stood near him. But when Cato had read the note, which was an unchaste letter from his sister Servilia to Caesar, with whom she was passionately and guiltily in love, he threw it to Caesar, saying, "Take it, thou sot," and then resumed his speech. > > But as regards the women of his household Cato appears to have been wholly unfortunate. For this sister was in ill repute for her relations with Caesar; and the conduct of the other Servilia, also a sister of Cato, was still more unseemly. > > She was the wife of [Lucullus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-unknown-lucullus-far-more-than-just-lucullan-meals/), a man of the highest repute in Rome, and had borne him a child, and yet she was banished from his house for unchastity.​ > > And what was most disgraceful of all, even Cato's wife Atilia was not free from such transgressions, but although he had two children by her, he was forced to put her away because of her unseemly behaviour.” Plutarch, [*The Life of Cato the Younger*](https://amzn.to/4kaXCmL?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ## Servilia: Power, Politics, and a Woman at the Heart of the Roman Republic In the world of the Roman Republic, the word family (*familia*) carried meanings far more layered than our modern usage. As Susan Treggiari notes, in her book “[*Servilia and Her Family*](https://amzn.to/4lSBNtO?ref=romanempiretimes.com)”, in Roman terms a familia could refer to everyone under the legal power of the household’s male head—including [slaves,](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) freedmen, and children—but not necessarily [the wife](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/). A woman like Servilia, though often residing with her children, remained in law part of her father’s family. Descent, inheritance, and identity [flowed through the male line](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/), and Servilia took her name from her father, Quintus Servilius Caepio. But not all who shared that name were considered close kin. ### Noble Blood and Mixed Lineage Servilia was born into one of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s most established [aristocratic lines](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). Her father, Caepio, was Patrician, while her mother, Livia, was [plebeian](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/). The Servilii traced their mythic origins to Alba Longa—[Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/)’s legendary forerunner—and claimed kinship with [Romulus himself](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-and-remus-the-legendary-founders-of-rome/). Her male-line ancestors included C. Servilius Ahala, known for [assassinating](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-shadow-of-the-dagger-assassinations-of-roman-emperors/) a would-be tyrant in defense of the Republic—a story her son Brutus would later brandish in justifying [Caesar’s murder](https://romanempiretimes.com/shadows-over-rome/). But Servilia's family history was not all virtue and glory. The Caepiones were known for ambition, pride, and scandal. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-portrait-of-Susan-Treggiari--photographed-by-Mark-Ashworth.jpg) ## Treggiari cautions us, however, that such negative portrayals often reflect political agendas or familial rivalries, not impartial truth. **A portrait of Susan Treggiari, photographed by Mark Ashworth. Photo courtesy of The Institute for Digital Archaeology* Servilia’s father, Caepio, had a fiery and turbulent political career. He clashed with tribunes, disrupted public votes, and stood trial for *maiestas* (treason against the Roman people), only to be acquitted. But the fall of her grandfather, also named Caepio—who lost the Roman standard at Arausio and was exiled—haunted the family’s fortunes. Despite these setbacks, the family’s wealth and influence endured. Servilia’s early years were marked by her parents’ divorce and her mother’s remarriage to M. Porcius Cato, grandfather of the famous Cato the Younger. This shifted Servilia’s home life **dramatically**. By the time she was a young child, Servilia had lived in at least three different Roman homes—first with her parents, then with her mother and new stepfather, and later with her maternal uncle Drusus. She grew up surrounded by influential figures and other children who would go on to shape Roman politics—most notably her half-brother Cato and her brother Caepio. Treggiari paints a detailed picture of elite Roman childhood, filled with servants, *paedagogi*, wet nurses, and even slave playmates, some of whom Servilia may have legally owned. These relationships, more than blood alone, built the emotional texture of family life. ![A marble bust of Servilia, found at the tomb of the Servilii in Carmo, Spain](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-marble-bust-of-Servilia--found-at-the-tomb-of-the-Servilii-in-Carmo--Spain.jpg) A marble bust of Servilia, found at the tomb of the Servilii in Carmo, Spain. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### Memory, Myth, and Servilia’s Voice Many anecdotes from this period, like the stories of Cato’s stoic defiance or childish games mimicking law courts—likely came from family recollection, passed down and recorded later by figures like Plutarch. Treggiari suggests that Servilia herself may have been the source for some of these tales, especially those later shared with her son, Brutus. While elite Roman girls rarely appeared in historical texts, they absorbed political culture from an early age. Servilia, sharp and observant, grew up at the crossroads of domestic upheaval and public legacy. Her story, reveals [the depth behind a woman](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) so often remembered only as Caesar’s lover or Brutus’s mother. ## Educating a Roman Lady: Servilia’s Intellectual and Moral Formation The world in which Servilia came of age was intellectually rich, socially complex, and deeply stratified. Unlike modern schooling, Roman education unfolded largely within the home. Treggiari suggests that Servilia was likely educated alongside her siblings—including Cato the Younger—though she would have received separate instruction as she grew older: > “perhaps with favoured slaves or other noble children who came to the house.” ### A Classical Curriculum for a Cultivated Woman Servilia's education was typical for a Roman aristocratic woman—limited in some areas, but by no means trivial. She was most certainly “*at least fairly fluent in Greek*,” the [mark of refinement and status](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) in Roman elite circles. While girls weren’t trained in oratory or legal rhetoric, they were expected to develop a graceful command of language through the study of [poetry](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/), drama, and select histories. Treggiari notes that she probably read “*morally acceptable authors of good style*” and enjoyed exposure to Greek lyric poetry, Euripides, Menander, Herodotus, and possibly even Plato. Latin literature was still developing during Servilia’s youth, but names like Ennius, Naevius, and Cato the Censor would have been present. Later in life, Servilia could access a wider range of texts—including “*the speeches and treatises of* [*Cicero*](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)*, the poetry of Catullus, Lucretius, Caesar’s commentaries, and even Varro on farming*.” These were not merely private pleasures; social skill, elegant conversation, and literary taste were essential tools of aristocratic women. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-possible-representation-of-Servilia--browsing-her-villa-s-wealthy-library.jpg) ## Servilia’s intellectual upbringing occurred in a household overflowing with “**books and music, dancing, or poetry reading as entertainments*.” **A possible representation of Servilia, browsing her villa’s wealthy library. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Sora* Her uncle Drusus’s home on the Palatine Hill was more than a private residence—it was a hub of political, intellectual, and cultural activity, filled with clients, philosophers, politicians, and tutors. As Treggiari writes, “*The house needed to be full of men of all types… Accessibility and openness at all hours was vital*.” From the noise of the [*salutatio*](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-salute-saluto-romano-how-did-the-romans-greet-each-other/) in the atrium to the grandeur of marble-lined halls and libraries, Servilia grew up with a front-row seat to Roman elite life. ### Domestic Training and the Discipline of Womanhood In addition to literature and language, Servilia was expected to master the practical and symbolic arts of Roman femininity. She would have learned to “*spin, weave, and embroider*,” directing household tasks through slaves and freedwomen. These skills were not trivial—they symbolized domestic virtue and the capacity to manage estates and staff. “*Gradually*,” Treggiari notes, “*she will have picked up enough knowledge to make decisions about her property, money, and estates*.” Moral formation was equally essential. The Roman household was a place of memory and exempla, where children absorbed values through stories, art, and religious practices. Servilia would have grown up surrounded by ancestral imagines and household gods. She would have learned not only about heroines like Lucretia, Cloelia, and Cornelia, but also about her own family’s figures—“the deeds of exemplary individuals” forming a moral compass. One quote from Seneca, captures this philosophy beautifully: > “Let her become accustomed to your conversation, let her be moulded to your judgement; you will give her much, even if you give her nothing beyond your example.” Far from being tucked away, Servilia would have been a silent observer of the Republic’s rhythms—morning visits, political strategy, elite conversation. Treggiari argues that Roman girls were not shielded from public life, but rather absorbed it early. They were trained, in quiet but powerful ways, to manage households, influence through family networks, and carry the values of their lineage into the next generation. ## Pearls, Politics, and Passion: The Enduring Affair of Servilia and Julius Caesar Few love affairs in Roman history have sparked more speculation—and left more of a historical footprint—than the relationship between Servilia Caepionis and Julius Caesar. This liaison was far more than a fleeting romance; it was a politically significant connection that endured through [decades of war](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/), power shifts, and personal upheaval. Caesar, descended from the [goddess Venus](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) through Iulus, was known for his charm, ambition, and many affairs—yet “*he loved Servilia best of all*,” as Suetonius remarks. He gifted her a black pearl worth six million [sesterces](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/), a staggering sum, and later sold her estates at reduced prices, gestures that signal both affection and loyalty. As aforementioned, Plutarch tells the famous story in which, during a Senate debate in 63 BC, a letter was handed to Caesar. Cato, suspicious of conspiracy, demanded it be read aloud—only to discover it was “*a passionate and unrestrained letter from his sister Servilia*.” Humiliated, he flung it back, calling Caesar a drunkard. > “That he was unbridled and extravagant in his intrigues is the general opinion, and that he seduced many illustrious women, among them Postumia, wife of Servius Sulpicius, Lollia, wife of Aulus Gabinius, Tertulla, wife of Marcus Crassus, and even [Gnaeus Pompey's](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/) wife Mucia. > > At all events there is no doubt that Pompey was taken to task by the elder and the younger Curio, as well as by many others, because through a desire for power he had afterwards married the daughter of a man on whose account he divorced a wife who had borne him three children, and whom he had often referred to with a groan as an Aegisthus.​ > > But beyond all others Caesar loved Servilia, the mother of Marcus Brutus, for whom in his first consul­ship he bought a pearl costing six million sesterces. > > During the civil war, too, besides other presents, he knocked down some fine estates to her in a public auction at a nominal price, and when some expressed their surprise at the low figure, Cicero wittily remarked: "It's a better bargain than you think, for there is a third off."​ > > And in fact it was thought that Servilia was prostituting her own daughter Tertia to Caesar.” Suetonius, [*The Life of Julius Caesar*](https://amzn.to/44LTftF?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ![Servilia presents her daughter Junia Tertia to Julius Caesar](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Servilia-presents-her-daughter-Junia-Tertia-to-Julius-Caesar.jpg) Servilia presents her daughter Junia Tertia to Julius Caesar. Copperplate engraving from Pierre-Francois d'Hancarville, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times The affair was not a scandal in the modern sense. Treggiari argues that in Rome’s elite circles, extramarital relationships—especially those conducted with discretion—were often tolerated. Servilia’s reputation was not damaged; in fact, her position was likely strengthened. “*She was discreet, as Caesar and Cato were not*,” Treggiari notes, distancing her from the more notorious women of her time like Clodia or Sempronia. Whispers even circulated that Brutus, Servilia’s son, might have been Caesar’s child. Though modern scholarship deems this chronologically improbable, the enduring affection Caesar showed Brutus—sparing him after [Pharsalus](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/) and favoring him politically—may stem from this quasi-paternal bond. Treggiari places Servilia not as a passive figure in Caesar’s world, but as a woman of sharp political acumen, navigating the corridors of power with dignity. Their connection, she concludes, was not only physical but strategic, “*held by him in enduring affection*,” as Ronald Syme (a New Zealand-born historian and classicist) phrased it. As Rome entered the stormy 60s B.C., Servilia stood at the center of an extraordinary network—half-sister to the uncompromising Cato, mother to the ambitious Brutus, and mistress to Julius Caesar, the rising star of the *populares*. In this decade of conspiracies, political trials, and shifting alliances, her presence in Roman public life was subtle but unmistakable. In 63 B.C., while Cato pushed for the execution of the Catilinarian conspirators, her husband Silanus wavered in the Senate and Caesar, already Servilia’s lover, took a daringly moderate stance. That same year, Caesar was elected *Pontifex Maximus* against the seasoned Catulus, shocking the elite and fueling resentment. As the political climate grew more volatile, Servilia may have played a balancing act—protecting her brother Cato while also passing information to Caesar. In 59, when Caesar married off his daughter Julia to Pompey and took Calpurnia as his own young bride, Servilia remained central in his life, receiving the legendary black pearl worth six million sesterces—as already mentioned—perhaps a parting gift, perhaps a token of enduring affection. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-bust-of-Cicero.jpg) ## Cicero believed that she had enough influence to persuade Caesar to remove Brutus from a damaging political accusation, noting “**a night and a night’s appeal for clemency had intervened*.” **A bust of Cicero from the Glyptothek in Munich, Germany. Credits: Mary Harrsch, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times* Though she never remarried, Servilia likely wielded considerable influence from her household—possibly hosting a salon of intellectuals and politicians akin to the famous gatherings of Cornelia, mother of the [Gracchi](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-gracchi-brothers-visionaries-or-socialist-revolutionaries/). Her deep ties to the leading men of the Republic, both through blood and affection, made her one of the most quietly powerful women of her age. In the background of laws, trials, marriages, and wars, Servilia’s voice may not always be heard—but her hand can often be felt. ## Daggers and Silence: Servilia in the Shadow of the Ides On the eve of [the Ides of March](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-are-the-ides-of-march-why-are-they-important/), Julius Caesar dined at the home of Lepidus. Among those present was Decimus Brutus, one of the soon-to-be assassins. Whether Servilia—his mother-in-law and Caesar’s long-time lover—was also there remains unknown. What we do know is that the conversation turned to the ideal death, and Caesar replied: > “A sudden, unexpected one.” The next morning, that very fate was granted to him—murdered beneath Pompey’s statue by conspirators including Servilia’s son, Brutus. The ancient sources are largely silent on Servilia’s reaction, but as Treggiari poignantly writes, “*This may have been the great love of her life, apart from her love of kin*.” Her grief would have been magnified by the fact that it was her own son and son-in-law who plunged their blades into the man she had loved for over two decades. **Yet Servilia did not retreat**. On the night of Caesar’s death, she and other kin of the assassins went from house to house, lobbying senators to intercede for their safety. Cicero believed Servilia had enough sway to remove Brutus’s name from a public denunciation just months earlier—a testament to her enduring influence. Though private emotion remains hidden, her actions reveal a fierce pragmatism. She likely hoped to protect both Brutus and Cassius, even as the tide turned in favor of [Mark Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/). According to Cicero, when he criticized the conspirators’ lack of a post-assassination plan in Servilia’s presence: > “her angry response showed she was sensitive on this point.” Servilia would live through the backlash—rioting, funerals, miscarriages, and political fragmentation—with the same steel and strategy that marked her entire life. As Caesar’s body was burned and the streets turned violent, she may have mourned him in silence—**but never without resolve**. ### Tyrian Purple: The Royal Dye of the Ancient World and the Secrets of Murex Extraction URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/tyrian-purple-the-royal-dye-of-the-ancient-world-and-the-secrets-of-murex-extraction/ Last updated: 2025-05-14T22:50:59.000Z In the ancient Mediterranean world, one color reigned supreme: Not gold, not silver—purple. Revered for its deep, rich hue and its resistance to fading, purple became synonymous with imperial power, sacred authority, and economic prestige. But behind this noble color was a laborious, malodorous process, steeped in skill and secrecy. Extracted from the glands of sea snails—particularly species of the Murex genus—this dye, often referred to as Tyrian or royal purple, required expertise and enormous resources to produce. ### A Color Worth an Empire: The Allure of Tyrian Purple To the ancient eye, few hues rivaled the deep, lustrous tones of purple. Associated with royalty, religious devotion, and imperial prestige, purple cloth—particularly the famed “[Tyrian Purple](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/)”—held symbolic and material value. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-painting-by-Theodoor-van-Thulden--depicting-the-myth-behind-the-Discovery-of-Purple-by-Hercules-and-his-dog-1.jpg) ## [Ancient Greeks](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) and Romans did not simply wear purple; they revered it. **A painting by Theodoor van Thulden, depicting the myth behind the Discovery of Purple by Hercules and his dog. Public domain* But beyond the visual opulence lay a hidden industry of staggering proportions and biological intricacy. The production of this dye from sea snails of the Murex genus required complex procedures, keen knowledge of natural processes, and a great deal of labor. So prized was the final product that it became a signifier of divine authority and absolute power. ### A Secret in the Shell In a world where color carried rank, purple stood apart—not merely as pigment, but as prestige. Its origins, however, lay far from the palaces and temples it adorned. Along the wave-beaten coasts of the Mediterranean, small carnivorous sea snails of the *Muricidae* family concealed a remarkable biochemical secret. When the mucus from these mollusks was exposed to air and sunlight, it transformed through a series of reactions into a dye of exceptional brilliance and permanence. The process was neither simple nor clean. It demanded tens of thousands of snails, careful extraction of a tiny gland, controlled fermentation, and sun-drenched exposure to release the vibrant purple from the sea. Unlike other ancient dyes—such as saffron yellow from the crocus flower, or reds derived from madder root—murex purple could not be grown or harvested in fields. It was sourced from the sea, hidden within living organisms, and could not be imitated with ease. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/The-madder-root-and-its-produced-vibrant-red-dye.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-composite-image-showing-the-various-stages-of-crocus--from-the-flower--to-the-precious-dried-stigmas-and-the-resulted-yellow-powder--used-in-ancient-dyes.jpg) 🏛️ ****Image #1**: The madder root and its produced vibrant red dye. **Credits: mirzamlk from Getty Images, by Canva* ****Image #2**: A composite image showing the various stages of crocus, from the flower, to the precious dried stigmas and the resulted yellow powder, used in ancient dyes. **Credits: beats3, pressdigital from Getty Images, Billion Photos, by Canva* While plant-based dyes faded or bled with time, murex purple bonded to fibers with extraordinary tenacity, growing richer with age. It resisted wear, sunlight, and washing, and thus came to symbolize permanence, power, and exclusivity. Its brilliance was matched only by the cost and labor required to produce it, setting it apart as a mark of elite distinction. Only three known species—*Hexaplex trunculus*, *Bolinus brandaris*, and *Stramonita haemastoma*—produced the compound in sufficient quantities for dyeing. And only those who controlled the know-how and labor to process them could access the result. Because the output was small and the effort immense, the dye quickly became synonymous with wealth and ceremonial power. In many ancient societies, to wear purple was to claim authority—not just in life, but in death. (*Shell Purple-Dye Production in the Mediterranean Basin and Environs, by David S. Reese*) ![A possible representation of a Roman worker harvesting the gland from the murex shells, to begin the creation of Tyrian purple](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-possible-representation-of-a-Roman-worker-harvesting-the-gland-from-the-murex-shells--to-begin-the-creation-of-Tyrian-purple.jpg) A possible representation of a Roman worker harvesting the gland from the murex shells, to begin the creation of Tyrian purple. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Sora ### Crushed and Buried: Archaeological Traces in Greece The Greek mainland reveals the physical legacy of this luxurious industry with striking clarity. At Thessaloniki Toumba, archaeologists uncovered tens of thousands of crushed *Hexaplex trunculus* shells, deposited in layers spanning from the Middle Bronze Age into the Early Iron Age. While some shells may have served as food or ornament, the overwhelming majority were shattered in a pattern characteristic of dye extraction. Nearby, at Derveni, a clay substance containing murex dye was discovered within a funerary container—possibly medicinal or ritual in use. In East Lokris, the tidal islet of Mitrou preserved heaps of murex fragments across several Late Helladic and Protogeometric contexts. Some areas appeared to function as dye installations, marked by clusters of shells weighing several kilograms, situated near architectural thresholds and courtyards. A similar pattern emerged at Magoula Pevkakia near Volos, where shell deposits found alongside kilns indicated an organized, possibly communal, dye workshop. Perhaps the most evocative find came from Aigai (Vergina), where the remains of royal tombs told a story in color. Cremated bones had been wrapped in cloth stained deep purple—most likely from murex dye. Although the fibers had long since disintegrated, the hue remained vivid on the bones and larnakes. ![A possible representation of the cremated bones that still had the vivid purple hue](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-possible-representation-of-the-cremated-bones-that-still-had-the-vivid-purple-hue.jpg) An (exaggerated) possible representation of the cremated bones that still had the vivid purple hue. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney Chemical tests confirmed the presence of shell-based purple pigment, reinforcing the idea that purple textiles were integral to elite [funerary practice](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/). Other tombs, such as those at Hagios Athanasios, Mieza, and Pella, incorporated murex pigment directly into their painted walls. At the Kerameikos Cemetery in Athens, the burial of Hipparete, Alcibiades' granddaughter, preserved traces of murex-dyed fabric fused to a bronze vessel. Similar textile finds occurred in Maroussi and Kalyvia—each fragment a quiet testament to the dye’s enduring symbolism in Classical funerary tradition. In Eretria, thick middens of crushed shell sat near basins and vats—likely remnants of an industrial-scale operation from the Hellenistic or Roman period. From wall paintings to burial shrouds, the presence of purple was more than decorative. It was a statement of **identity, privilege, and passage**. (*Shellfish Purple Colour in East Mediterranean: A Gazetteer of Sites, by David S. Reese*) ### Workshops in Stone and Bone The Aegean islands offer some of the most vivid material evidence for purple dye workshops. At Cape Kolonna on Aegina, a Late Bronze Age facility yielded crushing tools, vats, and thousands of murex shells, all linked to a standardized system of dye extraction. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-possible-representation-of-a-group-of-ancient-workers-breaking-the-murex-shells--to-harvest-their-precious-glands.png) ## The crushed shells were so densely layered that they formed distinct midden zones, some separated from domestic debris, suggesting designated production areas. **A possible representation of a group of ancient workers breaking the murex shells, to harvest their precious glands. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Sora* On the island of Chryssi, off the southeastern coast of Crete, excavators identified installations dedicated to dye-making. These included stone basins, pounding tools, and channels for liquid runoff, all found alongside masses of crushed shell. Nearby at Pefka, researchers uncovered plastered workspaces, ceramic basins, and residue-smeared containers. The layout of these spaces mirrored one another in form and function, implying that the process had been formalized. Each installation featured stages for shell cleaning, fermentation, dye extraction, and possibly textile immersion. Across these sites, chemical analysis—using high-performance liquid chromatography and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy—confirmed the presence of brominated indigo, the main component of murex purple. These workshops demonstrate not only technological expertise but also cultural investment in the craft. (*Chryssi and Pefka: The Production and Use of Purple Dye on Crete in the Middle and Late Bronze Age, by Apostolakou, Brogan, Betancourt, and Mylona*) ## In these coastal economies, the production of purple dye was integrated into social and religious life, and likely linked to external trade. ### A Broader Mediterranean Palette: Italy, Spain, and Beyond In Italy, purple dye production appears in both Bronze Age and Roman contexts. At Coppa Nevigata in northern Apulia, layers of shell debris span several centuries, from the Proto-Apennine through the Apennine periods. The scale is striking—tens of thousands of *Hexaplex trunculus* shells crushed, sorted, and deposited in stratified heaps. These remains are among the earliest known examples of murex-based dye production in the Western Mediterranean. At Monte Circeo, a Roman-period shell midden stretches over 60 meters, packed with deliberately broken murex shells. Similar deposits have been found at Taranto, long known through historical sources as a center for dye manufacture. Descriptions from the 18th century noted entire hills composed of shell fragments, particularly Bolinus brandaris, pointing to a craft practiced at industrial scale. At Aquileia, in the northeast of the peninsula, crushed shells were found beneath [mosaic floors](https://romanempiretimes.com/asarotos-oikos-mosaic-unswept-floor-roman-elite/)—possibly reused as filler. Further south in Campania, a mound of crushed murex at Cumae aligns with Imperial-era dye activities. [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/)’s evidence is more modest: a few hundred shells survive in museum collections, though ancient sources occasionally link the city with purple dyeing. In Spain, murex processing appears at coastal sites with Punic and Roman layers. At [Carthago-Nova](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) (Cartagena), deposits include a jar filled with crushed shells and vast accumulations associated with the amphitheater. The surrounding areas yielded over 3,000 murex shells across five archaeological phases, reflecting an ongoing dye economy from the third century BCE into the early Imperial period. The Balearic Islands preserve perhaps the most concentrated evidence outside the Levant. At Canal d’en Martí and Cala Olivera, shell middens stretch several meters in length, containing tens of thousands of crushed Hexaplex specimens. Kilns, vats, and residue-covered tools confirm these as production sites. Analysis of the stratigraphy, species distribution, and shell condition all point to a primary function: dye extraction and export. The proportion of murex to food shells is so high that subsistence activities can be ruled out. These workshops operated on a scale capable of supplying elite markets well beyond the islands. (*Shell Purple-Dye Production in the Mediterranean Basin and Environs, by David S. Reese*) ![Ruins of the Amphitheatre in Carthage ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Ruins-of-the-Amphitheatre-in-Carthage-.jpg) Ruins of the Amphitheatre in Carthage. Credits: G Travels, CC BY-NC 2.0 ### The Purple Line: Eastern Mediterranean and Levantine Shorelines On the Levantine coast, purple dye production reached its most sophisticated and legendary form. At Tyre and Sidon, crushed shell mounds accumulated over centuries, some measuring several meters high. These ancient Phoenician cities **gave their name to the dye itself**—Tyrian purple—and their legacy endures in both archaeological and textual sources. Shell debris found along harbors and promontories reveal where dye vats once stood, their contents poured out into the sea long after the color had been absorbed into cloth. At Tel Shiqmona near Haifa, the ruins of a dye installation include work surfaces, fermentation vats, and thick layers of shell debris. The layout of the facility mirrors that of other coastal workshops, but the richness of the shell assemblage—alongside [amphorae and transport vessels](https://romanempiretimes.com/monte-testaccio-the-roman-hill-composed-of-53-million-amphorae-fragments-2/)—suggests production for export as well as local consumption. At Dor and Tel Kabri, crushed shells mingle with ceramic vats and plastered basins, reinforcing the narrative of coastal industrialization centered on murex dye. More sites, from Tell Keisan to Akko, confirm that the coast from Syria to Israel was dotted with small- to medium-scale producers. Even at sites where no installations survive, the presence of purple pigment in wall paintings and burial shrouds speaks to the dye’s broad cultural resonance. (*Shellfish Purple Colour in East Mediterranean: A Gazetteer of Sites, by David S. Reese*) ![Murex shells from the Iron Age II period, with ancient remains of purple on the shards seen on the right](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Murex-shells-from-the-Iron-Age-II-period--with-ancient-remains-of-purple-on-the-shards-seen-on-the-right.jpg) Murex shells from the Iron Age II period, with ancient remains of purple on the shards seen on the right. Credits: National Maritime Museum, Haifa, Israel, CC0 1.0 ### North African Shores and the Desert Dye Along the North African coast, Carthage and its colonies provide compelling traces of the purple dye industry. Early modern accounts describe massive shell mounds near the ancient city, and while excavations have only sampled these deposits, the shell species and concentration are consistent with large-scale murex processing. At Sabratha and Leptis Magna, Roman-period layers yielded crushed Bolinus shells, often located near workshop zones and harbors. Further inland, the trail grows thinner. In Egypt, fragments of purple-dyed linen have been found in Coptic tombs, but their origin remains uncertain. Chemical degradation and mixing with plant-based dyes have obscured definitive identification. Egypt may have imported the dye itself—or more likely, purple garments—from Levantine and Aegean producers. The absence of shell middens along the Nile suggests that if murex dye was used here, it was not made locally. (*Shell Purple-Dye Production in the Mediterranean Basin and Environs, by David S. Reese*) --- Throughout the ancient Mediterranean, purple was more than a color—it was a language of power. The dye’s creation demanded the convergence of biology, labor, chemistry, and trade. Its users were not merely consumers of beauty, but participants in a network of specialized knowledge, skilled practice, and unrelenting effort. What endures today are the remnants: crushed shells buried in middens, stained walls, and silent basins. Together, these fragments form a vibrant composition of ancient ambition—one written not in gold or stone, but in the **royal shadows of the sea**. ### I Wash My Hands of This: Did Pontius Pilate Really Say It? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/i-wash-my-hands-of-this-did-pontius-pilate-really-say-it/ Last updated: 2025-04-17T09:37:57.000Z *“I wash my hands of this.”* The phrase echoes through centuries of art, literature, and liturgy — a symbol of moral detachment and reluctant authority. Attributed to Pontius Pilate during the trial of [Jesus](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-execute-jesus/), it has become one of the most enduring lines in Western memory. But did the Roman governor of Judea actually utter those words, or is this detail a literary creation? While the Gospel of Matthew describes Pilate performing this symbolic act before the crowd, no Roman historian — not Josephus, not Philo, not [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) — ever mentions it. To uncover the truth behind this moment, we must look beyond familiar verses and examine the Roman world Pilate inhabited, the politics he navigated, and the image later generations chose to preserve. Appointed by [Emperor Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/) around 26 CE, Pontius Pilate served as the Roman prefect of Judea — a small but politically sensitive province within the sprawling [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/). As an equestrian official, he was charged with maintaining order, overseeing tax collection, and enforcing Roman law in a land deeply resistant to foreign rule. Based in Caesarea Maritima but present in Jerusalem during major festivals, Pilate governed a population divided by religion, class, and deep resentment toward Roman occupation. His rule, as recorded by Jewish historians such as Josephus and Philo, was marked by tension, violence, and a series of miscalculations that would ultimately lead to his recall. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-painting-by-Mattia-Preti-of-Pontius-Pilate-washing-his-hands.jpg) ## Far from being a passive administrator, Pilate wielded his authority with a heavy hand — a man more feared than respected. **A painting by Mattia Preti,of Pontius Pilate washing his hands. Credits: The MET, CC0 1.0* ### Pilate in the Eyes of Jewish Historians: Josephus and Philo Outside the Gospel narratives, two major Jewish historians of antiquity — Flavius Josephus and Philo of Alexandria — offer additional perspectives on Pilate’s rule in Judea. Their accounts, while shaped by their own cultural and political lenses, portray him not as a hesitant judge, but as a rigid and provocative Roman official, often indifferent to Jewish customs and prone to unnecessary violence. In Jewish Antiquities, Josephus describes multiple incidents that inflamed local unrest. One of the earliest involved Pilate’s decision to bring Roman standards bearing the emperor’s image into Jerusalem by night — a move seen by the Jewish population as idolatrous. When a large protest formed in Caesarea, Pilate initially threatened mass slaughter but backed down only when demonstrators bared their necks in defiance: > “They threw themselves upon the ground and bared their necks, calling out that they would gladly die rather than see the laws of their forefathers transgressed… > > Pilate, astonished at their steadfastness, ordered the images to be carried back to Caesarea.” [*Jewish Antiquities*](https://amzn.to/3RROdUN?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Josephus also recounts how Pilate used funds from the Temple treasury *(korbanas*) to build an [aqueduct](https://romanempiretimes.com/marvel-ancient-roman-aqueducts/) — triggering another protest in Jerusalem. This time, Pilate responded with undercover violence: > “He sent armed soldiers, disguised in civilian clothes, to mix with the crowd… > > At a given signal, they attacked the protesters with clubs, many of whom perished under the blows or were trampled to death as they fled in panic.” [*Jewish Antiquities*](https://amzn.to/3RROdUN?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Philo of Alexandria, writing in Embassy to Gaius, echoes Josephus’ portrait but goes even further, painting Pilate as a symbol of imperial arrogance and cruelty. He describes him as: > “...a man of inflexible, stubborn, and cruel disposition, who executed people without trial, and was guilty of countless acts of violence and outrages upon the people.” [*Legatio ad Gaium*](https://amzn.to/3RTACMG?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Philo also recounts the episode of the gilded shields — objects dedicated to Tiberius that Pilate installed in Herod’s palace in Jerusalem. Though they bore no image, their very presence in a holy city sparked public outcry. Pilate refused to remove them until a delegation of Jews appealed directly to the emperor, who ordered the shields taken down and relocated to Caesarea. Taken together, these accounts reveal a man whose governance was harsh and politically clumsy, often insensitive to the religious sensibilities of his subjects. Pilate emerges not as the reluctant executor of Jesus’ death, but as a man already known for provoking unrest and responding with calculated — sometimes brutal — force. ![Model of Herod’s Palace in Jerusalem](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Model-of-Herod-s-Palace-in-Jerusalem.jpg) Model of Herod’s Palace in Jerusalem. Credits: flik47 from Getty Images, by Canva ### The Civil Trial: Pilate, Rome, and the Power to Crucify After the Sanhedrin passed a death sentence on Jesus, they were unable to carry it out themselves. 📜 The Sanhedrin was the supreme council and tribunal of the Jewish people during the Second Temple period, consisting of priests, elders, and legal scholars. Presided over by the high priest — in this case, Caiaphas — the Sanhedrin held authority over religious and civil matters within Judea. However, under Roman rule, they were prohibited from carrying out capital punishment without imperial approval. Thus, after condemning Jesus on the charge of blasphemy, they brought Him to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, and reframed their accusation in political terms to ensure Roman intervention. Under Roman law, Jewish authorities were permitted to handle minor legal matters, but capital punishment was reserved for Roman jurisdiction. Any death sentence issued by a Jewish court had to be brought before the Roman governor, who could either uphold or overturn it. And so, Jesus was led to the judgment seat of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea. Pilate, who had governed the province for several years, represented the authority of Imperial Rome. He ruled from Caesarea Maritima, a coastal city built in Roman style but traveled to Jerusalem during major festivals like Passover to oversee public order. There, he resided in Herod the Great’s former palace — a grand structure near the Temple, where official proceedings often took place in open air. Pilate had a fraught relationship with the Jewish population. Known for his harshness and lack of sympathy toward their religious customs, he had repeatedly provoked unrest and was accused of corruption and brutality. On this occasion, Pilate met the Sanhedrin outside the palace, since they considered entering a Gentile residence during Passover defiling. From a raised platform near the palace’s front colonnade, the trial began, with [Roman soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) standing behind the governor, and the religious leaders presenting their prisoner. Pilate immediately asked for the charges against Jesus. The Jewish authorities, perhaps hoping Pilate would simply confirm their judgment, replied vaguely: > “If he were not a malefactor, we would not have handed him over to you.” But Pilate refused to rubber-stamp the decision. > “Take him and judge him according to your law,” he said — a statement that forced them to admit, with resentment, that only [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) had the authority to carry out an execution. ![A painting by Munkacsy, depicting Jesus Christ in front of Pontius Pilate](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-painting-by-Munkacsy--depicting-Jesus-Christ-in-front-of-Pontius-Pilate.jpg) A painting by Munkacsy, depicting Jesus Christ in front of Pontius Pilate. Public domain Pressed to offer formal accusations, they advanced three claims: that Jesus incited the people, forbade paying taxes to Caesar, and claimed to be a king. Notably, they omitted the charge of blasphemy on which they had convicted Him, knowing Pilate would not entertain a theological dispute. The second charge — that He opposed taxation — directly contradicted Jesus’ own teaching to “render unto Caesar.” The third accusation — that He claimed kingship — was deliberately framed in a political light to suggest sedition. Pilate, skeptical of their motives, likely saw through their manipulations. He knew they delivered Jesus out of envy and possibly had prior knowledge of His teachings. Inside the palace, away from the crowd, he questioned Jesus directly: > “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus responded carefully, asking whether this was Pilate’s own question or one passed along from others. Pilate, impatient, dismissed the nuance: > “Am I a Jew? Your own people have handed you over.” Jesus then explained: His kingdom was not of this world. If it were, His followers would have fought to prevent His arrest. But His kingdom — a kingdom of truth — was different. Pilate, puzzled yet intrigued, asked: > “So, you are a king then?” Jesus answered: > “You say that I am a king. For this reason I was born: to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” But Pilate, worldly and indifferent to spiritual matters, replied: > “What is truth?” — not waiting for an answer. Though unconvinced by the charges and likely seeing Jesus as no political threat, Pilate returned to the crowd and declared: > “I find no fault in him.” *The Project Gutenberg eBook of "The Trial and Death of Jesus Christ: A Devotional History of Our Lord's Passion"* ![A painting by a Hieronymus Bosch follower, where Christ stands calm and radiant amid a grotesque, chaotic mob before Pilate, who prepares to condemn him, the distorted faces and close-up format reflect Flemish devotional art, emphasizing the contrast between divine beauty and human fallenness](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-painting-by-a-Hieronimus-Bosch-follower--where-Christ-stands-calm-and-radiant-amid-a-grotesque--chaotic-mob-before-Pilate--who-prepares-to-condemn-him.jpg) A painting by a Hieronymus Bosch follower, where Christ stands calm and radiant amid a grotesque, chaotic mob before Pilate, who prepares to condemn him, the distorted faces and close-up format reflect Flemish devotional art, emphasizing the contrast between divine beauty and human fallenness. Public domain ### A Time of Handwashing: Pilate’s Gesture on Screen and Its Symbolic Weight [Christopher McDonough](https://amzn.to/4ijIxxy?ref=romanempiretimes.com) in “[*Pontius Pilate on Screen: Sinner, Soldier, Superstar*](https://amzn.to/4ihsAYL?ref=romanempiretimes.com),” explores the enduring impact of the prefect of Judea on cinematic imagination — and nowhere is this more vividly captured than in the recurring dramatization of Pilate’s most famous gesture: the washing of hands. Though drawn from a single Gospel verse (Matthew 27:24), this act has been magnified by generations of filmmakers as a potent symbol of moral ambiguity, powerlessness, and bureaucratic guilt. In the 1927 epic [*King of Kings*](https://amzn.to/4iomFkX?ref=romanempiretimes.com) by Cecil B. DeMille, Pilate’s handwashing becomes an orchestrated ritual. A servant brings a basin and pitcher, and as Pilate ritually cleanses himself, the background displays a [Roman eagle](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-has-the-eagle-become-the-roman-symbol/) — an unmistakable emblem of imperial authority. His gestures — toward Christ, then Caiaphas, then the crowd — dramatize a transfer of responsibility, culminating in a symbolic X formed by Roman and Jewish actors parting ways. This visual geometry not only marks a moment of theatrical absolution but also underscores the political theatre of the scene. More intimate portrayals continue this tradition. In [*Day of Triumph*](https://amzn.to/42ioDhZ?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (1954), Pilate, played by Lowell Gilmore, washes his hands abruptly and hurls down the towel in irritation — a gesture of petulance rather than repentance. In [*Barabbas*](https://amzn.to/4cUFATn?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (1961), Pilate (Arthur Kennedy) performs the act in a public forum, only for Barabbas to mirror the motion at a nearby fountain. This doubling suggests a shared complicity: one man orders death, the other escapes it — but neither walks away unstained. McDonough’s epilogue, fittingly titled *A Time of Handwashing*, reflects on how this ancient moment has been reinterpreted in modern contexts. From pandemic satire in [The Babylon Bee](https://babylonbee.com/news/scholars-now-agree-pontius-pilate-didnt-wash-his-hands-for-20-seconds-bears-some-responsibility-for-jesus-crucifixion?ref=romanempiretimes.com) — which jokes that Pilate didn’t scrub long enough to avoid divine judgment — to the omission of the gesture in Jesus of Nazareth, where Pilate’s decision stands bare and unceremonious, the act continues to evolve. Whether included or left out, it draws attention to the timeless struggle between power, responsibility, and conscience. Across portrayals, Pilate’s hands — washed, unwashed, or trembling — remain a canvas on which filmmakers, theologians, and viewers project their own questions about guilt and evasion. McDonough’s study shows that this one small ritual, performed in the open air of Roman justice, echoes louder than many speeches — not for what it resolved, but for what it revealed. ![A painting by Matthias Stom, depicting Pontius Pilate washing his hands in innocence](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-painting-by-Matthias-Stom--depicting-Pontius-Pilate-washing-his-hands-in-innocence.jpg) A painting by Matthias Stom, depicting Pontius Pilate washing his hands in innocence. Public domain ### Pilate’s Role in the Gospels: Historical Governor or Theological Figure? Stephen Liberty’s “*The Importance of Pontius Pilate in Creed and Gospel*” (The Journal of Theological Studies, 1944) gives us an extensive analysis of the question asked. The striking image of Pontius Pilate washing his hands before the crowd — declaring: > “I am innocent of this man’s blood” — is recorded only in the [*Gospel of Matthew*](https://amzn.to/3Y2uwx6?ref=romanempiretimes.com). While often taken at face value, many scholars argue that this gesture was not a historical Roman custom, but a theological construct. In his article, Stephen Liberty makes the case that Pilate’s entire portrayal in the Gospels — and his enduring presence in Christian creeds — is deeply symbolic. Far from a passive figure in history, Pilate becomes, in the Christian imagination, a paradoxical tool of divine justice and injustice: a Roman governor exercising earthly authority while unknowingly fulfilling a divine plan. Liberty notes that Pilate’s inclusion in the early creeds (“*suffered under Pontius Pilate*”) was not meant to date the crucifixion, but to highlight a theological truth — that the Son of God was judged and condemned by the representative of the greatest earthly power. This had profound rhetorical weight, especially when preaching to the Jewish diaspora, as it explained how the Messiah’s rejection by his own people became the moment when salvation opened to the Gentiles. The trial scene, then, becomes a narrative fulcrum: a moment when Jew and Gentile unite, paradoxically, in the condemnation of Christ, fulfilling the Redeemer’s role in exposing human sin. In this framework, the handwashing scene functions not as a Roman legal formality — for which there is no parallel in Roman sources — but as a deliberate literary gesture. It echoes Jewish purification rituals (see [*Deuteronomy 21:6–9*](https://blesstype.com/bible-kjv-old-testament-deuteronomy/?ref=romanempiretimes.com)), thus resonating with Matthew’s Jewish-Christian audience, while simultaneously illustrating Pilate’s attempt to distance himself from a sentence he himself would ultimately carry out. As Liberty observes, the Gospels are not modern histories but theological texts, shaped by the early Christian community’s need to interpret suffering, rejection, and redemption. Pilate’s gesture, therefore, becomes a dramatic symbol of moral evasion and the collision of earthly rule with eternal truth. In Liberty’s view, the handwashing — like Pilate’s name in the creeds — serves a dual function: it condemns the injustice of secular power and dramatizes the tragic irony of a man who, faced with truth incarnate, chooses the path of caution and ambiguity. By embedding Pilate into the passion narrative and Christian memory, the Gospel of Matthew offers a powerful meditation on how divine purpose unfolds even through political weakness, ethical failure, and ritualized innocence. ![Looking for answers in the Bible](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Looking-for-answers-in-the-Bible.jpg) Looking for answers in the Bible, on whether Pilate actually washed his hands or if it was just an addition of great symbolism to the early Christian faith. Credits: kevron2001 from Getty Images, by Canva ### The Man Behind the Gesture As the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate held the highest authority in the province, responsible for maintaining order and executing justice on behalf of the empire. Yet, when confronted with the case of Jesus of Nazareth, Pilate revealed himself to be a man caught between power and pressure, law and expediency. Historical analyses, such as the one in Michael Nthuping’s “*The Characterisation of Pontius Pilate in the Four Gospels*,” depict Pilate as a figure of contradictions: shrewd enough to recognize Jesus’ innocence, but politically vulnerable enough to yield to public outcry. Without immediate military support during his early years in office, Pilate had to rely on delicate cooperation with the local Jewish elite — a reality that may have influenced his decision to appease the crowd. His reluctance to condemn, his philosophical detachment (“*What is truth?*”), and his symbolic distancing from guilt — captured most vividly in the Gospel of Matthew’s handwashing scene — all point to a man struggling to preserve authority while relinquishing responsibility. In the end, Pilate’s gesture, whether historical or literary, reflects a universal temptation: to claim innocence while enabling injustice. And in that quiet moment at the edge of history, Pontius Pilate became not just a Roman governor, but a mirror for power itself. In that moment, as water trickled through Pilate’s fingers, **history slipped through them too**. ### Rome’s Tastiest Obsession: The Red Mullet and the Price of Prestige URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/ Last updated: 2025-04-15T09:28:50.000Z To [dine in style](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-unknown-lucullus-far-more-than-just-lucullan-meals/) in [ancient Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/), you didn’t just need [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/) and wit—you needed a red mullet. Known for its tender flesh and flamboyant death, this small fish stirred a culinary mania among [Rome’s wealthy](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). Senators squabbled over who could serve the largest specimen, dinner guests watched in rapture as its scales shifted hues, and writers like [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/) rolled their eyes at the madness of it all. The red mullet wasn't just food—it was status, performance, and scandal on a silver plate. The Romans cherished red mullets so much that they bred them in domestic ponds and trained the fish to come to the surface when a bell rang or upon their owner's call. Quintus Hortensius, a noted Roman orator and senator, preferred to buy his mullets from Puteoli rather than use those from his own ponds at Baculo. 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in May 2024\. It was updated in April 2025.* Varro noted his extreme care for these fish, stating: > "He took more pains to keep his mullets from getting hungry than he did for his mules...It would be easier to borrow his mules and carriage than to take a mullet from his fishpond." The Red Mullet's journey from the sea to the sumptuous tables of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/) is a story steeped in both culinary tradition and social symbolism. Ancient texts, including writings by [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/) and the gastronomic scholar Apicius, highlight the fish's esteemed status. These sources reveal not only recipes but also the cultural weight carried by the red mullet in public feasts and private dinners. ### A Luxury from the Sea: Fish, Freshness, and Elite Status In the dining culture of Rome’s elite, fish weren’t just food — they were symbols of taste, wealth, and proximity to the sea. Their freshness mattered above all, which made them both difficult to obtain and immensely valuable. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) remarked on how the most refined dinner parties involved not only the best cooks and bakers, but also expert fishermen and hunters — *optimis cocis, pistoribus, piscatu, aucupio, venatione,* his *omnibus exquisitis.* [Roman mosaics](https://romanempiretimes.com/asarotos-oikos-mosaic-unswept-floor-roman-elite/) and wall paintings reflect this culinary prestige: xenia still-lifes from [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/) show whole fish laid out as offerings for guests, emphasizing not only their appearance but their pristine condition, uncooked and freshly caught. ![Marina with fishes, from the house of the faun in Pompeii.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Marina_con_pesci-_da_casa_del_fauno_a_pompei-_9997-_05-1.jpg) Marina with fishes, from the house of the faun in Pompeii. Credits: Sailko, CC BY-SA 4.0 Even in marine-themed seascapes, the depiction of live fish in vivid detail suggested access to species so desirable they were identifiable on sight — a pictorial boast of what the [villa](https://romanempiretimes.com/domus-romana-the-roman-villa-of-rabat-malta/) owner could serve at a moment’s notice. Fishponds (*piscinae*) became essential status symbols in this world of elite dining. Because transporting fresh fish was both expensive and uncertain, wealthy Romans bypassed the market by building private reservoirs on their estates. These ponds weren’t just practical—they were architectural declarations of taste. John D’Arms, (*Professor of Humanities and professor of classical studies and history at the University of Michigan*), citing Horace and Varro, notes that red mullet and shellfish were particularly valued at *convivia*, where the illusion of sparing no expense delighted dinner guests. Maria Jaczynowska draws attention to the notorious extravagance of [Lucius Licinius Lucullus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-unknown-lucullus-far-more-than-just-lucullan-meals/), whose name became an adjective—*lucullanus*—synonymous with excessive luxury. After his triumph in 66 BC, Lucullus diverted an entire mountain stream to fill the fishponds of his Neapolitan estate and constructed additional ones near Baiae. Pliny tells us that, after his death, the fish in his ponds alone were worth four million [sesterces](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/). These piscinae were not commercial ventures—they were competitions in refinement. As Jaczynowska argues, displaying one’s wealth through architectural and culinary splendor was central to senatorial identity, and fishponds became the aquatic jewels of that social performance. In this light, dinner parties were no longer just feasts—they were theater, and the fish served were the stars. ![Lazio - Sperlonga - Grotta di Tiberio - Central part of the interior of the cave and the large piscinae of the villa of the Emperor.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Lazio_-_Sperlonga_-_Grotta_di_Tiberio_-_Parte_centrale_degli_interni_della_grotta--1--1.jpg) Lazio - Sperlonga - Grotta di Tiberio - Central part of the interior of the cave and the large piscinae of the villa of the Emperor. Credits: Eloise Poitier, CC BY-SA 4.0 Even when Roman writers describe fish in poetic or naturalistic terms, the emphasis often returns to quality, location, and desirability. Apuleius, quoting Ennius’ Latin translation of the *Hedyphagetica*, compiles a gourmet’s guide to the sea: > “How superior to all is the sea weasel (moray) of Clipea, the 'mice' are at Aenos, the rough oysters are fullest at Abydos. > > The scallop is of Mytilene… the sea bream at Brundisium is good… the best littleboar fish is prime at Tarentum… the elops at Surrenti and the glaucus near Cumae… the octopus of Corcyra, the fat skull-fish, the purple fish, the murriculi, the murex, and also the sea urchins are sweet.” Written originally for a courtly Macedonian or Epirote audience, the passage reads like a fish-lover’s fantasy, but it also reminds us that much of the surviving literature on [Roman food](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-did-the-ancient-romans-eat-the-rich-tapestry-of-ancient-roman-gastronomy/) reflects elite preferences, not everyday realities. These sources speak of markets only in their most opulent forms — the sellers and buyers of the extraordinary, not the ordinary. ![Mosaic with maritime scenes, from the Via Panisperna in Rome, late 2nd - early Ist century BC, it once decorated the pool of a Roman bath, Centrale Montemartini, Rome ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Mosaic_with_maritime_scenes-_from_the_Via_Panisperna_in_Rome-_late_2nd_-_early_Ist_century_BC-_it_once_decorated_the_pool_of_a_Roman_bath-_Centrale_Montemartini-_Rome_-21467279514---1-.jpg) Mosaic with maritime scenes, from the Via Panisperna in Rome, late 2nd - early Ist century BC, it once decorated the pool of a Roman bath, Centrale Montemartini, Rome. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 Not all species favored by Roman elites were ideal candidates for life in fishponds. Red mullet (*mulli*), for example, are naturally solitary and thrive in open, saltwater environments—unlike other fish more suited to the brackish, enclosed conditions of a villa’s piscina. Yet despite the challenges, their status as one of the most coveted delicacies made them worth the effort. The promise of profit and prestige was enough to tempt even the most impractical attempts at cultivation. While most ancient sources focus on the elite’s appetite for luxury seafood, a few voices begin to reveal just how distorted the market had become. Pliny the Elder, lamenting the extravagant tastes of the upper class, writes, > “But now a cook is bought for the price of three of these \[horses\], and fish at the price of three cooks.” [*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/42I4QZg?ref=romanempiretimes.com), IX.31 The absurdity wasn’t lost on satirists either. Juvenal quips that a craving for red mullet could drain a man’s entire purse, while Seneca sets the price of a two-kilogram specimen at an eye-watering 5,000 sesterces. When three especially large mullets sold for a staggering 30,000 sesterces (±110,000 US dollars each), even [Emperor Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/) was alarmed. According to [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/), he responded by attempting to regulate prices at the fish market. The proposed intervention speaks volumes. Fish—once a common food of the Mediterranean—had become so entangled in elite performance and price inflation that access to it was vanishing for ordinary Romans. Price control wasn’t just a reaction to absurd luxury; it was an attempt to reclaim the fish market from complete aristocratic monopoly. (An Examination of the Economic Role of Table Fish in Ancient Rome, by Allyson R. King) ### A Dying Beauty: The Price, Performance, and Prestige of the Red Mullet It wasn’t just the taste of the red mullet that captivated Rome—it was its death. One of the most hauntingly vivid descriptions comes from Seneca, who records the spectacle with a mixture of fascination and revulsion. As the fish gasped its final breaths, it became a canvas of shifting color: > “There is nothing,” you say, “more beautiful than a dying surmullet... first a red, then a pale tint suffuses it... the scales change hue… What a bright kind of blue gleamed right under its brow! Now it is stretching out and going pale and is settling into a uniform hue.” Seneca, [*Natural Questions*](https://amzn.to/42aMqQK?ref=romanempiretimes.com) This morbid fascination—watching a mullet die in a glass jar to confirm its absolute freshness—was more than culinary; it was performative. The fish’s color change became entertainment, a luxury spectacle for those who could afford to turn death into dinner theater. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/image-from-rawpixel-id-8958601-original.jpg) ## There is nothing, you say, '**more beautiful than a dying mullet*.' **Seneca, Natural Questions (III.18.1,4)* Although mentioned by the [Greeks](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/), the mullet didn’t stir particular enthusiasm in early accounts. Archestratus, the gourmet poet, cared more about where the best ones could be found than how they tasted. Romans, however, developed a unique obsession. Cicero wrote to [Atticus](https://romanempiretimes.com/herodes-atticus-a-bridge-between-greek-heritage-and-roman-power/) about elite fishponds where red mullet were hand-fed, while Columella warned that their delicate nature made them almost impossible to keep in captivity: > “It is a very delicate kind of fish and most intolerant of captivity, and so only one or two out of many thousands can on rare occasions endure confinement.” [*De Re Rustica*](https://amzn.to/3Eo2plo?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Despite its abundance, the red mullet, particularly those of notable size, became a status symbol. Pliny describes it as: > “distinguished by a double beard on the lower lip,” He notes that even when raised in fishponds, it rarely exceeded two pounds (*Natural History*). But this didn’t stop the Roman elite from paying absurd prices for increasingly larger specimens. Horace mocked the obsession with a three-pound (±1.36 kilograms) mullet admired only to be sliced into ordinary portions. [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/), never one to miss a jab, noted that anything smaller than two pounds (±0.91 kilograms) wasn’t worth serving—and that even a modest-sized mullet might cost a fortune. He even records someone who sold a slave for 1,200 sesterces, only to spend it all on a single four-pound fish (1.81 kilograms) in his [*Epigrams*](https://amzn.to/3GllHbv?ref=romanempiretimes.com). The fish Tiberius offered at auction weighed four and a half pounds, while Juvenal speaks of a mullet fetching 6,000 sesterces—more than the fisherman himself was worth. During [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-caligula-mad-or-just-sick/)’s reign, Asinius Celer reportedly paid anywhere between 6,000 and 8,000 sesterces for a single mullet. ![A red mullet fish swimming inside an artificial pond](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-red-mullet-fish-swimming-inside-an-artificial-pond-1.jpg) A red mullet fish swimming inside an artificial pond. Credits: Griffin24 from Getty Images, by Canva As aforementioned, the prices became so outrageous that Suetonius tells us Tiberius eventually considered market regulation after three mullets sold for a combined 30,000 sesterces. The emperor even had a fisherman’s face scraped with the fish for disturbing [his retreat in Capri](https://romanempiretimes.com/villa-jovis-the-secret-lair-for-the-dark-pleasures-of-an-old-emperor/)—then ordered the man’s face torn with a crab as well when he sarcastically mentioned having a larger crustacean in reserve. Even smaller mullets were too expensive for most Romans. Martial joked that a man of modest income shouldn’t marry if he wanted to keep buying mullet. So precious was the fish that guests sometimes wrapped leftovers in a napkin to bring home—half a mullet was a prize in itself. Though its meat was said to taste like oysters, Pliny also notes the symbolic weight of its appearance. The fish’s shimmering red scales gave it the nickname “shoe mullet,” from the *mulleus calceus*, the red shoe worn by Roman patricians. Tertullian famously sneered that even a madam from a Carthaginian brothel wore such shoes, mocking the gap between appearance and virtue. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-red-mullet-swimming-in-its-natural-habitat.jpg) ## So if the taste didn’t justify the price, and the texture of larger specimens left much to be desired, what exactly were Romans buying? **A red mullet swimming in its natural habitat. Credits: EllenMoran from Getty Images, by Canva* The answer lies in what Seneca and Martial hint at: the act of possessing it, the ability to say you had it, to outbid Apicius or dazzle your guests with the precise moment of death and color transformation. It was spectacle disguised as supper—conspicuous consumption in its most elegant form. But like all such obsessions, it faded. By the late fourth century AD, the red mullet had been dethroned. Ausonius praises the river perch as the new delight of Roman tables: > “who alone canst vie on equal terms with the rosy mullet” [*Mosella*](https://amzn.to/4idQXqt?ref=romanempiretimes.com), 115–119 Macrobius, reflecting on the old prices paid by Asinius Celer, could only scoff: the age of the mullet [had passed](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/encyclopaedia%5Fromana/wine/mullus.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com). ### When Rarity Ruled: The Obsession with Giant Surmullets The surmullet (*Mullus barbatus* or *Mullus surmuletus)* wasn’t prized for taste alone—or even primarily for it. By the late Republic, the fish had evolved from a modest food item into a dazzling object of elite rivalry, where rarity, not flavor, dictated value. Wealthy Romans began to chase ever-larger specimens, not because they tasted better—in fact, larger ones were considered tougher and less digestible—but because their size made them exceptional. “*This seems rather to have been a pure manifestation of luxury*,” writes Andrews, “*with rarity alone serving as the criterion of value, and quality a negligible factor*.” Some believed that watching the red mullet die in glass vessels, its color changing from red to pale to iridescent hues, added to the experience. Pliny notes the “succession of shades” as the fish faded before the guests’ eyes, while Seneca mocks the practice as grotesquely common at the Roman table: > “A surmullet, even if it is perfectly fresh, is little esteemed unless it is allowed to die before the eyes of your guest... shifting as they struggle in the throes of death in varied shades and hues.” *Natural Questions* Despite efforts, the fish refused to conform to market demands. Attempts to breed oversized surmullets in fishponds failed—Pliny and Columella both mention that the fish resisted captivity and seldom grew beyond its natural size, frustrating the hopes of wealthy speculators. What little success existed was reserved for aristocrats who raised them more as aquatic pets than commercial assets. By the time of Galen in the late 2nd century AD, the price frenzy had cooled. Galen still acknowledged the red mullet as flavorful but questioned the preference for oversized ones. When asked, a buyer admitted the cost was for the liver and head—two parts Galen personally found overrated in both taste and nutrition. The surmullet craze eventually came to symbolize the vanity of conspicuous consumption. Andrews compares it to a modern tycoon boasting of the largest goldfish in his aquarium—setting off a wave of imitators and speculative bidding. By the fourth century, Macrobius declared the frenzy over, and Ausonius had already named the perch as the new delight of Roman tables. (*The Roman Craze for Surmullets, by Alfred C. Andrews*) ![A red mullet on a plate ready to be cooked for a Roman banquet. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/05/unnamed--2-.jpg) A possible representation of a red mullet on a plate ready to be cooked for a Roman banquet. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### The Theatre of Death: Watching the Mullet Die In Roman dining rooms, the death of a red mullet wasn't hidden in the kitchen—it was center stage. The fish was often brought to the table alive and allowed to expire in front of the guests, usually inside transparent vessels as already mentioned. What captivated the Roman elite was not merely the freshness of the meal, but the vivid, almost hypnotic changes in the mullet’s skin as it died. The spectacle became a kind of table-side performance. As noted in "[*Fish: Food from the Waters*](https://amzn.to/4lu7qt9?ref=romanempiretimes.com)", hosts were known to serve the mullet in glass bowls or crystal vessels so that diners could observe the fish’s final struggle. Its scales pulsed and shimmered, displaying a spectrum of reds, violets, and silvers that shifted with every spasm. These color changes were not only morbidly beautiful—they were interpreted as markers of elite taste. Watching a mullet die became a social ritual, a test of refinement. This practice went beyond culinary pleasure. It was a statement of control: over wealth, over nature, and even over death itself. The mullet, held captive in its transparent tomb, embodied the theatricality of Roman excess. One scholar likened it to “a work of living art,” admired not for what it would taste like, but for the fleeting beauty of its demise. By staging such moments, Roman hosts didn’t just feed their guests—**they awed them**. (*Fish: Food from the Waters, edited by Harlan Walker*) ![A freshly caught red mullet, ready for the Roman chef to prepare it](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/05/unnamed--3-.jpg) A possible representation of a freshly caught red mullet, ready for the Roman chef to prepare it. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### Priced for Prestige: When a Fish Cost More Than a Slave For Rome’s upper class, the red mullet was not merely food—it was an edible emblem of wealth. The prices it commanded bordered on the absurd. Martial, always keen to expose vanity through wit, writes of a man who [sold a slave](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) just to afford a particularly large specimen: > *"You sold a slave to buy a costly mullet for your dinner, Calliodorus…”* *Epigrams X* The craze reached a fever pitch under Emperor Tiberius. In one scene described by Seneca, a massive red mullet weighing four and a half pounds was brought before the emperor, who then mockingly put it up for auction. > *“I shall be taken entirely by surprise, my friends, if either Apicius or P. Octavius does not buy that mullet.”* As it turned out, P. Octavius paid five thousand sesterces for the fish—outbidding even the notorious gourmand Apicius. It was not simply about eating well. It was about being seen to possess what others could not. ![Apicius Handschrift New York Academy of Medicine](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/05/Apicius_Handschrift_New_York_Academy_of_Medicine--1-.jpg) This is a picture from the Apicius handwriting (circa. C.E.900) of the Fulda monastery in Germany, which was acquired in C.E.1929 (H.E.11,929) by the New York Academy of Medicine. Credits: Bonho1962 • CC BY-SA 3.0. Such prices were not uncommon. A single mullet could cost several times more than the annual wage of an average Roman citizen. Hosting a banquet where several were served could **cost as much as a small villa**. The fish became an economic spectacle, its value driven not by flavor but by the desire to outshine one’s peers. Even Galen, Rome’s most respected physician, was baffled by the obsession. > *“Prized by men as superior to the rest in flavor… Very many people buy the largest red mullet, which is not as tasty as the smaller ones, nor as easily digested.”* He found their flesh to be dry and slightly bitter. Still, although he disagreed, he did acknowledge the appeal of their liver and head—both considered delicacies and sometimes used in making [garum](https://romanempiretimes.com/garum-the-unami-of-ancient-rome/), the fermented fish sauce found in kitchens across the empire. Taste, nutrition, practicality—none of it mattered. The red mullet’s *true flavor*, was **status**. 📜 For those who want to know more about the fish that the Roman elite adored, we hope you’ll enjoy [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l52ULFqmPkw&ref=romanempiretimes.com): ### Pliny the Elder: Scholar, Soldier, and Witness to Disaster URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-scholar-soldier-and-witness-to-disaster/ Last updated: 2025-04-10T00:37:39.000Z Few figures from antiquity embody the spirit of Roman inquiry and ambition as vividly as Pliny the Elder. A military officer, administrator, and prolific writer, Pliny dedicated his life to collecting and organizing knowledge, culminating in his [*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/4lngkJ2?ref=romanempiretimes.com)—an [encyclopaedic attempt](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-the-author-of-the-worlds-first-encyclopaedia-was-roman/) to document the world in its entirety. His career placed him at the heart of the imperial court, where he navigated political, economic, and scientific spheres, yet it was his unwavering curiosity that ultimately led to his death during the [eruption of Mount Vesuvius](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/) in 79 CE. Beyond his better-known achievements, Pliny’s life offers insight into the interplay between power, scholarship, and duty in the Roman world. ### A Scholar Shaped by Empire and Duty Pliny the Elder, Gaius Plinius Secundus, was born in late AD 23 or early AD 24 during the reign of Tiberius, a period marked by political instability, military unrest, and power struggles within the imperial system. His birthplace, Novum Comum (modern-day Como) in northern Italy, was a town of mixed population that had undergone several waves of colonization. Originally reorganized in 89 BCE by Pompeius Strabo, it later received an influx of settlers under [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/), who, in 59 BCE, reestablished it under the *Lex Vatinia*, adding five thousand colonists and renaming it Novum Comum. There is no surviving record of Pliny’s parents, but his father’s name suggests a local Italian lineage rather than aristocratic Roman ancestry. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-pile-of-ancient-Roman-coins.jpg) ## More significant than his origins, however, was the wealth and social standing of his family, which belonged to the municipal governing class. **A pile of ancient Roman coins. Credits: TheoRivierenlaan from pixabay, by Canva* This background allowed Pliny to enter the equestrian order (*ordo equester*), a social rank open to Roman citizens of free birth, good character, and a minimum wealth of 400,000 [sesterces](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/). Membership in this order determined his career path, granting him access to both administrative and military opportunities. ### A Life Documented in Text and Archaeology Pliny was deeply invested in his status and public service, an attitude reflected in both his writings and the material culture of his time. The archaeological remains of Pompeii, [Herculaneum](https://romanempiretimes.com/ancient-roman-beach-herculaneum-reopened/), Stabiae, and Oplontis, buried under Vesuvius' eruption in AD 79, offer a vivid depiction of first-century Roman urban life—a world Pliny knew well. His Natural History, alongside his nephew [Pliny the Younger’s Letters](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/), provides commentary on Roman society, daily life, and moral values. The cities impacted by [Vesuvius](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-flavors-of-vesuvius/) reveal notable differences in economic status and lifestyle: - Pompeii functioned primarily as a commercial center, with public buildings reflecting its mercantile nature. Private residences, though comfortable and aesthetically refined, were generally not excessively ostentatious, as seen in the relative scarcity of imported luxury materials like colored marble and exotic woods. - Herculaneum, by contrast, was home to a wealthier elite, alongside artisans and fishermen. The architecture and decorative elements indicate a higher concentration of affluent residents compared to Pompeii. Pliny’s observations on society, commerce, and governance provide an important literary complement to the material evidence from these cities, bridging the gap between textual history and archaeological findings. ![Miniature by Andrea da Firenze from an edition of Natural History by Pliny the Elder, c. 1457–58, showing Pliny writing in his study, with landscape and animals.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Miniature-Pliny-the-Elder-Andrea-da-Firenze--2--1.jpg) Miniature by Andrea da Firenze from an edition of **Natural History* by Pliny the Elder, **c.* 1457–58, showing Pliny writing in his study, with landscape and animals; in the British Library. Credits: The British Library, Public Domain ### Author, Observer, and Intellectual Conservator In his profile of “Pliny the Elder”, [Paul T. Keyser](https://amzn.to/3R7eWMS?ref=romanempiretimes.com) presents a portrait of a man not only immersed in the practicalities of Roman public life but also devoted to a monumental task: the preservation of human knowledge. Pliny emerges here not simply as a Roman scholar, but as a systematic compiler of intellectual tradition, motivated by a desire to document, preserve, and transmit everything that was worth knowing from the ancient world. What makes Pliny’s Natural History exceptional, according to Keyser, is that it is not narrowly scientific, but rather a comprehensive cultural artifact. It embodies the Roman capacity for synthesis: bringing together Greek, Egyptian, and Roman knowledge, combining practical instruction with historical anecdote, myth, and moral reflection. This work contains **37 books** and is built on the foundation of **over 2,000 volumes** consulted from approximately **100 authors**—a remarkable scholarly feat. > "I have included in thirty-six books 20,000 topics, all worthy of attention, (for, as Domitius Piso says, we ought to make not merely books, but valuable collections,) gained by the perusal of about 2000 volumes, of which a few only are in the hands of the studious, on account of the obscurity of the subjects, procured by the careful perusal of 100 select authors; and to these I have made considerable additions of things, which were either not known to my predecessors, or which have been lately discovered. > > Nor can I doubt but that there still remain many things which I have omitted; for I am a mere mortal, and one that has many occupations." Pliny The Elder He was acutely aware of the scope of his undertaking. He explicitly states that his work was “*not composed for literary reputation*,” but to be useful. This guiding principle makes the Natural History stand out not only as a record of ancient science and technology, but as a manual of life, designed for administrators, farmers, physicians, artists, and the curious layperson. Keyser underlines Pliny’s role as a custodian of tradition, noting that many of the sources he drew upon have since been lost. His meticulous citations of sources throughout the Natural History serve both as a scholarly apparatus and as a testament to the fragility of cultural memory. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Plate-from--22Flora--seu-de-florum-cultura-22--by-Giovanni-Battista-Ferrari.jpg) ## Without Pliny, vast swaths of classical knowledge—especially Greek writings on botany, zoology, metallurgy, and medicine—***might have vanished completely**. **Plate from "Flora, seu de florum cultura", by Giovanni Battista Ferrari. Credits: Wellcome Collection, CC BY 4.0* While Pliny’s encyclopaedic method lacks modern scientific rigor, Keyser reminds us that it must be evaluated within its context. For Pliny, to study nature was not to master it through theory or experimentation, but to bear witness to its marvels and preserve the accumulated wisdom of others. His curiosity was wide-ranging but grounded in Roman practicality, aimed at utility over abstraction. Keyser also notes that Pliny’s writing style and methodology reflect his deeply Roman sense of duty. The act of compiling knowledge was, in itself, an ethical endeavor: a way to serve both the empire and future generations. His nephew, Pliny the Younger, affirmed this in a letter, describing the Natural History as a mirror of Nature’s own variety and richness. Finally, he highlights the enduring intellectual legacy of Pliny’s work. The Natural History became a cornerstone of medieval and early Renaissance learning, especially in the Latin West. For centuries, it was regarded not merely as a source, but as a model—a comprehensive framework for organizing human understanding of the natural and cultural world. Even today, while modern science has moved far beyond Pliny’s cosmology and methods, his work remains an invaluable witness to ancient thought, and a reflection of one Roman’s extraordinary effort to capture the totality of life and knowledge in words. ### A Life Devoted to the Higher Purpose of Knowledge Pliny possessed a temperament so deeply inclined toward contemplation and purpose that bodily needs—let alone pleasures—seemed to hold little relevance for him. His way of resting from official duties was not through leisure but through a change of intellectual labor. Much of his night was dedicated to study; even his meals became occasions for learning, with his *amanuensis* reading aloud to him as he ate. To preserve his focus, he traveled by chariot instead of walking, using the time to listen and reflect without interruption. ![ A possible representation of Pliny the Elder, listening to his amanuensis reading aloud to him as he eats](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/-A-possible-representation-of-Pliny-the-Elder--listening-to-his-amanuensis-reading-aloud-to-him-as-he-eats.jpg) A possible representation of Pliny the Elder, listening to his amanuensis reading aloud to him as he eats. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney His notes and scholarly annotations were of such value that Lartius Lutinius offered him a substantial sum for them, but instead of selling them, Pliny bequeathed this vast intellectual trove to his beloved and distinguished nephew. His interest spanned all areas of Nature and Art, and nothing was beneath his attention. In the field of the Fine Arts, his writings—particularly Books 34, 35, and 36 of the Natural History—stand out for their precision, judgment, and depth of knowledge, surviving the cultural collapse that followed the fall of the Roman Empire and preserving a wealth of classical insight. Pliny’s pursuit of knowledge was inseparable from his humanity and scientific curiosity, traits that ultimately led to his death and made him one of history’s most memorable martyrs to science. His final moments—during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79—are tenderly and vividly recounted by his nephew, Pliny the Younger, in a letter to [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/), a passage regarded as one of the most elegant epistles in Roman literature. Pliny’s body was found three days after his death and buried at Misenum, facing the fleet he had left behind in his quest to observe and understand a natural phenomenon. As a fitting tribute to his life and mind, his nephew offers a sentiment that remains a powerful reflection of Pliny’s legacy: > “I consider those blessed to whom the gods have granted the ability either to do things worth writing about or to write things worth reading; but the most blessed of all are those who can do both.” Pliny the Younger ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-possible-representation-of-Pliny-the-Elder--with-Mount-Vesuvius-in-the-background.jpg) ## “The fortunate man, in my opinion, is he to whom the gods have granted the power either to do something which is worth recording or to write what is worth reading, and most fortunate of all is the man who can do both. Such a man was my uncle…” **Pliny the Younger, Letter 6.16* **A possible representation of Pliny the Elder, with Mount Vesuvius in the background. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney* Only an intense love of nature could have driven a man so fully immersed in public responsibilities to seize every spare moment to assemble what his nephew called “*a digest of the scattered rays of natural knowledge*.” The study of nature was not a fashionable interest among Romans, and the materials for his monumental work had to be laboriously extracted from [Greek authors](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) of many schools, each bearing conflicting ideas. His effort resulted in 160 densely written volumes of abstracts, each demanding great perseverance and discernment. Although the authors Pliny drew upon often presented contradictory theories, he proved adept at distilling useful knowledge from opinion, even if he sometimes adopted questionable hypotheses as facts. In his time, there was no established method to verify information, and his sources carried the authority of ancient wisdom. The era of careful, evidence-based criticism could only arise after such an enormous foundation of recorded observation had been laid—and Pliny was the tireless collector who made that foundation possible. Even when these ancient sources proposed explanations that we now recognize as incorrect—such as mysterious “occult causes” in place of rational science—Pliny’s documentation of them remains significant. Even the mistakes belong to the history of natural inquiry, and his account preserves them as valuable evidence of humanity’s evolving understanding of the natural world. His contribution lies not merely in what he got right, but in gathering the materials out of which future knowledge could grow. ([*Pliny's Natural history. In thirty-seven books*](https://amzn.to/42uxX17?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Philemon Holland*) ### Pliny in Rome: A City of Luxury and Contrasts Internal evidence from Natural History suggests that Pliny the Elder arrived in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/) during the [reign of Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-caligula-mad-or-just-sick/) (AD 37–41), likely in the early 30s. His experiences in the capital, including attending the betrothal dinner of Lollia Paulina, left a lasting impression, particularly regarding the city's excesses. His vivid account of her extravagant jewelry reflects both his keen observational skills and his moral disdain: > "...she was covered with emeralds and pearls which caught the light all over her head, hair, ears, neck, and fingers: these adornments were worth 40,000,000 sesterces!" Pliny’s indignation was further fueled by the knowledge that these jewels were not gifts but had been acquired through spoils from the provinces, reinforcing his criticism of luxury funded by imperial conquest. ![A possible representation of Lollia Paulina covered in expensive jewelry.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/20250407_1717_Lollia-Paulina-s-Jewel-Adornments_simple_compose_01jr8gndsrem596qt0ywg7p6y4-1.jpg) A possible representation of Lollia Paulina covered in expensive jewelry. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Sora By Pliny’s time, Rome had become a city of extremes. The opulence of [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/)’s Golden House (*Domus Aurea*) and the lavish residences of the elite on the Palatine Hill stood in stark contrast to the overcrowded and dangerous tenement blocks ([*insulae*](https://romanempiretimes.com/insulae-apartment-buildings-ancient-rome-romans/)) where the [poor](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/) lived. These fragile structures, later described by Juvenal, were precariously stacked “*like a house of cards*,” with fires being a constant hazard. Within this diverse environment, Pliny found much to interest him, immersing himself in literature, the arts, philosophy, science, and oratory. His formal education began under Pomponius Secundus, a renowned soldier and tragic poet, whom he later honored by writing his biography. He referred to this work as a “*munus debitum*”—a duty owed to a friend—potentially as a means to secure patronage and professional advancement. As was customary for men of his status, Pliny received training in rhetoric, which significantly influenced his literary style. However, this rhetorical approach led to frequent criticism of his writing, particularly for its dense and sometimes elaborate structure. ### Scholar and Servant of the State Pliny, managed to balance public service with intellectual pursuits, demonstrating that scholarship and state duties were not mutually exclusive. His Natural History reflects his political views, which reveal an acceptance of the imperial system as essential to Rome’s stability. He expresses gratitude for the security provided by the [Pax Romana](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-pax-romana-was-rome-ever-a-peaceful-empire/), portraying Italy as both the ruler and the second mother of the world. > “For now that I have completed my survey of Nature's works, it is right that I should make a critical assessment of her products, as well of the lands that produce them. > > This, then, I declare: in the whole world, wherever the vault of heaven turns, there is no land so well adorned with all that wins Nature's crown as Italy, the ruler and second mother of the world, with her men and women, her generals and soldiers, her slaves, her pre-eminence in arts and crafts, her wealth of brilliant talent, and, again, her geographical position and her healthy, temperate climate, the easy access which she offers to all other peoples, her shores with their many harbours, and the kindly winds that blow upon her. > > All these benefits accrue to her from her situation - for the land juts out in the direction that is most advantageous, midway between the East and the West - and from her abundant supply of water, her healthy forests, her mountains with their passes, her harmless wild creatures, her fertile soil and her rich pastures” His close ties to the Flavian dynasty are evident in the tone of the preface to the work, which is addressed to the emperor. As a trusted member of [Vespasian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/)’s advisory council, Pliny had direct access to the emperor, further reinforcing his role within the imperial administration. ([*Pliny the Elder on Science and Technology*](https://amzn.to/4j3C9Mf?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by John F. Healy*) ![The Italian countryside that captivated the minds of so many, including Pliny the Elder](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/The-Italian-countryside-that-captivated-the-minds-of-so-many--including-Pliny-the-Elder.jpg) The Italian countryside that captivated the minds of so many, including Pliny the Elder. Credits: YIYANG LIU from Pexels, by Canva ### The Roots of Pliny’s Thought Pliny the Elder’s worldview, as expressed in *Naturalis Historia*, is deeply rooted in classical philosophy, particularly [Stoicism](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/), though his work is more encyclopaedic than analytical. He envisioned the universe (*mundus*) as divine, eternal, and governed by rational principles, rejecting the atomist theories of Democritus, Epicurus, and Lucretius, which posited an infinite and perishable world governed by chance. Instead, Pliny aligned with the Stoic belief in a providential, ordered cosmos, where nature itself was a sacred, self-contained entity rather than a creation of an external deity. This pantheistic view positioned nature as both a divine force and the ultimate source of life, framing the natural world as something to be studied, understood, and respected. Despite this reverence for nature’s divine power, Pliny’s perspective remained anthropocentric, with humanity as the central subject of his work. He described the Earth (*Terra*) as providing abundantly for human needs, yet he also acknowledged its destructive power—a duality that suggests a balanced but pragmatic approach to mankind’s place in the natural world. His writing reflects concern over human exploitation of natural resources, portraying excessive mining and deforestation as disruptions of nature’s will. While he valued scientific inquiry, he remained skeptical of speculative knowledge, particularly magic and divination, which he condemned as attempts to control forces beyond human understanding. Pliny’s intellectual outlook was shaped by Roman pragmatism, Stoic cosmology, and the encyclopedic tradition. He saw knowledge as a tool for civilization, not as a purely theoretical pursuit, reinforcing the belief that intellectual endeavors should serve both the state and society. His work, though influenced by philosophical traditions, ultimately reflects a deeply Roman worldview—practical, hierarchical, and committed to the idea that nature exists to be observed, not mastered. ([*The Thought of Pliny the Elder*](https://amzn.to/3R8Lqq7?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Mary Beagon*) ### Creation of "Natural History" Pliny's "Natural History" is an extensive collection of knowledge that covers a vast array of subjects including astronomy, anthropology, geography, botany, horticulture, farming, zoology, medicine, chemistry, minerology, and [art](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/). Comprising **37 volumes**, the work was an attempt to document all human knowledge of the natural world in Pliny's time. Drawing from over 100 sources, including his own observations and the work of predecessors, Pliny aimed to provide a critical and comprehensive resource for the Roman public​. ![A copy of Pliny’s Naturalis Historia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-copy-of-Pliny-s-Naturalis-Historia.jpg) A copy of Pliny’s Naturalis Historia. Credits: Special Collections at Johns Hopkins University, CC BY 2.0 Pliny's "Natural History" may be considered the first Western encyclopedia but defining it as such requires understanding that the concept of an encyclopedia has evolved significantly. While modern readers might recognize it as an encyclopedia, this would not necessarily align with the expectations or recognition of its earliest audiences. The work itself has had a considerable influence on how we interpret and engage with historical texts. Over centuries, it has been a critical reference in various fields, from medicine to zoology, informing scholars and serving as a cornerstone for the development of numerous disciplines. Although its direct utility for contemporary practitioners may have diminished, its value to antiquarians and classicists remains substantial, providing a window into ancient knowledge and practices. The enduring scholarly reliance on Pliny's work illustrates the complex ways in which historical texts continue to shape modern academic disciplines, even as the nature of these texts and their interpretations evolve over time. Pliny the Elder's "Natural History" begins with a dedication to Emperor Titus, offering a preview of the extensive contents within the 37-book series. The initial volume delves into cosmology, touching upon the universe, celestial bodies, and fundamental elements. It is followed by a detailed geographic exploration of the Earth and its varied inhabitants. The subsequent book shifts focus to humanity and technological advancements. > “…written for the masses, for the farmers and workers, and to interest people in their leisure time.” The compendium then examines animals both terrestrial and aquatic, with separate discussions dedicated to birds and insects. Most of the volumes center on botany, discussing trees, plants, flowers, and fruits, extending into their agricultural practices and medicinal uses. Pliny also explores other medicinal resources derived from animals. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Louis-Ducis--The-Invention-of-Painting--as-imagined-by-Pliny-the-Elder-in-his-Natural-History.jpg) ## The final sections are devoted to minerals and metals, including their applications in painting and the arts, culminating in one of the earliest comprehensive accounts of art history. **Louis Ducis’ The Invention of Painting, as imagined by Pliny the Elder in his Natural History. Public domain* In the second book of "Natural History", Pliny the Elder embraces the traditional [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/greek/) astronomical theories, acknowledging the Earth's spherical shape and its implications on phenomena like [eclipses](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-beliefs-and-practices-surrounding-solar-eclipses/), day and night cycles, sunrises, and sunsets. He identifies the planets known during the classical era: "*Saturn,* [*Jupiter*](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/jupiter/)*, Mars, the sun, Venus, Mercury, and the moon*." Pliny's descriptions, particularly of the sun and moon, are imbued with a mythological perspective, often personifying these celestial bodies in line with Roman and Greek traditions. He describes the sun with profound reverence: "*\[the Sun\] lends his light … to the rest of the stars, is splendid, supreme and sees and hears everything*." Pliny wants his readers to know that his book is well researched, covers a wide range of topics, and is up to date. He writes: > “I have included in 36 books 20,000 topics… acquired by the study of about 2,000 volumes… gathered by the careful examination of 100 select authors; and to these I have made considerable additions of things, which were either not known to my predecessors, or which have been lately discovered. Pliny authored his expansive work "*Naturalis Historia*" not for profit but as a scholarly endeavor. In his era, long before the advent of the printing press, each book had to be manually transcribed by scribes, making the production of books labor-intensive and costly. Although Pliny might have commissioned a few initial copies with possible financial backing from the emperor, subsequent copies were made by those who hired scribes to painstakingly replicate the text, which contains **over a million words**. Modern scholars put the number of pieces of information at **37,000**. ![Page from Natural History by Pliny the Elder, 12th century; in the British Library.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Page-Natural-History-Pliny-the-Elder-British.jpg) Page from **Natural History* by Pliny the Elder, 12th century; in the British Library. Public Domain ### Playful Irony and Imperial Address in Pliny’s Natural History The preface to Pliny the Elder’s Natural History presents itself as a seemingly straightforward introduction, yet on closer inspection, it reveals a layered and playful complexity that both frames and challenges the monumental work it precedes. Written in the form of an epistolary dedication to Titus, the preface blends humorous self-deprecation, literary allusion, and subtle political negotiation, serving at once as a defense of Pliny’s earlier writings, a guide to the Natural History's content and structure, and a carefully constructed rhetorical address to its imperial reader. Epistolary prefaces had precedent in Hellenistic science writing and Roman technical literature, and Pliny follows this tradition, yet with distinct innovation. His preface acts both as a proem to the entire work and as a cover letter to Book 1, which contains a detailed table of contents. From the outset, Pliny subverts expectations. Though the first words—*libros naturalis historiae*—plainly announce the title and genre, his subsequent tone is deliberately at odds with the gravity of the work. He downplays its seriousness, calling it *nugae* ("trifles"), and frames it as a sort of 'votive offering' to Titus, filled with curious facts salvaged from obscure and specialized sources. > “THIS treatise on Natural History, a novel work in Roman literature, which I have just completed, I have taken the liberty to dedicate to you, most gracious Emperor, an appellation peculiarly suitable to you, while, on account of his age, that of great is more appropriate to your Father; > > For still thou ne'er wouldst quite despise the trifles that I write;" Yet, Pliny’s modesty is laced with irony. He claims that Natural History avoids the literary flourishes of dialogue, dramatic events, and digression, but as critics have noted, the work itself is filled with rich historical anecdotes and detailed descriptions. ![The Natural History of Pliny in a mid-12th-century manuscript from the Abbaye de Saint Vincent, Le Mans, France.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/05/Histoire_Naturelle_Pline_l_Ancien_mid_12th_century_Abbaye_de_Saint_Vincent_Le_Mans_France.jpg) The Natural History of Pliny in a mid-12th-century manuscript from the Abbaye de Saint Vincent, Le Mans, France. Credits: PHGCOM, Public domain Similarly puzzling is Pliny’s characterization of his material—life itself—as *sterilis* (barren), a claim that contrasts starkly with the encyclopedic richness of his volumes and his frequent use of fertility metaphors to describe the act of literary production. These paradoxes generate a tone that is at once self-effacing and self-conscious, positioning Pliny as a curator of knowledge whose seriousness is masked by feigned levity. A central puzzle of the preface is its depiction of the addressee, Titus. While some scholars, have argued that there is a disjunction between the tone of the preface and its imperial recipient—accusing Pliny of filling the dedication with fictions and absurdities—others see the choice of Titus as both deliberate and meaningful. Titus, as co-ruler of the empire and a man with known intellectual interests and remarkable memory, becomes a representative figure for the totalizing scope of the encyclopedic project. His visit to the Temple of Venus at Paphos, as recorded by Tacitus, marks him as a seeker of antiquities, a curious and cultivated figure who might well appreciate Pliny’s undertaking. To further draw Titus into the world of the text, Pliny employs a surprising model: the poet Catullus. This choice frames the preface with a tone of light-hearted wit, alluding to poems that evoke friendship, pleasure, and literary play. Titus is addressed as *iucundissime*, echoing Catullus’ language to his companion Calvus, and Pliny even reworks a Catullan line to suit a more casual, friendly atmosphere. By doing so, Pliny recasts the imperial addressee not simply as an emperor, but as a literary peer, someone familiar with both military life and poetic refinement. This dual portrayal—Titus as both soldier and aesthete—allows Pliny to align himself with the emperor, not through flattery, but through shared experiences and tastes. He introduces the military term *conterraneus* (used here with clear reference to camp slang) to further this alignment, emphasizing the bond between encyclopedist, poet, and ruler. Pliny even invites Titus into a linguistic alliance, suggesting that they are both engaged in a struggle to validate and refine Latin usage—a subtle defense of Pliny’s own style against critics. Pliny’s ironic tone continues as he amplifies the contrast between his supposed nugae and the massive intellectual enterprise he undertakes. His citation of Catullus not only roots the preface in northern Italian identity (both authors being from that region), but also repositions the Natural History as a playful yet serious offering—something akin to a banquet among friends, rather than a coldly didactic text. > "if I may be allowed to shelter myself under the example of Catullus, my fellow-countryman, a military term, which you well understand". Ultimately, the preface becomes a performance of humility and intellectual charm, designed to reshape the reader’s expectations of both the work and its addressee. Through irony, literary allusion, and rhetorical agility, Pliny redefines Titus from an imperial authority to a kindred spirit, and he reframes his encyclopedia not as a stiff monument of knowledge, but as a living, generous, and human offering—a thesaurus or *templis dicata* filled with the votive gifts of a curious and diligent mind. In this way, the prefatory letter is more than a literary nicety. It is a complex rhetorical strategy, presenting the Natural History as both humble and monumental, serious and playful, authoritative and familiar. Pliny sets the stage not only for the reader’s engagement with nature and knowledge, but for a subtle reimagining of the relationship between knowledge, power, and authorship in the Roman world. (*Pliny and the encyclopaedic addressee, by* [*Ruth Morello*](https://amzn.to/4j3P6FG?ref=romanempiretimes.com)) ### From Toga to Today: How Ancient Rome Still Echoes Through Modern Culture URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/from-toga-to-today-how-ancient-rome-still-echoes-through-modern-culture/ Last updated: 2025-08-21T21:30:03.000Z It starts with a movie scene, a slogan in politics, or a marble bust gazing from a museum wall—but look closer, and you’ll notice the imprint of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) everywhere. From cinema and literature to architecture and ideals of power, the echoes of the empire still murmur through our modern world. What is it about ancient [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/) that captivates us so deeply? Why does a civilization lost to time continue to shape how we tell stories, build cities, and imagine greatness? ### Rome Reimagined: How Popular Culture Cast the Caesars in Stone and Spectacle While the Roman Republic once inspired the democratic ideals of the United States, the [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/) that captivates modern audiences—especially in twentieth-century British and American popular culture—isn’t one of senatorial debate or civic virtue. Instead, it's the empire of [emperors](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), not institutions, that dominates the screen and stage. [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/), mad and melodramatic, tends to overshadow intellectuals like Petronius. This imagined Rome is fierce, indulgent, and saturated in vice—defined more by its parades of military might, [gladiator](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/) games, [lavish banquets](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-unknown-lucullus-far-more-than-just-lucullan-meals/), and orgiastic excess than by laws or governance. Frequently, the lens through which this imperial world is shown belongs to its victims: [Christians](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/), [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/), Jews, or rebels—outsiders trapped within the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/)’s grasp. Their stories provide a critical view from within. Meanwhile, modern audiences watch from a privileged distance, always conscious of Rome’s inevitable downfall. This narrative tension gives viewers a dual experience: they feel superior in hindsight yet strangely connected to the empire's grandeur and decline. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Ciaran-Hinds-as-Gaius-Julius-Caesar-in-HBO-s-Rome-mini-series.jpg) ## Popular portrayals of Rome don’t just reflect the past; they reframe the present. **Ciaran Hinds as Gaius Julius Caesar in HBO’s Rome mini-series. Credits: HBO* By projecting modern power struggles, desires, and anxieties onto ancient Rome, creators offer audiences a mirror wrapped in marble. These stories provide a stage where the extremes of politics, luxury, and sexuality play out safely in historical costume—offering both critique and validation of the world we live in, all under the guise of exploring a shared cultural heritage. Across film, literature, theater, and architecture, the image of ancient Rome has been repeatedly reshaped to reflect the needs, desires, and fantasies of modern creators. Whether it’s [Colleen McCullough](https://amzn.to/4iYNHAf?ref=romanempiretimes.com) striving for historical accuracy in her novels or the extravagant, stylized Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, these reimaginings often take liberties—sometimes subtly, sometimes wildly—with what ancient Rome may have actually been. Larry Gelbart, co-writer of [*A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum*](https://amzn.to/42oeXRw?ref=romanempiretimes.com), described his adaptation of Plautus as a creative process involving "digging around" and "fashioning a cat’s cradle of a plot." The outcome was a transformation: Roman slaves became Jewish comedians, and ancient Rome found itself relocated to something like Brooklyn. This playful reimagining is just one of many examples showing how Rome is constantly reborn in popular culture, tailored to different audiences, times, and agendas. In some cases, figures from Roman history are given long afterlives through reinterpretation. Take [*Saint Sebastian*](https://amzn.to/4cnNjJj?ref=romanempiretimes.com): [Derek Jarman’s](https://amzn.to/3EfO3DA?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 1970s film drew on centuries of imagery—from Renaissance art to Baroque sculpture to homoerotic photography—to explore themes of beauty, suffering, and desire. Similarly, [the story of Spartacus](https://romanempiretimes.com/spartacus-the-gladiator-who-defied-rome/) has been refashioned across eras: in 1760, he was the Enlightenment hero; in 1810, a Romantic figure; in the mid-20th century, a **communist icon** tamed for Hollywood’s big screen. Hollywood’s influence on the image of Rome is inescapable. Most of its grand Roman epics were adapted from 19th-century novels and plays, themselves shaped by Victorian fantasies of power and spectacle. [*Ben-Hur*](https://amzn.to/44gYWzp?ref=romanempiretimes.com), [*Quo Vadis?*](https://amzn.to/42CtyKC?ref=romanempiretimes.com), and [*The Sign of the Cross*](https://amzn.to/3GcUl7n?ref=romanempiretimes.com) were not just novels—they became blueprints for Rome on film. 📜 A video of an [iconic scene from HBO’s Rome](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2AS6JX2UDQ&ref=romanempiretimes.com), one of the most accurate depictions of Rome in the big screen, where Julius Caesar rallies his men to fight. Directors like [William Wyler](https://amzn.to/3FX9f1y?ref=romanempiretimes.com) studied previous Roman films to get the “look” right for their own productions, leading to an echo chamber where cinematic Romes endlessly recycle one another. Even parodies, like [*Carry On Cleo*](https://amzn.to/3FZwpUZ?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (1964), which aimed to mock the genre, couldn’t escape Hollywood’s influence. It borrowed costumes and props from the lavish [*Cleopatra*](https://amzn.to/3RHMW2u?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (1963) and ended up reinforcing many of the same visual tropes it sought to undermine. The case of [Richard Lester’s](https://amzn.to/44eGVll?ref=romanempiretimes.com) 1966 adaptation of [*A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum*](https://amzn.to/3E8BtWJ?ref=romanempiretimes.com) is particularly telling. He intended to strip away the glossy marble of Hollywood's Rome to show something more authentic—gritty, unjust, and full of real human struggle. Yet even he couldn’t fully escape the cinematic past. He filmed on leftover sets from [*The Fall of the Roman Empire*](https://amzn.to/3YpIrxg?ref=romanempiretimes.com), simply dirtied them up, added mud, rotting vegetables, and Spanish extras to give the illusion of grime. But beneath that new layer, Hollywood’s Rome still glimmered faintly, like a ghost of grandeur just below the surface. In the end, every Rome we see—whether on page, stage, or screen—is a remix. A reflection not just of what was, but of what we wish to see: power, decadence, tragedy, and identity, all projected through the eternal marble mirror of an imagined empire. ![Peter Ustinov in his iconic depiction of Emperor Nero, in Quo Vadis?](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Peter-Ustinov-in-his-iconic-depiction-of-Emperor-Nero--in-Quo-Vadis-.jpg) Peter Ustinov in his iconic depiction of Emperor Nero, in Quo Vadis? ### Rome as Mirror and Warning: How Hollywood Made an Empire of Meaning Every time Rome is adapted in modern storytelling, it becomes a mirror—a way for societies to explore their own anxieties about power, politics, morality, and empire. Hollywood’s epics of the 1950s, especially, didn’t just depict Roman cruelty or grandeur—they used it to reflect contemporary issues like Cold War fears, totalitarianism, consumerism, and sexual norms. Rome was alternately cast as the enemy or the ancestor, with audiences encouraged to see themselves as either fundamentally unlike the Romans or disturbingly similar. Cinematic Romans stood in for Nazis, fascists, communists, and colonial oppressors, while Christians, Jews, and slaves became the righteous “us.” This dynamic also allowed Americans to distance themselves from their own imperial reality, projecting their ideals onto Rome’s victims while condemning Roman excess—political tyranny, moral decay, and sexual deviance. From orgies to cynical senators, Hollywood’s Rome served as both a moral spectacle and a political allegory. Even accents mattered: evil Romans spoke with British accents, while freedom-loving rebels spoke American, enacting a colonial revenge fantasy on screen. In this way, Rome became a stage for America’s own internal debates—timeless, flexible, and always revealing. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Karl-Th-odore-Piloty-s-painting--Under-the-Arena-1.jpg) ## Projection in popular portrayals of ancient Rome is rarely clear-cut. **Karl Théodore Piloty’s painting, Under the Arena. Public domain* Films often engage in a complex blend of identification and distancing, inviting viewers to enjoy Roman decadence while simultaneously rejecting its values. In Sebastiane (1976), for instance, Derek Jarman uses the Roman setting to both celebrate [homoerotic desire](https://romanempiretimes.com/antinous-and-hadrian-love-devotion-or-divine-ambition/) and critique Britain’s repressive stance on homosexuality, drawing on the long-established symbolic link between Rome and male same-sex desire. Hollywood epics, follow a similar pattern: while the narrative encourages viewers to side with early Christians and reject Roman excess, the sheer spectacle of [Roman luxury](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/), grandeur, and eroticism invites visual pleasure and consumer desire. This duality—condemnation of decadence on one hand and indulgence in its cinematic form on the other—mirrors postwar American culture’s tensions between morality and consumption, guilt and pleasure. Ultimately, these films allow audiences to process cultural anxieties—about gender, sexuality, or power—indirectly, by projecting them onto the Romans. Throughout most of the twentieth century, portrayals of imperial Rome in popular culture tended to emphasize a sense of detachment or a conflicted mix of fascination and disapproval. But by the century’s end, **this perspective began to shift**. The once-comfortable assertion of the 1950s—“We are not the Romans”—and the anxious questioning that followed—“Have we become them?”—gave way to a more self-assured embrace: “Be like the Romans!” In newer depictions, Rome's associations with moral decay are replaced by an alluring vision of unrestrained power and extravagant pleasure. When imperial might and vice are reimagined as desirable signs of wealth and success, Rome becomes something to aspire to rather than condemn. For instance, author [Colleen McCullough](https://amzn.to/4jrF94Y?ref=romanempiretimes.com), while writing her [*Masters of Rome* series](https://amzn.to/4j4fn6Y?ref=romanempiretimes.com), described herself as fully inhabiting the mindset of a Roman. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/Alessandro-Pigna-s-painting--vividly-reminding-us-of-the-human-evolution-from-the-Roman-toga--to-today-s-world-1.jpg) ## Her novels, particularly resonant with female readers, invite a fantasy of empowerment—identifying not with Rome’s victims, but with its elite, indulging in visions of unchecked influence and prosperity. **Alessandro Pigna’s painting, vividly reminding us of the human evolution from the Roman toga, to today’s world. Public domain* Similarly, Jay Sarno, the creator of Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, sought to recreate an atmosphere of unapologetic luxury, allowing guests to step into the shoes of decadent Roman elites. While early Hollywood often warned against Roman excess, Caesars celebrates it. The resort mirrors Rome not as a cautionary tale, but as a fantasy world dedicated to pleasure and consumption. This echoes the legacy of 1930s Hollywood, which pioneered the marketing of Roman imagery through tie-in merchandise like Quo Vadis pajamas. At the lavish Forum Shops next door—a Roman-themed mall opened in 1992—the empire becomes a backdrop for shopping, its grandeur co-opted by modern capitalism. Here, consumerism is not just tolerated but elevated, cloaked in classical aesthetics. In this reinterpretation, imperial Rome symbolizes affluence and leisure—an aspirational brand for an America increasingly comfortable with its own appetite for spectacle and spending. (*Imperial projections: Ancient Rome in modern popular culture, edited by Sandra R. Joshel, Margaret Malamud, Donald T. McGuire*) ### Ancient Lessons for the Modern World In a sharp review for Foreign Affairs, Michael Fontaine explores how Mary Beard’s [*SPQR*](https://amzn.to/3G18i8F?ref=romanempiretimes.com) brings ancient Rome vividly—and unsettlingly—close to home. Michael Fontaine, a professor of classics at Cornell University, opens his review of [Mary Beard’s](https://amzn.to/4i53kVx?ref=romanempiretimes.com) *SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome* with admiration for her ability to make the distant past feel startlingly relevant. Beard, he explains, doesn’t just chart the Roman Republic’s rise and fall; she reanimates it with a wit and clarity that speak directly to the concerns of modern readers. Her Rome is not fossilized in marble but breathing—vibrant, flawed, and painfully familiar. Rather than beginning with [Romulus and Remus](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-and-remus-the-legendary-founders-of-rome/), Beard chooses to open in 63 BCE, the year of [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)’s consulship. Cicero, an outsider from the provinces who rose through sheer talent, becomes a symbolic figure for contemporary political outsiders. Fontaine notes how Beard’s narrative recasts him as “a thoroughly modern politician,” facing a populist threat and navigating a [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/) paralyzed by fear. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/A-photo-of-Mary-Beard--author-of-SPQR--from-Cambridge-2015.jpg) ## Throughout the book, Beard draws subtle, thought-provoking lines between ancient and modern dilemmas. **A photo of Mary Beard, author of SPQR, from Cambridge 2015\. Credits: Chris Boland, CC BY-NC-SA-ND 2.0* Discussions on citizenship laws echo today’s debates on immigration and national identity. The Roman Senate’s anxiety over conspiracies feels eerily reminiscent of political fear-mongering in the post-9/11 era. Beard never makes the connections overt—but as Fontaine writes, readers will find “*more analogies than they may be comfortable with*.” Her Rome is not a golden age to be worshipped, but a society grappling with inequality, [propaganda](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/), and the slow erosion of republican ideals. Fontaine praises her for this honesty—particularly in dealing with Rome’s imperial brutality, such as [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/)’s massacres in [Gaul](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/). Rather than glorify conquest, Beard frames it with a modern conscience: “*Today we would call them war crimes*,” she writes. Fontaine calls this “*one of the most sobering and memorable lines in the book*.” What ultimately emerges is a version of Rome that resists simple nostalgia. SPQR is not about how we should return to Rome, but how we never really left it. Fontaine concludes that Beard “*shows we have an enormous amount to learn—not just about the past, but about ourselves*.” (*What Rome Can Teach Us Today: Ancient Lessons for Modern Politics, Reviewed Work: SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome by MARY BEARD Review by: Michael Fontaine*) ### Rome's Enduring Influence: Foundations of the Modern Global Order In their paper “*Significance and Impact of Ancient Rome and Its Relevance in the Current Global Order*,” Vishnu Prabhu K.S. and Dr. Laxmi Dhar Dwivedi explore how the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/) continues to shape modern civilization—not as a distant relic of the past, but as a foundational blueprint for political, cultural, economic, and strategic life today. The authors draw attention to how the Roman combination of military prowess and cultural assimilation mirrors today’s power dynamics. Ancient Rome was not solely an empire of conquest; it was **a civilization that absorbed and adapted**. Its [embrace of Greek aesthetics](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/), foreign customs, and skilled immigrants speaks to a soft power dynamic that resonates with modern forms of globalization. Rome’s strength lay not only in its legions but in its ability to culturally integrate, a trait seen in today’s international alliances and migration policies. Prabhu and Dwivedi also emphasize the institutional and diplomatic legacy of Rome. Long before the advent of international law, Rome developed the *ius gentium*—a legal framework for dealing with non-citizens that served as an early form of international law. ![The famous sculpture Laocoön and His Sons, by Greek sculptors, discovered in Ancient Rome and greatly praised by Pliny the Elder](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/04/The-famous-sculpture-Laoco-n-and-His-Sons--by-Greek-sculptors--discovered-in-Ancient-Rome-and-greatly-praised-by-Pliny-the-Elder.jpg) The famous sculpture Laocoön and His Sons, by Greek sculptors, discovered in Ancient Rome and greatly praised by Pliny the Elder. Public domain Military decisions often required approval from both the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/) and religious authorities, showing a system of checks and balances that echoes in modern democratic governance. In this way, Rome becomes more than a historical case—it stands as a structural ancestor to organizations like the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, or even NATO. Military innovation, too, forms a critical part of the analysis. The authors highlight the strategies of generals like [Scipio Africanus](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-was-the-best-roman-warrior-scipio-africanus-a-man-who-never-lost-a-battle/) and Fabius Maximus. The latter’s tactics of delay and attrition—later known as the Fabian strategy—have influenced warfare for centuries, reappearing in contexts as varied as WWII or Cold War intelligence planning. Rome’s economic model is another element with lasting significance. With its far-reaching trade in [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/), [oil](https://romanempiretimes.com/olive-oil-in-the-roman-empire-how-the-romans-discovered-the-liquid-gold/), [ceramics](https://romanempiretimes.com/monte-testaccio-the-roman-hill-composed-of-53-million-amphorae-fragments-2/), and luxury goods, Rome was a proto-global economy. Its taxation system and the bureaucratic link between tax collection and the central authority remain a model for state-building. Even in modern Italy’s economy—rooted in exports of fashion, design, and gastronomy—the echoes of that imperial infrastructure are visible. The thesis also traces the architectural and legal inheritance passed down from Roman civilization. [Vitruvius](https://romanempiretimes.com/vitruvius-the-roman-who-shaped-modern-architecture/)’ treatise [*De Architectura*](https://amzn.to/4jmmIhI?ref=romanempiretimes.com) influenced not only Renaissance urban design but continues to inform civic planning today. Roman legal concepts survive in modern international law, reinforcing the argument that Roman frameworks are not dead systems, but active and evolving foundations of contemporary life. Finally, the authors draw a line from Rome’s symbolic power to Italy’s current global image. Whether through luxury fashion brands like Armani or iconic automotive design like Ferrari, today’s Italian soft power is, in part, an extension of Rome’s legacy of prestige, refinement, and cultural sophistication. Rome’s influence transcends history. It is embedded in the way we understand diplomacy, justice, war, and even lifestyle. [The empire may have fallen](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), but its systems, symbols, and strategies **continue to structure**, the modern world. ### Did Romans and Greeks have Abortions and Contraceptives? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/did-romans-and-greeks-have-abortions-and-contraceptives/ Last updated: 2025-03-18T00:38:02.000Z In a shadowy corner of ancient Rome, beneath the elegant verses of [Ovid](https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/) and the solemn pages of Hippocrates, lies a hidden story—the complex and often controversial world of contraception and abortion in antiquity. Greek and Roman society, far from passive observers, actively grappled with questions of fertility, morality, and bodily autonomy, employing methods ranging from mystical herbs like *silphium* to sophisticated medical procedures documented by pioneering physicians. Through ancient [poetry](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/), philosophy, and law, we uncover a nuanced reality where decisions about life and reproduction were carefully negotiated within households, debated in philosophical circles, and subtly embedded in everyday life. Exploration and research reveals not only the ingenuity of ancient medical practices but also the timeless tensions surrounding one of humanity's most intimate choices. ### Between Life and Law: Abortion and the Ethics of Ancient Civilizations Throughout history, the ethics surrounding abortion have consistently mirrored the deeper values, medical understanding, and cultural priorities of civilizations. Far from being merely a modern debate, abortion occupied a controversial and nuanced place in ancient societies, from [Greece](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) and [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/) to Egypt and Persia. The attitudes and legal frameworks surrounding abortion did more than regulate medical practice—they reflected each civilization’s broader ideas about life, autonomy, gender roles, and morality. While ancient Chinese texts treated the fetus as non-living and thus permitted abortion without moral conflict, ancient Mesopotamian societies, such as those guided by the Code of Hammurabi, administered severe penalties for abortion, contrasting starkly with permissive attitudes toward infanticide. Although the Egyptians documented abortive methods in medical papyri, no clear legislation survives, suggesting complex societal perspectives that differed significantly from their contemporaries. Exploring these varying approaches provides profound insights into the values, ethics, and medical advancements of ancient cultures. ![Part of the Code of Hammurabi](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/Part-of-the-Code-of-Hammurabi.jpg) Part of the Code of Hammurabi. Credits: Gabriele Barni, CC BY 2.0 ### Abortion and Ethics in Ancient Greek Thought Although ancient Greek city-states lacked a unified legal stance on abortion, writings from prominent philosophers indicate varying degrees of acceptance. Plato (428–348 BC), for example, considered abortion acceptable for [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) over the age of 40, while Aristotle (384–322 BC) viewed abortion as a method of family planning. In contrast, the Pythagorean school opposed abortion entirely, believing that the human soul entered the body at fertilization, thus classifying abortion as murder. Similarly, the Hippocratic Oath (460–370 BC) explicitly prohibited physicians from providing pessaries to induce miscarriage. > “I will use those therapeutic regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and **judgmen**t, and I will do no harm or injustice to them; neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course; similarly **I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion**.” *Hippocratic Oath* However, the authenticity of this prohibition has been debated, with some scholars suggesting that it was a later addition influenced by Pythagorean philosophy. These researchers highlight that Hippocrates himself may not have viewed the fetus as possessing life or a soul at conception, but rather only after 40 days for a male fetus and 90 days for a female fetus. ![A bust of Hippocrates, the Ancient Greek father of Medicine](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-bust-of-Hippocrates--the-Ancient-Greek-father-of-Medicine.jpg) A bust of Hippocrates, the Ancient Greek father of Medicine. Credits: Marinos Karafyllidis, by Canva ### Abortion in Ancient Roman Society: Law, Medicine, and Religion In ancient [Rome,](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) the fetus was not regarded as a living human, and abortion was therefore not classified as a criminal act. A husband could legally permit his wife to terminate her pregnancy; however, if she had an abortion without her husband's consent, he possessed the legal right either to punish or divorce her. Abortion in Roman society appears primarily motivated by social and economic considerations, and some scholars even recognized it as a legitimate medical practice. For example, the physician Soranus, active in the 2nd century AD, recommended abortion when pregnancy posed a medical risk, such as when the uterus was underdeveloped, affected by irregular swellings, or compromised by other medical complications. Although strongly opposed by early Christian leaders—including Tertullian (155–222 AD), Cyprian (200–258 AD), and Saint Basil (320–379 AD)—abortion remained common practice until around 374 AD. The Christian opposition solidified in the Council of Ancyra in 314 AD, where church authorities decreed a ten-year penitential period for women who underwent abortion. (*An investigation into the ancient abortion laws: Comparing ancient Persia with ancient Greece and Rome, by Hassan Yarmohammadi, Arman Zargaran, Azade Vatanpour, Ehsan Abedini*) ### Contraceptive Practices in Ancient Greece and Rome Ancient Greek and Roman societies employed various contraceptive methods, reflecting practical approaches to reproductive control. Prominent among these was the use of silphium, whose seeds were ingested orally or used vaginally through wool soaked in its juice to prevent pregnancy. Another popular contraceptive recommended by the Roman physician Soranus involved [olive oil](https://romanempiretimes.com/olive-oil-in-the-roman-empire-how-the-romans-discovered-the-liquid-gold/), either alone or combined with [honey](https://romanempiretimes.com/mad-honey-warfare-how-king-mithridates-poisoned-pompeys-legions/), cedar resin, balsam tree juice, or white lead, which acted as a primitive spermicide by impeding sperm mobility. Juniper berries, when crushed and applied to the genital area, were believed to reduce fertility by obstructing implantation. Some unconventional methods included the induction of sneezing immediately after intercourse, theorized to expel semen and thus prevent pregnancy. These methods demonstrate ancient societies' efforts to manage fertility with resources available in their environment, even though their effectiveness was uncertain and occasionally hazardous. (*A Literature Review on Reckless and Hazardous Contraceptive Practices used since Primeval Times, by Bhumika Chauhan & Monica Misra*) ![A possible representation of a Roman woman sneezing right after intercourse with her husband, to prevent pregnancy as some ancient remedies suggested](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-possible-representation-of-a-Roman-woman-sneezing-right-after-intercourse-with-her-husband--to-prevent-pregnancy-as-some-ancient-remedies-suggested.jpg) A possible representation of a Roman woman sneezing right after intercourse with her husband, to prevent pregnancy as some ancient remedies suggested. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### Silphium: The Lost(?) Treasure of Greek and Roman Medicine and Cuisine Silphium was an herbaceous plant greatly esteemed in ancient Greek and Roman societies for its medicinal and culinary properties. Native solely to Cyrene (modern-day Libya), silphium became a significant economic asset, prominently depicted on local currency due to its immense value. The ancient Greek botanist Theophrastus provided one of the earliest and most comprehensive descriptions, noting its thick root, celery-like leaves called *maspeton*, and leaf-like seeds termed *phyllon*. He emphasized its two distinct juices, collected separately from the root and stalk, widely used for medicinal purposes. Dioscorides, the prominent pharmacologist, mentioned its healing properties extensively, including its effectiveness for bruises, tumors, toothaches, and as an antidote against various poisons. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-closeup-of-the-Ferula-communis--a-plant-family-rumoured-to-be-the--extinct-Silphium.jpg) ## Hippocrates frequently cited silphium as a remedy for respiratory diseases, digestive problems, and as an abortifacient, underscoring its medical significance. **A closeup of the Ferula communis, a plant family rumoured to be the extinct Silphium. Credits: Sarah Gregg, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0* Galen also discussed silphium, emphasizing its warming properties, and its effectiveness in treating conditions such as sciatica, dental pain, and even animal bites. In Roman literature, [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-the-author-of-the-worlds-first-encyclopaedia-was-roman/) noted silphium’s broad medicinal applications, such as treatments for inflammation, wounds, and as an emmenagogue. The culinary significance of silphium is documented by Athenaeus and Apicius; both Greek and Roman cuisines heavily relied on the plant as a flavorful seasoning, typically combined with vinegar, honey, or olive oil. Athenaeus provided culinary insights from earlier Greek writers, while Apicius included numerous recipes featuring silphium, reflecting its integral role in [ancient cooking](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-did-the-ancient-romans-eat-the-rich-tapestry-of-ancient-roman-gastronomy/). Despite its considerable cultural and economic importance, silphium mysteriously vanished from the historical record, likely due to overharvesting and ecological changes, leaving its identity and true properties as subjects of enduring historical curiosity. Some scholars have recently rediscovered traces of the legendary plant, which is believed to be not lost, but naturally migrated into other areas. (*The Silphium Plant: Analysis Of Ancient Sources, by Valentina Asciutti*) ![An ancient coin depicting a silphium plant from Cyrene](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/An-ancient-coin-depicting-a-silphium-plant-from--Cyrene.jpg) An ancient coin depicting a silphium plant from Cyrene. Credits: International Numismatic Club, CC BY-SA 4.0, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### Ancient Roman Birth Control and Abortion: Herbal Remedies, Pessaries, and Folk Practices Silphium was so valuable that the Cyrenian settlers who discovered it became renowned and amassed great wealth. The demand for silphium was so high that its image was stamped onto Cyrenian coins, sometimes accompanied by a depiction of a woman beside the plant. One notable coin even features a seated woman reaching toward the plant while gesturing toward her reproductive organs (*we have to note that a few scholars argue this is a misinterpretation of the coin; it could well be the Goddess Cyrene, and the plant*). Soranus of [Ephesus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), a Greek physician from the 1st or 2nd century CE, recorded that consuming “Cyrenaic balm” could stimulate menstruation. He prescribed an amount equivalent to a chickpea mixed with water. While the precise method of consumption is unclear, it was likely crushed and ingested with [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/) or [water](https://romanempiretimes.com/romans-consumed-250-gallons-of-water-per-person-daily-why-is-this-important-for-modern-cities/). However, Soranus warned that the plant was not merely a contraceptive but could also terminate an existing pregnancy. His opposition to abortion led him to caution against its use, noting side effects such as stomach distress and congestion of the head. Pliny the Elder, while also discussing silphium’s contraceptive properties, **refrained** from labeling it as an abortifacient. Despite concerns over its use, silphium remained highly sought after. By 93 BCE, thirty pounds were imported to Rome. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-possible-representation-of-Emperor-Nero-receiving-the-last-stalk-of-silphium-in-the-Empire.jpg) ## However, by 54 CE, Pliny reported that only a single stalk remained, which was sent to Emperor [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) as a rarity. **A possible representation of Emperor Nero receiving the last stalk of silphium in the Empire. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney* Knowledge of silphium persisted into late antiquity. A gynecological text from the 3rd or 4th century CE, *On the Diseases and Cures of Women*, written by a woman who either assumed the identity of Cleopatra VII or a physician in her court, included silphium in a formula guaranteeing immediate abortion. The recipe combined bull bile, pepper, rue, asphaltum, and silphium; if the plant was extinct by then, the author may have relied on earlier sources or documented a long-lost Egyptian method. If the plant’s extinction was misreported, then we have evidence the plant actually survived. Another herb frequently employed for contraception was pennyroyal, known in antiquity as Glechium. Dioscorides wrote that when consumed, it could induce menstruation. Galen, the renowned Greek physician, similarly classified it as an emmenagogue, a substance that stimulates menstrual flow. On the Diseases and Cures of Women also recommended combining pennyroyal with wine for its abortive effects. Its widespread recognition is evident in Aristophanes’ plays—Hermes humorously reassures a character that pregnancy will be avoided with a “*dose of pennyroyal*.” Another jest in Lysistrata describes a woman as “*spruced with pennyroyal*,” implying that she was not pregnant, a reference that would have been well understood by the audience. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-typical-sample-of-the-Pennyroyal-plant.jpg) ## Although commonly used, pennyroyal was highly toxic, capable of causing liver and kidney failure, yet ancient sources make no mention of its dangers. **A typical sample of the Pennyroyal plant. Credits: Katya, CC BY-SA 2.0* Balm of Gilead, so named for its origin in the Gilead region, was another botanical remedy. Dioscorides described it as an abortifacient that could also expel afterbirth, while Soranus suggested that applying its juice to the cervix could prevent conception. Pliny, despite documenting its high value—reportedly twice its weight in silver—made no reference to its medicinal applications. Sage, though widely used today, differed in antiquity. Pliny identified it as a type of wild lentil with emmenagogue properties, noting that when applied externally, it could expel a dead fetus. Dioscorides similarly recorded that a decoction of its leaves could stimulate menstrual flow and function as an abortifacient. Unlike his usual neutral descriptions, he condemned the practice, stating that the most immoral women applied it as a pessary for abortion. The squirting cucumber, *Ecballium elaterium*, was another potent abortifacient. Dioscorides stated that when used as a pessary, it could induce menstruation and pregnancy termination. Pliny acknowledged its ability to provoke menstrual discharge but cautioned that it could also cause miscarriage. Hippocrates, in [*De Mulierum Affectibus*](https://amzn.to/4bxVvWX?ref=romanempiretimes.com), identified it as the most effective abortive pessary, making him one of the few ancient physicians to express a preference among such remedies. Another well-documented contraceptive and abortifacient was *Daucus carota*, commonly known today as Queen Anne’s Lace. Dioscorides detailed that its seeds could induce menstruation when ingested or used as a pessary. Pliny also referenced it but only briefly. Its use persisted beyond antiquity—medieval Latin texts such as the [*Antidotarium Nicolai*](https://amzn.to/3FAYl1q?ref=romanempiretimes.com)contained recipes for abortifacients featuring Queen Anne’s Lace, along with pennyroyal and birthwort. Interestingly, these medieval formulations often avoided direct reference to abortion, instead claiming to “expel a dead fetus” or regulate menstruation. Birthwort (*Aristolochia clematitis*), mentioned in [*De Materia Medica*](https://amzn.to/4bEJ1Nk?ref=romanempiretimes.com), was another plant known for its dual nature. Dioscorides identified it as an abortifacient when consumed with pepper and myrrh or used as a pessary. However, Pliny recorded a related variety, *aristolochia plistolochia*, which was thought to promote pregnancy rather than prevent it. He believed that when applied immediately after conception, it could ensure the birth of a male child, suggesting confusion in identifying the correct species for different uses. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/The-Ecballium-exploding-cucumber-plant--close-up.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/Close-up-of-the-balm-of-gilead-flower-on-the-way.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/The-sage-plant--close-up.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-closeup-of-an-open-Daucus-Carota-Flower.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-closeup-of-the-common-birthwort.jpg) 🏛️ Some of the typical plants used in Ancient Rome for contraception, or abortion practices: ****Photo #1**: The Ecballium exploding cucumber plant, close up. **Credits: Lazaros Papandreou from Getty Images, by Canva* ****Photo #2**: Close up of the balm of Gilead flower on the way. **Credits: Elosoblues from Getty Images, by Canva* ****Photo #3**: The sage plant, close up. **Credits: pashapixel from Getty Images, by Canva* ****Photo #4**: A closeup of an open Daucus Carota Flower. **Credits: Alain de Maximy, by Canva* ****Photo #5**: A closeup of the common birthwort. **Credits: Nahhan from Getty Images, by Canva* In addition to botanical methods, ancient doctors also prescribed mechanical contraceptives. As aforementioned, Soranus recommended applying old olive oil or honey to the cervix before intercourse, believing it would seal the uterus and prevent conception. Wool was sometimes added to aid clotting. While honey has been studied in modern times for potential contraceptive effects, results have disproven its efficacy. Another method involved inserting wool soaked in a mixture of white lead and cedar or balsam sap into the cervix. This was likely ineffective as a barrier but may have caused infertility due to lead poisoning, which ancient physicians misinterpreted as proof of contraception. Beyond medical approaches, various folk beliefs circulated regarding pregnancy prevention. Soranus advised that women could avoid conception by holding their breath and pulling away before ejaculation, then inducing sneezing and squatting to expel semen. He also suggested drinking something cold before intercourse, claiming it would “*close the orifice of the uterus*” and prevent sperm from entering. Pliny the Elder described a **particularly unusual method**—women were to extract small worms from a hairy spider’s head, tie them to their bodies with deer hide, and expect a year-long contraceptive effect. > \[…\] the "phalangium," is a spider with a hairy body, and a head of enormous size. > > When opened, there are found in it two small worms, they say: These, attached in a piece of deer's skin, before sunrise, to a woman's body, will prevent conception, according to what Cæcilius, in his Commentaries, says. > > This property lasts, however, for a year only; and, indeed, it is the only one of all the anti-conceptives that I feel myself at liberty to mention, in favour of some women whose fecundity, quite teeming with children, stands in need of some such respite. Pliny the Elder, [*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/4bClYTl?ref=romanempiretimes.com) The extensive range of birth control and abortion methods available to Roman women included herbal remedies, pessaries, and folk practices. While medical texts by figures such as Soranus, Dioscorides, Pliny, Galen, and Metrodora lent credibility to these treatments, their safety and efficacy were often questionable. Some methods, like silphium and pennyroyal, were widely accepted despite their toxicity, while others, like lead pessaries, likely caused harm rather than preventing pregnancy. Nevertheless, these ancient solutions provided women with a sense of control over their reproductive health, shaping medical and cultural attitudes toward contraception for centuries to come. (*Controlling their Bodies: Ancient Roman Women and Contraceptives, by Madison Brazan*) ![A Laconian kylix depicting King Arkesilas supervising the all-important silphium trade](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-Laconian-kylix-depicting-King-Arkesilas-supervising-the-all-important-silphium-trade.jpg) A Laconian kylix depicting King Arkesilas supervising the all-important silphium trade. Credits: ArchaiOptix, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### Ovid’s Lament on Abortion: A Lover’s Plea and a Poetic Condemnation Among Ovid’s works, two elegies stand out for addressing a subject rarely found in ancient love poetry: abortion. In the first (2.13), he expresses deep concern for Corinna’s well-being after discovering that she, without informing him, sought to end her pregnancy through unknown means—whether through medicinal intervention or a surgical procedure remains unclear. > “In the foolish attempt to destroy the weight in her belly, Corinna lies exhausted near death. > > For taking such a risk without my knowledge she deserves my anger, but out of fear I forget my anger. > > I was the father, or so I believe; often I take possibilities as facts. > > Isis, ruler of Paraetonium and Canopus' rich fields, Memphis and Pharosrich in palms, and where the broad Nile swiftly pours into the sea through seven mouths, by thy sistrum I pray, by fearful Anubis' face (so may Osiris ever piously love thy rites, so may the snake unambitiously slip past thy gift-horde, and so may horned Apis accompanythy processions) — I pray thee, turn thy face to us and in one woman spare us both, for thou shalt give her life, and she to me. > > Often on the appointed days she has dutifully sat where the group of eunuch priests dips thy laurels and thou dost pity girls in labour, whose bodies are distended by the hidden load; be gracious and grant my prayers, Ilythyia, for any girl thou biddest deserves thy munificence. > > I myself shall dress in white and offer incense until thine altars smoke, I shall lay the promised gifts at thy feet; I shall add an inscription, OVID GIVES THANKS FOR CORINNA'S LIFE, do thou but justify those gifts and that inscription. > > If advice, Corinna, is appropriate in such an emergency, let this be an end of such combat.” The second poem delivers a scathing critique of abortion itself. Ovid denounces the act in striking terms, stating that the woman who first devised the means to destroy an unborn child deserved to perish by the same violent practice: > "Quae prima instituit teneros convellere fetus, / militia fuerat digna perire sua." His argument follows a logical extension—if a mother had made the same decision, her child would never have come into existence. He reinforces this idea with powerful imagery, warning that had Venus harmed Aeneas in her womb, the lineage of the Caesars would have been erased from history: > "If llia had killed the twins in her womb all swollen \[i.e. Romulus and Remus\] the future founder of our city would himself have fallen. > > If pregnant Venus had violated Aeneas in her womb, the future world would have been without the Caesars. > > You too, with all your beauty, though you might have been born, you would have died if your mother had tried what you have." Ovid’s words convey both personal anguish and a broader condemnation of abortion’s consequences, leaving his readers with a poetic reflection on life, legacy, and fate. ![A possible representation of the Roman poet Ovid, caressing his pregnant wife’s belly, almost ready to bring their daughter to life](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-possible-representation-of-the-Roman-poet-Ovid--caressing-his-pregnant-wife-s-belly--almost-ready-to-bring-their-daughter-to-life.jpg) A possible representation of the Roman poet Ovid, caressing his pregnant wife’s belly, almost ready to bring their daughter to life. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney In his poetry, Ovid recounted failed abortion attempts, while Procopius described how Empress Theodora unsuccessfully tried to abort a late-term pregnancy. These accounts suggest that, while abortion was attempted, it was far from guaranteed to work, particularly in more advanced pregnancies. > "Why defraud the heavy vine of its ripening grapes, or heartlessly tear unripe fruit from the tree? Ripeness will come about naturally; let things grow, once conceived. > > Life is well worth a little waiting. > > Why excavate your bellies by driving in a needle? Why give lethal poison to the unborn? > > Men find fault with Medea, stained with her children's blood, and they complain of Itys whom his own mother killed. > > Both women were cruel mothers, no doubt, but driven by drastic motives to wreak vengeance on their husbands by destroying their blood-kin. > > What Tereus, what Jason drives you to pierce your bodies in distraction? Even tigresses in Armenian forests have never done this, and no lioness ever presumed to destroy her litter. > > But young women do, though not with impunity, for often the girl who kills her own in her womb dies herself and is carried out to the pyre, her hair dishevelled, and the people call out, as they catch sight, 'Quite right, too !' > > But may my words vanish in the breeze, and these words of omen count for nought. O ye gods, allow us safely to transgress once, and it is enough: let the second trespass bring the penalty." Ovid, [*Amores*](https://amzn.to/4ipPWMq?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ### Ovid’s Eternal Verses: The Roman Poet of Love, Myth, and Exile URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/ovid-eternal-verses-the-roman-poet-of-love-myth-and-exile/ Last updated: 2025-03-16T17:26:12.000Z Ovid’s works range from the sweeping transformations of [*Metamorphoses*](https://amzn.to/3Rgi7la?ref=romanempiretimes.com) to the playful seduction of [*Ars Amatoria*](https://amzn.to/3XOEUrZ?ref=romanempiretimes.com) and the mournful reflections of [*Tristia*](https://amzn.to/4kSaaQU?ref=romanempiretimes.com). His verses, both elegant and subversive, secured his place as one of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s most celebrated yet controversial [poets](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/). Yet, Ovid’s life was as dramatic as his poetry—marked by imperial favor, sudden disgrace, and a mysterious exile that has puzzled scholars for centuries. What was it about his poetry that resonated so deeply with his contemporaries and continues to inspire readers today? ### The Poet Who Defied Time Ovid ends his Metamorphoses with a bold proclamation of his poetic immortality: > "Which neither the wrath of Jupiter nor fire nor sword nor devouring time will be able to destroy." Although his body would perish, his poetry, he asserts, would endure: > "Wherever Roman power extends over conquered lands, I will be read by the lips of the people, and—if there is any truth to the prophecies of poets—I will live for all ages through my fame." Ovid's prediction has surpassed even his own expectations. While he imagined his literary fame persisting within the boundaries of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), his works have outlived both [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/beauty-in-ancient-rome/)’s political power and the Latin language itself. Today, his poetry is read worldwide, in places he never knew existed and in languages that did not yet exist in his time. In recent decades, Ovid’s popularity has seen a resurgence, leading scholars to speak of a new *aetas Ovidiana,* a term first used by Ludwig Traube (*a German medievalist and palaeographer, often regarded as one of the most important scholars in the study of Latin manuscripts from the Middle Ages, instrumental in advancing the field of medieval Latin philology and manuscript studies, particularly through his work on Carolingian script and textual transmission; he coined the term aetas Ovidiana to describe the 12th and 13th centuries, a period when Ovid’s works were widely studied, imitated, and incorporated into medieval education and literary culture, and his research contributed significantly to understanding how classical texts, including Ovid’s, were preserved and reshaped in the medieval world*) – to describe the 12th and 13th centuries when Ovid was widely studied and imitated. His influence is evident not only in academia, where his works remain central to Latin instruction, but also in popular culture. Notable examples include Ted Hughes’ [*Tales from Ovid*](https://amzn.to/4i7OkY1?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (1997), Mary Zimmerman’s Broadway play *Metamorphoses* (2002), and a wave of modern novels inspired by his themes. Ovid's enduring appeal stems from several factors. His verse, praised for its classical beauty, is accessible even to students new to Latin. His themes—love, myth, transformation—remain universally engaging, and his playful, witty style makes his poetry captivating. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-statue-of-Ovidius--in-the-historic-centre-of-Constanta--Romania.jpg) ## Furthermore, his exile under mysterious circumstances continues to spark fascination and sympathy. **A statue of Ovidius, in the historic centre of Constanta, Romania. Credits: bdmundo, CC BY-SA 2.0* Perhaps most strikingly, Ovid resonates with modern readers because of his seemingly postmodern sensibilities. His works exhibit skepticism toward grand narratives, an interest in linguistic structures over objective reality, and an ironic, self-referential style—qualities that align with contemporary literature and media. His prophecy of poetic immortality is a prime example of this playful self-awareness. Like a modern filmmaker who embeds references to earlier works, Ovid alludes to literary predecessors such as Horace, who claimed to have created a “*work more durable than bronze*”, and Ennius, who declared he would “*fly, alive, through the lips of men*.” By echoing these claims, Ovid both participates in and subverts the tradition of poetic self-immortalization. Even more strikingly, his assertion— “*I will be read by the lips of the people*”—is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Every time a reader speaks his words, Ovid’s voice lives on. In this way, his poetry remains, as he foretold, beyond the reach of time. ![A painting by Adam Elsheimer titled Ceres at Hecuba's home, inspired by Ovid’s Metamorphoses](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-painting-by-Adam-Elsheimer-titled-Ceres-at-Hecuba-s-home--inspired-by-Ovid-s-Metamorphoses.jpg) A painting by Adam Elsheimer titled Ceres at Hecuba's home, inspired by Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Credits: Museo National de Prado, Public domain ### A Poet in Three Phases Publius Ovidius Naso was born in 43 BCE in Sulmo (modern Sulmona, Italy) and spent most of his adult life in Rome. In 8 CE, [Emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/the-year-of-the-four-emperors/) [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) exiled him to Tomis (present-day Constanța, Romania), a remote town on the Black Sea, where he remained until his death in 17 or 18 CE. While further details of his life will be explored separately, these key dates provide a chronological framework for understanding his literary career. Dating Ovid’s poetry is notoriously challenging. Broadly speaking, his works can be categorized into three main phases: 1. The first spans approximately 25 years, from the mid-20s BCE to around 2 CE, during which he produced several poetry collections in elegiac meter, all centered around the **theme of love**. 2. The second phase, from 2 to 8 CE, saw Ovid working on his two longest poems: the epic Metamorphoses and the elegiac [*Fasti*](https://amzn.to/4btPVEV?ref=romanempiretimes.com). 3. His final period consists of the poetry he composed in exile, including *Tristia*, [*Epistulae ex Ponto*](https://amzn.to/3Fui82m?ref=romanempiretimes.com), and the curse poem [*Ibis*](https://amzn.to/4bygrNq?ref=romanempiretimes.com), all written in elegiac meter. These phases, however, are not strictly separate. It is likely that Ovid began work on Metamorphoses and Fastibefore 2 CE, and he is known to have revised Fasti while in exile. Additionally, some of his works have been lost, most notably his tragedy *Medea*, while others attributed to him are considered spurious by modern scholars. ([*Ovid*](https://amzn.to/4iTzt38?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Katharina Volk*) ![A painting possibly inspired by Ovid’s Metamorphoses, depicting Hippolytus as he falls to his death from his chariot, from the exhibition “Ovid — Love, Myths and Other Stories”](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-painting-possibly-inspired-by-Ovid-s-Metamorphoses--depicting-Hippolytus-as-he-falls-to-his-death-from-his-chariot--from-the-exhibition--Ovid---Love--Myths-and-Other-Stories-.jpg) A painting possibly inspired by Ovid’s Metamorphoses, depicting Hippolytus as he falls to his death from his chariot, from the exhibition “Ovid — Love, Myths and Other Stories”. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ### Ovid and Empire: Politics, Power, and Poetics in Augustan Rome Ovid’s poetry is often examined through the lens of its relationship to [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/), but this approach, oversimplifies its political dimensions. Unlike his predecessors—Virgil, Horace, and Propertius—who engaged with Rome’s transition from Republic to [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/), Ovid came of age under a stable principate and thus shaped his poetic concerns around imperial expansion and its cultural consequences. His poetry is neither explicitly pro- nor anti-Augustan, but rather reflects the broader ideological shifts of his time, particularly how authority, identity, and empire were constructed through literature. ### Love and Conquest: Imperial Themes in the Amores Ovid’s [*Amores*](https://amzn.to/3DSF8HS?ref=romanempiretimes.com) is not just an exploration of love but also a commentary on power and subjugation. The opening poem portrays the poet as a would-be epic writer conquered by Cupid’s arrows, which he describes as an “*illegitimate extension of jurisdiction*”—a metaphor for imperial expansion. This submission is further dramatized in Amores 1.2, where Ovid imagines himself as a prisoner in Cupid’s triumph, carried as "spoils", paralleling Rome’s military parades. He appeals for clemency much like a conquered general would before [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/), linking erotic submission to imperial conquest. These metaphors extend into Amores 1.3, where Ovid’s pursuit of a lover is structured as an exchange akin to Rome’s extraction of resources from its provinces. The poet promises poetic immortality to his beloved— “*we too will be sung throughout the world*”—but the mythological examples he invokes, such as Io and Europa, highlight themes of abduction rather than mutual devotion. Ovid thus intertwines personal and political domination, subtly questioning the ethics of empire while embedding his poetry within its framework. Later poems in the Amores continue this imperial imagery. In Amores 1.14, Ovid mocks his lover’s German wigs: > “Now Germany will send to you its captive hair, your appearance will be rescued thanks to the gift of a triumphed-over race” Similarly, Amores 3.8 portrays a wealthy rival whose riches derive from wounds and bloodshed, linking financial success to Rome’s military campaigns: > “Look—a new rich man, his wealth won through wounds”. These references to empire in seemingly personal poetry suggest that Ovid’s love elegy is not apolitical but deeply enmeshed in the structures of Augustan Rome. ![A fresco possibly inspired by Ovid, depicting a nymph surprised by a satyr, from the exhibition “Ovid — Love, Myths and Other Stories”](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-fresco-possibly-inspired-by-Ovid--depicting-a-nymph-surprised-by-a-satyr--from-the-exhibition--Ovid---Love--Myths-and-Other-Stories-.jpg) A fresco possibly inspired by Ovid, depicting a nymph surprised by a satyr, from the exhibition “Ovid — Love, Myths and Other Stories”. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ### Imperial Expansion and the Metamorphoses The Metamorphoses is often described as a poem of ceaseless transformation, but this misrepresents its underlying logic. Ovid’s transformations are not reversible; once Daphne becomes a laurel, or [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/) ascends to the heavens, their new forms are final. As one scholar puts it, “*The important thing in tales of evolution remains their ending.*” This mirrors the ideological function of the Metamorphoses, which constructs a universal history culminating in Rome’s supremacy. The council of the gods in Metamorphoses 1 subtly evokes the [Roman Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/), with Jupiter presiding like Augustus. His justification for destroying humanity— > “Those demigods, those rustic presences, nymphs, fauns, and satyrs…should have some place to live in peace and safety” —echoes Roman imperial rhetoric, where expansion is framed as protection for the vulnerable. Yet Jupiter’s actions also align with Rome’s foreign policy, in which entire populations were annihilated under the guise of security. Moreover, Ovid’s narrative structure mimics the concept of *translatio imperii* (the transfer of empire). Moving from East to West, from Chaos to [Cleopatra](https://romanempiretimes.com/cleopatra-daughter-selene-ii-the-last-echo-of-a-dynasty/), the Metamorphoses legitimizes [Rome’s dominance](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-roman-empire-a-brief-history/) as the culmination of history. Its final lines proclaim both Ovid’s literary immortality and [Rome’s global supremacy](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/): > “My name will be indelible… where Roman power lies open because the lands have been conquered” The phrase *patet* (to lie open) suggests not just expansion but unchallenged mastery. Rome’s empire, like Ovid’s poetry, is presented as both eternal and inevitable. ![A painting by Rubens, depicting Pluto taking Proserpina, inspired by Ovid’s Metamorphoses](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-painting-by-Rubens--depicting-Pluto-taking-Proserpina--inspired-by-Ovid-s-Metamorphoses.jpg) A painting by Rubens, depicting Pluto taking Proserpina, inspired by Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Credits: Muzeo, Public domain ### The Fasti and Cultural Imperialism The Fasti, Ovid’s poetic calendar of [Roman religious festivals](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/), also reflects imperial ideology. While ostensibly focused on timekeeping, it weaves Augustan authority into its very structure. Ovid repeatedly claims he is "hailed" by the calendar to narrate events—“the occasion itself demands”, “now I am bidden” —aligning poetic duty with state ritual. He contrasts [Romulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-and-remus-the-legendary-founders-of-rome/), a figure of violence, with Numa, the lawgiver, subtly positioning Augustus as the ideal ruler who consolidates and sanctifies power rather than simply seizing it. Moreover, the Fasti does not begin in March, the traditional start of the Roman military year, but in January, aligning with the political calendar. This decision shifts focus from military conquest to cultural hegemony, reinforcing Augustus’ vision of Rome’s destiny not just as a military power but as a civilizing force. ### Exile and the Body as a Political Symbol Ovid’s exile poetry transforms imperial themes into personal suffering. His banishment forced him to confront the reality of Rome’s periphery, which he had previously only imagined. The poet describes himself in a barren land where his creativity is stifled: > “I plant my seed in sterile soil, > Tilling a dry shore with a sterile plough.” Even his books, sent from exile, are like sickly children “*contaminated by their surroundings.*” Ovid, once the celebrant of Rome’s triumphs, now experiences subjugation firsthand. His final poem presents him as a defeated gladiator: > “I no longer have room for blows.” The poet who once described love as conquest now finds himself conquered, his suffering mirroring the fate of those subdued by Rome. Yet even in despair, Ovid claims literary immortality, ensuring that his voice—like Rome’s empire—will persist. (*Ovid and empire, by Thomas* ![A frontispiece depicting Ovid, by Choffard and engraved by Hinchcliffe](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-frontispiece-depicting-Ovid--by-Choffard-and-engraved-by-Hinchcliffe.jpg) A frontispiece depicting Ovid, by Choffard and engraved by Hinchcliffe. Public domain ## An Expert Analysis of Ovid’s Most Famous Poems and Styles Katharina Volk, in her extensive work recorded in the book “[*Ovid*](https://amzn.to/4bZeUjB?ref=romanempiretimes.com)”, expertly analyses the poet’s different styles and expressions. Ovid’s love poetry is diverse in both form and tone, ranging from playful and subversive to instructive and philosophical. ### Ovid’s Love Poetry His Amores, Heroides, Ars Amatoria, Remedia Amoris, and Medicamina Faciei Femineae represent different facets of his exploration of love, desire, and relationships, often blending traditional Roman elegy with his own unique wit and narrative innovation. [***Amores**](https://amzn.to/41DotjI?ref=romanempiretimes.com) **("Loves")** The *Amores* is a collection of elegiac love poems in three books, centered on the poet’s fictional relationship with a woman named Corinna. Originally composed in five books, Ovid later revised and condensed the work into its final form, humorously suggesting that the shorter edition would be less exhausting for readers. Dating the Amores remains difficult, but references to historical events suggest that Ovid worked on the collection intermittently over a span of nearly 25 years. As the last great work of Roman love elegy, the Amores not only adheres to genre conventions—depicting the poet-lover’s emotional struggles, jealousy, and romantic exploits—but also playfully deconstructs them, emphasizing the artificiality of the elegiac world. Ovid expands the genre’s scope by including less romantic themes such as impotence and abortion, setting the stage for his more experimental approaches to love poetry. [***Heroides**](https://amzn.to/41DotjI?ref=romanempiretimes.com) **("Heroines")** In the *Heroides*, Ovid innovates by adopting the voices of mythological women—such as Penelope, Dido, and Medea—who write lamenting letters to their absent or unfaithful lovers. These fictional epistles, composed in elegiac meter, explore themes of longing, betrayal, and resilience from a female perspective. The collection includes fifteen single letters and six paired exchanges between mythological lovers, possibly inspired by the now-lost responses written by Ovid’s friend Sabinus. While some letters, including one attributed to the poet Sappho, have been questioned in terms of authenticity, the Heroides remains a fascinating exercise in literary role-playing and psychological depth. ![A fresco possibly inspired by Ovid’s Heroides, depicting Ariadne in Naxos, from the exhibition “Ovid — Love, Myths and Other Stories”](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-fresco-possibly-inspired-by-Ovid-s-Heroides--depicting-Ariadne-in-Naxos--from-the-exhibition--Ovid---Love--Myths-and-Other-Stories-.jpg) A fresco possibly inspired by Ovid’s Heroides, depicting Ariadne in Naxos, from the exhibition “Ovid — Love, Myths and Other Stories”. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 [***Medicamina Faciei Femineae**](https://amzn.to/4i7cwtB?ref=romanempiretimes.com) **("Cosmetics for the Female Face")** A fragmentary work, *Medicamina Faciei Femineae* marks Ovid’s transition into didactic poetry. Written in elegiac couplets rather than the usual hexameter of instructional works, the poem offers a blend of beauty advice and poetic wit. Its surviving lines celebrate cultus—both as physical refinement and as a broader cultural sophistication—before launching into recipes for skin treatments and facial creams. The poem predates Ars Amatoria and aligns with Ovid’s playful engagement with didactic traditions. [***Ars Amatoria**](https://amzn.to/4i7cwtB?ref=romanempiretimes.com) **("The Art of Love")** Perhaps Ovid’s most infamous work, *Ars Amatoria* is a three-book didactic poem that teaches the art of love. The first two books provide guidance for Roman men on how to find, seduce, and maintain relationships with women, offering practical advice on everything from pick-up locations to gift-giving and letter-writing. The third book, written for [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/), instructs them on how to present themselves and win over men while subtly equipping them with strategies for maintaining control. Ovid’s work humorously challenges traditional Roman morals by treating love as a skill to be mastered rather than a divine force or personal fate. Ars Amatoria is one of the few Ovidian works with precise historical references, dating it to 2–1 BCE. It was controversial in its time and likely contributed to Ovid’s later exile, as its irreverent approach to relationships clashed with Augustus’ moral reforms. ![A fresco possibly inspired by Ovid’s Metamorphoses, depicting a passionate kiss of love from the cyclops Polyphemus to his beloved Galatea, from the exhibition “Ovid — Love, Myths and Other Stories”](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-fresco-possibly-inspired-by-Ovid-s-Metamorphoses--depicting-a-passionate-kiss-of-love-from-the-cyclops-Polyphemus-to-his-beloved-Galatea--from-the-exhibition--Ovid---Love--Myths-and-Other-Stories--1.jpg) A fresco possibly inspired by Ovid’s Metamorphoses, depicting a passionate kiss of love from the cyclops Polyphemus to his beloved Galatea, from the exhibition “Ovid — Love, Myths and Other Stories”. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 [***Remedia Amoris**](https://amzn.to/4i7cwtB?ref=romanempiretimes.com) **("Remedies for Love")** In Remedia Amoris, Ovid takes an unexpected turn, offering guidance on how to overcome love rather than pursue it. He presents himself as a physician treating the “disease” of love, advising the afflicted to avoid emotional entanglements, seek distractions, and, if necessary, end relationships cleanly. While humorous, the poem’s practical wisdom aligns with philosophical ideas on emotional self-control. Written around 2 CE, Remedia Amoris serves as a fitting conclusion to Ovid’s exploration of love, reversing the teachings of Ars Amatoria and reinforcing the poet’s ability to playfully subvert expectations. ### Ovid’s Long Poems: Myth, History, and the Art of Transformation [***Metamorphoses**](https://amzn.to/3Rb5GXR?ref=romanempiretimes.com) **("Transformations")** Ovid’s Metamorphoses marks a dramatic shift from his earlier love elegies, presenting instead a grand, 15-book epic in hexameter. As he declares in the proem, the poem’s theme is “*shapes changed into new bodies*”, tracing transformations from the creation of the world to his own time: > “From the first beginning of the world to my own times.” Drawing on Greek sources such as Nicander’s *Heteroioumena*, Ovid’s work surpasses previous catalogues of transformations, incorporating around 250 myths and weaving them into a continuous narrative. Structurally, the Metamorphoses moves through three major thematic sections: the exploits of gods, the adventures of heroes, and the deeds of mortals. Ovid’s challenge lay in linking so many individual tales into a coherent whole, a feat he accomplished through skillful transitions, varying narrative lengths, and embedding stories within stories. While not every episode involves a literal metamorphosis, transformation remains the poem’s central theme. In many cases, the change reflects a character’s true nature—such as Lycaon’s transformation into a wolf—demonstrating Ovid’s idea that metamorphosis is “*but metaphor turned real*.” The final speech of Pythagoras in Book 15 encapsulates this theme, emphasizing the world’s continuous flux: > “Nothing retains its shape.” Deeply intertextual, Metamorphoses engages with a broad range of literary predecessors, from Homeric epic and [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) tragedy to Hellenistic poetry. Ovid also reinterprets Virgil’s Aeneid, producing what some scholars consider an "anti-Virgilian" epic. Despite Ovid’s claim in exile that he had burned his unfinished manuscript, he wryly acknowledges, > “I guess it existed in numerous copies.” This tongue-in-cheek remark mirrors Virgil’s legendary desire to destroy the Aeneid, aligning Ovid with Rome’s greatest epic poet. Regardless of any final revisions in exile, the Metamorphoses survives as one of antiquity’s most influential texts, shaping literature, art, and mythology for centuries. ![A fresco possibly inspired by Ovid’s Metamorphoses, depicting Narcissus and Cupid, as the former gazes at his form in the water, from the exhibition “Ovid — Love, Myths and Other Stories”](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-fresco-possibly-inspired-by-Ovid-s-Metamorphoses--depicting-Narcissus-and-Cupid--as-the-former-gazes-at-his-form-in-the-water--from-the-exhibition--Ovid---Love--Myths-and-Other-Stories-.jpg) A fresco possibly inspired by Ovid’s Metamorphoses, depicting Narcissus and Cupid, as the former gazes at his form in the water, from the exhibition “Ovid — Love, Myths and Other Stories”. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 [***Fasti**](https://amzn.to/3RaF2hU?ref=romanempiretimes.com) **("The Roman Calendar")** The Fasti, Ovid’s poetic exploration of the Roman calendar, differs significantly from Metamorphoses in both style and scope. Written in elegiac meter rather than epic hexameter, it was intended as a twelve-book work, one book per month, but only six books—January through June—survive. Unlike the Metamorphoses, which appears complete, the missing half of the Fasti may never have existed. Although Ovid claimed in exile that he had written twelve books: > “I wrote twelve books of this work,” There is no evidence of the second half’s survival, leading scholars to debate whether it was lost or simply never completed. Revisions made during Ovid’s exile are evident, particularly in Book 4, where he explicitly references his banishment: > “How far away from Sulmo I am.” Originally dedicated to Augustus, the poem’s proem was later altered to address Germanicus, reflecting the changed political landscape after Augustus’ death in 14 CE. The Fasti follows a month-by-month structure, discussing [Roman religious festivals](https://romanempiretimes.com/saturnalia-the-roman-festival-that-inspired-the-spirit-of-christmas/), historical anniversaries, and [astronomical events](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-astronomy-how-did-romans-see-the-planets/). Some days receive only brief mentions, while others prompt lengthy mythological or historical narratives. Inspired by Callimachus' Aetia, which explored the origins of Greek customs, Ovid adopts a similar approach, positioning himself as an inquisitive poet investigating Rome’s sacred traditions. He engages with a variety of sources, from gods and Muses to [everyday Romans](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/), yet often presents conflicting explanations, highlighting the ambiguity of historical and religious origins. Ovid’s wit is particularly evident in the proems to Books 5 and 6, where he humorously depicts the Muses arguing over the etymology of May and goddesses nearly coming to blows over the meaning of June. In this way, the Fasti is more than a poetic calendar—it is a meditation on the nature of knowledge, tradition, and poetic inquiry. Despite its incomplete state, the work remains a **vital source** for understanding Roman religious and civic life in the early imperial period. ![The painting by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo called The Empire of Flora, possibly inspired by Ovid’s Fasti](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/The-painting-by-Giovanni-Battista-Tiepolo-called-The-Empire-of-Flora--possibly-inspired-by-Ovid-s-Fasti.jpg) The painting by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo called The Empire of Flora, possibly inspired by Ovid’s Fasti. Credits: The MET, Public domain ### Ovid in Exile: Lament, Longing, and Curses from the Black Sea [***Tristia**](https://amzn.to/4hFVpOe?ref=romanempiretimes.com) **("Sad Poems") and** [***Epistulae ex Ponto**](https://amzn.to/4hFVpOe?ref=romanempiretimes.com) **("Letters from the Black Sea")** Although written at different points during Ovid’s exile, the *Tristia* and *Epistulae ex Ponto* share a common tone and theme, making them best understood together. The Tristia, composed in the early years of exile, consists of five books, while Epistulae ex Ponto, initially published as three books, was later expanded to a fourth book, likely released posthumously. The poems are elegiac in form and largely address friends, family, and influential figures in Rome, pleading for support and intervention. In the Tristia, Ovid refrains from naming his addressees, presumably to protect them, but in the Epistulae ex Ponto, he abandons this caution, making the letters more personal and direct. A central theme in both works is Ovid’s personal account of his exile—his journey from Rome to Tomis and his suffering in a land he portrays as desolate, barbaric, and devoid of culture. He cryptically attributes his banishment to “*a poem and a mistake*,” identifying the Ars Amatoria as the offending poem but remaining vague about the error. **Scholars continue to debate** the true reason behind his exile. Ovid’s depiction of Tomis is one of extreme hardship—an unforgiving climate, constant threats from barbarian tribes, and an utter lack of Roman sophistication. However, scholars have pointed out that ancient Tomis, a Greek colony of Miletus, was likely more civilized than Ovid describes. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/The-painting-of-Eug-ne-Delacroix-depicting-Ovid-at-the-Scythes--during-his-exile-in-the-Parthian-steppes.jpg) ## His exaggerated misery serves both poetic and practical purposes: his goal was to elicit sympathy and, ideally, secure a recall from Augustus. **The painting of Eugène Delacroix depicting Ovid at the Scythes, during his exile in the Parthian steppes. Credits: The AMICA Library, Public domain* Longing for Rome, Ovid vividly reconstructs its topography and major events, such as military triumphs, in his poetry. His strongest emotional ties remain with his wife, who stayed in Rome to protect his interests. He praises her devotion while lamenting their separation and the failure of her efforts to have his exile overturned. Poetry itself is a major theme of Ovid’s exile works. Though his writing led to his downfall, he cannot abandon it, finding solace in verse even as he claims his poetry has changed: > “Since the author is sad, his verse is as well.” Removed from the cultural heart of Rome, without access to libraries or a learned audience, he fears his Latin may deteriorate, symbolizing his sense of cultural alienation. This anxiety culminates in Epistulae ex Ponto 4.13, where he declares that he has composed a poem in Getic: > “I have written in the language of my fellow Tomitans.” For centuries, readers accepted Ovid’s claim that his poetry had declined, leading to the exile poems’ diminished reputation. Modern scholars, however, recognize that the Tristia and Epistulae ex Ponto are as carefully crafted as his earlier works, creating a powerful and stylized narrative of his exile. In the absence of other historical sources, Ovid’s version remains the definitive account of his tragic final years. [***Ibis**](https://amzn.to/43OALbq?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Among Ovid’s exile poetry, Ibis stands apart as a fiercely personal and enigmatic work. Written before 12 CE, this 642-line elegiac curse poem is addressed to an unnamed former friend who, according to Ovid, turned against him in Rome, slandering him and seeking personal gain from his misfortune. **The identity of "Ibis" remains uncertain**, leading some scholars to suggest that the figure is an invented, symbolic enemy rather than a real person. Ovid openly acknowledges his inspiration for the poem, referring to a lost work by Callimachus of the same title: > “Obscure stories” (historiae caecae, 55) The name Ibis itself derives from a bird associated with filth and impurity, fitting the poet’s bitter denunciation of his adversary. The poem unfolds in two sections: a broad curse (1–248) followed by an extended catalog of mythical punishments (249–642), in which Ovid condemns Ibis to suffer the fates of legendary figures. One of the more comprehensible examples is his wish that Ibis share the fate of Pentheus, torn apart by his own family: > “Or, rent apart, may you be scattered in the woods by the hands of your family members, just as at Thebes the snake’s grandson was scattered.” A relentless display of poetic ingenuity, Ibis is a rhetorical and literary tour de force, sustained through Ovid’s unbroken wrath. The poem closes with a warning that unless Ibis changes his ways, even greater curses will follow. While the Tristia and Epistulae ex Ponto offer a melancholic self-portrait of a poet in exile, Ibis showcases Ovid in a different light—unforgiving, vengeful, and wielding his poetic talent as a weapon. Together, these works provide a rich and multifaceted account of his final years, ensuring that even in despair, Ovid remained a **master of his craft**. ### What are The Ides of March and Why are they Important? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/what-are-the-ides-of-march-why-are-they-important/ Last updated: 2025-03-14T02:45:32.000Z The Ides of March, occurring on March 15th, is a date deeply embedded in Roman history and collective memory, primarily due to the assassination of [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) in 44 B.C. This day marked a turning point, symbolizing the end of the Roman Republic and the dawn of the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/). A forewarning of imminent peril was given to Caesar, who had recently been declared *Dictator perpetuo,* ("dictator in perpetuity"), also called *dictator in perpetuum*, and found himself amidst increasing hostility in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/). Although Caesar's fall precipitated the decline of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Empire, the term "Ides of March" is famously linked to its depiction in William Shakespeare's drama "*Julius Caesar*." 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in March 2024\. It was updated in March 2025.* ### Understanding the Roman Calendar Rather than sequentially numbering the days from the beginning to the end of the month, the Romans used a system of counting backwards from three critical points within the month: 1. The Nones - *Nonae* (either the 5th or 7th, depending on the month, and occurring eight days prior to the Ides) 2. The Ides - *Idus* (falling on the 13th for most months but on the 15th for March, May, July, and October) 3. The Kalends - *Kalendae* (which marked the start of the following month) ![Mosaic with the months of the year, starting with the Roman first month March.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/03/Sousse_mosaic_calendar_March.jpg) Mosaic with the months of the year, starting with the Roman first month March. Credits: © Ad Meskens / Wikimedia Commons ### The Significance of the Ides of March The Ides were intended to align with the full moon, underscoring the Roman calendar's lunar origins. March, or *Martius*, served as the **initial month** of the Roman year up until the mid-2nd century BC. This is evident in the names of the months from September to December, which originally aligned as the seventh to tenth months, respectively, but now occupy different positions in the modern Gregorian calendar. In the oldest Roman calendar system, the Ides of March marked the year's first full moon. Positioned as a significant day within the month, the Ides became associated with various monthly obligations, including the due date for debts and rent payments. The month of March, named after Mars, [the god of war](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/), began with celebrations for Mars but the Ides of March were dedicated to Jupiter, the chief deity of the Romans. During the Ides, a specific ritual involving the sacrifice of a sheep, known as the "Ides sheep," by Jupiter's high priest took place. This procession and sacrifice occurred along the Via Sacra to the *arx*. (*Arx is a Latin word meaning "citadel". In the ancient city of Rome, the arx was located on the northern spur of the Capitoline Hill, and is sometimes specified as the Arx Capitolina*.) Despite the introduction of January and February as the first months of the year, March retained its significance with several ceremonies, one being the *Feast of Anna Perenna*. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/Anna-Perenna-silver-denarius-Roman-coin-.jpg) ## Anna Perenna was an old Roman deity of the circle or "ring" of the year, as indicated by the name (**per annum*). **Anna Perenna silver denarius Roman coin. Credits:* **Otto Nickl, CC BY-SA 4.0, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times* This feast marked the conclusion of the new year's celebrations, characterized by public festivities such as picnics, drinking, and general merriment. Additionally, the Ides of March included the Mamuralia - *Sacrum Mamurio* a ritual possibly related to the theme of expelling the old year, symbolized by beating an old man dressed in animal skins. ### The Sources of Caesar’s Final Years: Evidence, Myths, and Political Lessons The final years of [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/)’s life, particularly the two years leading up to his assassination on the Ides of March in 44 BCE, are illuminated through three primary types of evidence. The first and most valuable category consists of contemporary sources. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)’s correspondence provides an extensive firsthand record, though disappointingly sparse for the five months Caesar spent in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/beauty-in-ancient-rome/) before his death. Additional contemporary works include speeches by Cicero, Book 8 of [*De Bello Gallico*](https://amzn.to/421bhX3?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (written posthumously by Aulus Hirtius), and Caesar’s own commentaries on the Civil War. Other documents, such as [Sallust](https://romanempiretimes.com/sallust-details-on-the-historian-of-roman-elite-and-the-republic-decline/)’s [*De Republica Ordinanda*](https://amzn.to/3DsvR9y?ref=romanempiretimes.com) and numismatic evidence, further contribute to our understanding. The second category comprises lost contemporary sources that can be partially reconstructed. These include the *Catones* and *Anticato*, polemical works produced in the wake of Cato’s suicide, as well as slander and propaganda circulated by both Caesar’s assassins and his defenders. Personal recollections, such as those of *Calpurnius Bibulus* regarding his stepfather Brutus, and the writings of hostile figures like *Tanusius Geminus*, reflect the deep political divisions of the time. The third category consists of later historical accounts by authors like Velleius Paterculus, [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/), [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/), Appian, and [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/). These later narratives, though partially based on contemporary evidence, are also influenced by historical imagination and the political contexts of their authors. While often useful, they present the risk of creating a composite and sometimes misleading historical picture. ### The Political Lessons of Caesar’s Murder [Caesar’s assassination](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-shadow-of-the-dagger-assassinations-of-roman-emperors/), while tragic, imparted two key lessons. First, it demonstrated that Republicanism was not yet dead. Caesar had assumed too readily that the Republic was a thing of the past, much as he had mistakenly believed [Gaul to be conquered](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/) in 57 BCE. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/Cameo-of-Octavian--later-Emperor-Augustus.jpg) ## The **coup de grâce* to Republicanism would require further violence, proscriptions, and ultimately, the brutal pragmatism that Caesar’s heir, Octavian, would embrace. **Cameo of Octavian, later Emperor Augustus. Credits: Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0* Second, the assassination underscored that an authoritarian regime in Rome could not be as openly frank as Caesar’s had been. Unlike Caesar’s direct and sometimes careless approach to power, [Octavian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) (later Augustus) learned the necessity of maintaining a republican façade while exercising absolute control. For Caesar personally, his assassination may not have been as overwhelming a tragedy as it might seem. Having dismissed his Spanish bodyguard and living without military protection, he appeared unconcerned about the possibility of assassination. Suetonius and Plutarch report that he had even expressed a wish for a sudden death. Whether these accounts are entirely accurate or not, they underscore that Caesar, at least outwardly, **did not fear the end**. ### The Conspiracies That Never Were Following Caesar’s murder, a variety of retrospective plots were invented to justify the assassination. Stories emerged that various individuals had planned to kill Caesar earlier but had failed for circumstantial reasons. Cassius was said to have plotted against him at Tarsus in 47 BCE but was thwarted by geography. In 46 BCE, assassination attempts supposedly occurred in Rome, including an alleged plot by [Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/), though contemporary sources like Cicero’s letters remain silent on such melodramatic claims. Trebonius, another of the assassins, was later said to have plotted against Caesar in 45 BCE with Antony’s cooperation, but Antony allegedly lost his nerve at the last moment. Similarly, posthumous justifications for the murder proliferated, suggesting that Caesar had to be killed “in the nick of time” to prevent some imminent tyranny. Yet, concrete evidence for these claims is lacking. The most persistent myth was that Caesar sought to become king, an idea linked to an alleged Sibylline prophecy that Parthia could only be conquered by a Roman king. However, even ancient sources like Cicero’s [*De Divinatione*](https://amzn.to/3DJ3ioi?ref=romanempiretimes.com) dismissed this prophecy as a fabrication. ### The Myth of Caesar’s Monarchical and Divine Aspirations While [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/) undoubtedly accumulated unprecedented honors, the claim that he sought kingship or divine status remains dubious. He had statues in temples, was voted a Flamen (though never initiated), and was hailed as *Pater Patriae*, but he consistently rejected the formal title of king. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-gravure-depicting-Julius-Caesar-refusing-the-diadem-crown-offered-to-him-by-Mark-Antony--as-a-sign-of-his-status-as-king.jpg) ## The famous episode at the Lupercalia, where Antony attempted to crown him, ended with Caesar throwing the diadem aside, a gesture his critics could hardly reconcile with a desire for monarchy. **A gravure depicting Julius Caesar refusing the diadem crown offered to him by Mark Antony, as a sign of his status as king. Public domain* The idea that he planned to elevate [Cleopatra](https://romanempiretimes.com/cleopatra-daughter-selene-ii-the-last-echo-of-a-dynasty/) as queen and legitimize their alleged son, [Caesarion](https://romanempiretimes.com/caesarion-was-the-last-pharaoh-the-son-of-julius-caesar/), was another fabrication. The decree supposedly allowing Caesar to recognize any offspring as legitimate was never proposed in his lifetime. The story, attributed to the tribune Helvius Cinna, conveniently lacked a firsthand denial—Cinna was torn to pieces by the mob at Caesar’s funeral just days later. As for Caesarion himself, the lack of any mention of his existence in Cicero’s extensive correspondence is striking. Some scholars, like Jérôme Carcopino, have even argued that he was born after Caesar’s death and was not his son at all. Given Caesar’s long history of marriages and affairs without producing other known children, the idea that Cleopatra alone bore him an heir seems highly suspect. ### The Growing Rift Between Caesar and the Aristocracy The perception that Caesar had changed in his final months—becoming more arrogant, unapproachable, and autocratic—has been argued by some historians. However, there is little direct evidence to support this view. Rather than Caesar changing, it was the failure of the system to change that likely led to his murder. After the decisive victory at Munda in 45 BCE, the expectation was that Caesar would transition to a more traditional mode of governance. Instead, he continued to rule as a military dictator, issuing commands from above and sidelining [the Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/). For Rome’s conservative elite, this was intolerable. The resentment among the aristocracy was compounded by Caesar’s reliance on men they considered unworthy—figures like Balbus, Oppius, and Hirtius—while traditional senatorial voices were ignored. Cicero himself, despite wishing to act as Caesar’s philosophical advisor, found his suggestions unwelcome. ### Brutus, Porcia, and the Path to Assassination One of the most fascinating aspects of the conspiracy is the transformation of Marcus Junius Brutus from a loyalist to Caesar’s murderer. In August 45 BCE, Brutus still believed that Caesar intended to restore the Republic. Cicero, however, was already urging him to remember his lineage: > “Where is that Brutus and Ahala I saw in your Parthenon?” —a reference to his supposed ancestors who had famously opposed tyranny. Brutus’ marriage to Porcia, the daughter of Cato the Younger, was likely a turning point. Having been raised under the influence of the fiercely Republican Cato, Porcia’s presence in Brutus’ life must have reinforced his sense of duty. By late 45 BCE, as it became clear that Caesar had no intention of restoring the Republic, Brutus’ allegiances shifted. While Cassius, the conspirator with a more radical history, was a key figure in the plot, it was Brutus’ moral weight and prestigious name that made the assassination feasible. (*The Ides of March, by J. P. V. D. Balsdon*) ![Bust of Brutus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/Bust-of-Brutus.jpg) Bust of Brutus. Credits: clu from Getty Images Signature, by Canva ## The Ides of March: Planning, Execution, and Unintended Consequences The assassination of Julius Caesar on March 15, 44 BCE, was not an impulsive act but the result of careful planning, political urgency, and miscalculations by the conspirators. The decision to strike on the Ides of March was shaped by Caesar’s upcoming departure for Parthia, a rumored attempt to declare him king, and the symbolism of the chosen location—the Curia of Pompey. The conspirators believed their actions would restore the Republic, but instead, their choices set in motion the collapse of the very system they sought to protect. ### Why the Ides of March? The Urgency Behind the Assassination The conspirators acted with a sense of urgency. The conspiracy was widely known, and further delay risked discovery. More crucially, Caesar was scheduled to leave Rome for his Parthian campaign on March 18\. If he left, their window to act would close. A rumor circulating in Rome added even more pressure: it was said that L. Aurelius Cotta, a member of the *XVviri sacris faciundis*, (*Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, "Fifteen Men for the Performance of Sacred Rites" was a collegium of priests in ancient Rome responsible for overseeing the Sibylline Books and interpreting them in times of crisis*), planned to announce that the Sibylline books had foretold that only a king could defeat the Parthians. Whether this prophecy was real or fabricated, the conspirators believed it, fearing that Caesar was about to assume the title of rex. This, they thought, would permanently end the Republic. Compounding their anxiety, Caesar was scheduled to address the Senate on the Ides regarding objections raised by Mark Antony over Dolabella’s election as consul. This was a crucial issue, and Caesar’s presence at the Senate was guaranteed. Thus, the Ides of March became the ideal moment to act—a decisive strike before any irreversible political developments could take place. ### Alternative Assassination Plans Before settling on the Curia of Pompey, the conspirators considered multiple assassination scenarios: - During the *Comitia* (public assembly) on the Campus Martius, where they planned to push Caesar off a bridge and kill him. - On the *Via Sacra*, a location Caesar frequently visited as *pontifex maximus*. - During [gladiatorial games](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/), using the presence of weapons as cover. - At the entrance to Pompey’s Theatre, before he entered the Senate. Once the Senate meeting was announced, the Curia of Pompey became the most logical choice, as it ensured Caesar would be isolated, unarmed, and vulnerable. It also carried symbolic weight, with Caesar falling at the base of [Pompey](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/)’s statue, reinforcing the perception that the Republic was being avenged. ![A bust of Pompey, in Warsaw, Poland](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1714393676332-ac42dfccef31?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wxMTc3M3wwfDF8c2VhcmNofDN8fHBvbXBleXxlbnwwfHx8fDE3NDE5MTc0MzV8MA&ixlib=rb-4.0.3&q=80&w=2000) A bust of Pompey, in Warsaw, Poland. Credits: Roman Empire Times ### The Role of the Festival of Anna Perenna The Ides of March coincided with the Festival of *Anna Perenna*, a celebration held in the Campus Martius. This festival, which involved drinking, singing, and outdoor feasting —as already mentioned— drew much of the urban population away from the city center, reducing the risk of an immediate public backlash. At the same time, [gladiatorial games](https://romanempiretimes.com/ave-imperator-morituri-te-salutant-what-did-gladiators-actually-say-before-fighting/) were held at Pompey’s Theatre, drawing further attention away from the conspirators’ actions. [Gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-legends-about-gladiator-sweat-heres-what-we-found/) were stationed nearby, ostensibly for the games, but also as backup in case resistance arose. Decimus Brutus ensured that their presence would not arouse suspicion, claiming they were there to resolve a contract dispute over a gladiator’s services. ### Caesar’s Last-Minute Hesitations and Omens The assassination almost did not happen. [Calpurnia’s nightmares](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/) deeply unsettled her, and she pleaded with Caesar not to attend the Senate. The haruspices, examining a sacrificial liver, warned of bad omens, advising him to stay home. Initially, Caesar considered canceling his Senate appearance, fueling rumors that he would remain at home that day. Even his golden chair was removed from the Senate chamber, anticipating his absence. However, Decimus Brutus intervened, convincing him that a full Senate awaited him and that it would be dishonorable to disappoint them. Reluctantly, Caesar agreed and left his house late—around the fifth hour (10–11 AM), much later than usual. (*The Ides of March: Some New Problems, by Nicholas Horsfall*) ### The Aftermath of Assassination: The Journey of Caesar’s Body and the Role of Medicine in the Ides of March As Julius Caesar fell beneath the statue of Pompey on that fateful Ides of March, 44 BCE, the conspirators stood over his lifeless body, their daggers dripping with his blood. The Senate chamber, filled with the echoes of his final breath, quickly emptied as chaos erupted in the streets of Rome. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-possible-representation-of-the-dagger-that-delivered-the-deadly-strike-from-the-murderers-to-Julius-Caesar.jpg) ## While the assassins saw themselves as liberators, they had left behind a gruesome spectacle—one that would set in motion a chain of events leading to the fall of the Republic. **A possible representation of the dagger that delivered the deadly strike from the murderers to Julius Caesar. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney* Among the many accounts of that day, Suetonius alone records a crucial, often-overlooked detail: the physician Antistius medicus was summoned in the hours after the murder. His role was not to save Caesar but to examine his body—to determine what had truly killed the Dictator. This medical inquiry would not only shape the narrative of the assassination but also foreshadow the legal and political battles that followed. ### The Journey Home: A Widow’s Lament and a Public Display After the assassins had fled, three [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) gathered Caesar’s lifeless body, carefully placing it in a litter. But there was no dignity in his final journey—his arm hung limply over the side, a shocking visual of vulnerability for the once-mighty general. The procession through Rome was not discreet; as Nicolaus of Damascus tells us, the curtains of the litter were left open, exposing the brutal wounds to the Roman people. Awaiting him at home was Calpurnia, his devoted wife, who had spent the morning in anguish, pleading with Caesar not to go to the Senate. Her dreams had been filled with terrifying omens, and now, as she ran out to meet the body, her worst fears had materialized. She was now a childless widow, the wife of a man whose fate had been sealed by betrayal and ambition. ![A possible representation of Calpurnia screaming as she recognises her husband’s lifeless body, Julius Caesar](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-possible-representation-of-Calpurnia-screaming-as-she-recognises-her-husband-s-lifeless-body--Julius-Caesar.jpg) A possible representation of Calpurnia screaming as she recognises her husband’s lifeless body, Julius Caesar. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### The Physician’s Verdict: Antistius and the Forensic Examination As Rome reeled from the assassination, the physician *Antistius medicus* arrived at Caesar’s house in the late afternoon. Unlike modern forensic examiners, Antistius was not conducting an autopsy but a politically significant assessment. His findings would influence how Caesar’s death was understood—and whether it would lead to legal action against the conspirators. After carefully inspecting the wounds, Antistius reached a startling conclusion: despite the twenty-three stab wounds inflicted upon Caesar (or thirty-five, according to Nicolaus), only one was fatal. It was a single, deep wound to the chest that ultimately ended the Dictator’s life. This verdict carried profound implications. If only one wound had been fatal, who had delivered the death blow? The conspirators had acted as a collective, but Antistius' assessment suggested a hierarchy of guilt—someone had struck the decisive wound, and this revelation had the potential to divide the assassins as accusations flew. ### Medicine and Politics in Rome: A Greek Legacy The presence of Antistius at Caesar’s home also sheds light on the evolving role of medicine in Roman society. By the first century BCE, Greek-trained physicians had firmly integrated into elite Roman households, despite earlier Roman skepticism toward foreign doctors. A century earlier, [Cato the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/) had warned his son [never to trust Greek physicians](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/), believing they sought to poison Rome. Yet by Caesar’s time, Hellenistic medicine had become indispensable to the aristocracy. Wealthy patricians employed personal doctors, who traveled with them, prescribing treatments ranging from medicated wines to passive exercises like horseback riding and singing. Yet, for all his power, Caesar did not keep a personal physician in his entourage—an unusual omission for a Roman statesman of his stature. The only previous mention of a *medicus* in Caesar’s life comes from Suetonius’ account of his capture by pirates in the 70s BCE, when he was accompanied by an anonymous doctor. But no official record exists of a personal physician attending to him in Rome. It is possible that Antistius was not connected to Caesar at all but was called upon simply due to his forensic expertise. ![A possible representation of the physician Antistius, arriving at the empty Roman Senate and seeing Julius Caesar’s corpse, just moments after the assassination](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-possible-representation-of-the-physician-Antistius--arriving-at-the-empty-Roman-Senate-and-seeing-Julius-Caesar-s-corpse--just-moments-after-the-assassination.jpg) A possible representation of the physician Antistius, arriving at the empty Roman Senate and seeing Julius Caesar’s corpse, just moments after the assassination. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### The Legal Ramifications: Was Justice Possible? The timing of Antistius' examination suggests that some of Caesar’s allies hoped for a legal case against the assassins. The memory of the de vi trial of Milo—who had been convicted for the murder of Clodius Pulcher in 52 BCE—was still fresh in Roman minds. Perhaps a similar charge could be brought against the conspirators. Had events unfolded differently, Caesar’s murderers might have faced a formal trial in Rome. But history took a different course. Instead of standing before a court, Brutus, Cassius, and their fellow assassins would find themselves hunted across the Roman world, forced to fight for their survival. On March 17, the Senate reached a temporary compromise: - Caesar’s acts would remain valid, avoiding the complete undoing of his rule. - The assassins would be granted amnesty, ensuring that no immediate legal proceedings would be held. This agreement, however, was merely a pause before the storm. The public [funeral](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/), filled with outrage and emotion, turned the Roman people against the assassins. Octavian, Caesar’s adopted son, would use this fury to consolidate power, eventually leading to the Battle of Philippi (42 BCE), where Brutus and Cassius met their fates. ![A possible representation of William Shakespeare as he is taking a break from writing his play, Julius Caesar](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-possible-representation-of-William-Shakespeare-as-he-is-taking-a-break-from-writing-his-Julius-Caesar.jpg) A possible representation of William Shakespeare as he is taking a break from writing his play, Julius Caesar. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### The End of an Era: From Republic to Empire Caesar’s assassination was meant to restore the Republic, but instead, it accelerated its demise. The Republic’s legal structures—trials, Senate decrees, and forensic investigations—could not contain the fallout of his murder. Octavian, once just a name in Caesar’s will, emerged as the avenger of his adoptive father. In time, he would become Augustus, [Rome’s first emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-pax-romana-was-rome-ever-a-peaceful-empire/), and his regime would ensure that Caesar’s legacy endured. He even framed his vengeance in legal terms, claiming in the [*Res Gestae*](https://amzn.to/4hDV2nf?ref=romanempiretimes.com) that he had avenged Caesar “with appropriate judicial procedures” (*iudiciis legitimis ultus*). Calpurnia, the widow who had foreseen the disaster, disappeared from history, her grief lost to time. The conspirators, once so certain of their cause, found themselves branded as parricides—**murderers of Rome’s father**. Antistius' forensic assessment, while overshadowed by the grand sweep of history, remains a remarkable detail of the Ides of March. In his examination of Caesar’s lifeless body, he saw not just the marks of violence and betrayal, but a final, fatal wound—the wound that ended the Republic and set Rome on the path to [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/). (*Antistius Medicus and the ides of March, by Ann Ellis Hanson, in the book "Medicine and markets in the Graeco-Roman World and Beyond"*) William Shakespeare, about 150 years later, cemented the "Ides of March" into the cultural lexicon with his play "Julius Caesar," specifically through the phrase "***Beware the Ides of March***." This phrase has since come to symbolize forewarnings of treachery and calamity, encapsulating the notion, of an **ominous harbinger**. ### Asarotos Oikos Mosaic: The Unswept Floor of the Roman Elite URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/asarotos-oikos-mosaic-unswept-floor-roman-elite/ Last updated: 2025-03-12T10:26:54.000Z Amidst the lavish villas of ancient [Rome,](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) adorned with frescoed walls and marble statues, lay a distinctive and intriguing art form that captivated the [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) and demonstrated remarkable artistic ingenuity: the *asarotos oikos*, or "unswept floor" mosaic. This unique mosaic style, which flourished during the Hellenistic period and persisted into Roman times, provides valuable insight into the cultural and social fabric of antiquity. The *asarotos oikos* mosaic attributed to Heraklitos is a prime reason to visit the Gregoriano Profano Museum in the Vatican, where this extraordinary masterpiece of craftsmanship is on display. [Museo Gregoriano Profano · Vatican City![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/icon/maps15_bnuw3a_32dp-6.ico)Museo Gregoriano Profano · Vatican City![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/thumbnail/AF1QipNANHM6_YClSqExEPxsTzNh5AA-SuLjqQzcXNY-w900-h900-p-k-no)](https://maps.app.goo.gl/MRSKVEj67Wj73dFCA?g%5Fst=com.google.maps.preview.copy&ref=romanempiretimes.com) 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in February 2024\. It was updated in March 2025.* ### A Mosaic of Elite Symbolism and Artistic Illusion Ehud Fathy is an art historian in Tel Aviv University, who is greatly interested in studying the ways in which images can function as visual representations of the culture, society and practices of their period. Ehud's research focuses on still-life depictions and mystical scenes found in Roman art. In his work, "*The asàrotos òikos mosaic as an elite status symbol*" he explores the social significance the asarotos oikos' depictions have held during the late Imperial age, and their relation to the proceedings of the banquet. Ehud Fathy tells us, that one of the more uncommon themes in Roman mosaics is the asarotos oikos, or "unswept floor," which depicts scattered remnants of a [lavish meal](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-unknown-lucullus-far-more-than-just-lucullan-meals/) evenly spread across the floor of a room. According to [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-the-author-of-the-worlds-first-encyclopaedia-was-roman/), this motif was first introduced by the Hellenistic mosaicist Sosos of Pergamon in the second century BCE. Although the original mosaic referenced by Pliny has never been found, later Roman versions of the theme have been uncovered across Italy and the Roman provinces of North Africa, dating from the late first century to the mid-third century CE. > "Pavements are an invention of the Greeks, who also practised the art of painting them, till they were superseded by mosaics. > > In this last branch of art, the highest excellence has been attained by Sosus, who laid, at Pergamus, the mosaic pavement known as the "Asarotos œcos;"from the fact that he there represented, in small squares of different colours, the remnants of a banquet lying upon the pavement, and other things which are usually swept away with the broom, they having all the appearance of being left there by accident. > > There is a dove also, greatly admired, in the act of drinking, and throwing the shadow of its head upon the water; while other birds are to be seen sunning and pluming themselves, on the margin of a drinking-bowl." Pliny the Elder, [*The Natural History*](https://amzn.to/3R1LpE5?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ![A possible representation of Sosos of Pergamon (also known as Sosus) at work, while creating a mosaic](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-possible-representation-of-Sosos-of-Pergamon--also-known-as-Sosus--at-work--while-creating-a-mosaic.jpg) A possible representation of Sosos of Pergamon (also known as Sosus) at work, while creating a mosaic. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney These mosaics have often been classified as decorative or genre scenes, with little research dedicated to their deeper symbolic meanings. The asarotos oikos is frequently associated with *xenia* depictions—images of hospitality offerings—yet it differs significantly in content and composition. While xenia mosaics display appetizing arrangements of fruit, vegetables, cheese, and game in domestic settings, the asarotos oikos presents food remnants scattered on a neutral background, evoking a different artistic and cultural message. Discovered exclusively in the homes of the Roman elite, these mosaics required significant financial investment, making it unlikely that their sole purpose was to amuse guests with their trompe-l'œil (deceive the eye) effects. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/Detail-with-a-fishbone-from-a-red-mullet-from-the-asarotos-oikos-mosaic--the-unswept-floor-.jpg) ## Instead, they likely functioned as status symbols, representing an intellectual and cultural sophistication understood only by the traditional ruling class. **Detail with a fishbone from a* [**red mullet*](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-red-mullet-top-delicacy-of-ancient-rome/) *from the asarotos oikos mosaic. Credits:* **Dmitriy Moroz, Alamy* As the political and economic landscape of the late Imperial period shifted, these mosaics may have served as subtle assertions of aristocratic identity and cultural superiority over the rising elite. The most renowned example of an asarotos oikos mosaic was unearthed in 1833 near the Aurelian Wall, south of the Aventine Hill in Rome, during Emperor [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrians-wall-the-roman-empires-enigmatic-frontier/)'s reign. It features depictions of fruit, lobster claws, chicken bones, shellfish, and even a small mouse nibbling on a walnut shell. The depicted objects' realism is achieved through skillful color application to produce shadows against the floor's white backdrop. Dating to the early second century CE, it is signed in Greek by the artist Heraklitos and measures 4.05 x 4.05 meters (13.29 x 13.29 feet). Today, it is preserved in the Vatican Museums, as aforementioned. ![Asàrotos òikos Mosaic](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/asarotos-oikos-mosaic.jpg) Asàrotos òikos Mosaic. Credits: ivioandronico2013, CC BY-SA 4.0 Another significant mosaic of this type was discovered in 1859 in Aquileia, a prominent Roman city in northern Italy. Originally part of a *domus* belonging to the upper class, this mosaic, dating to the second half of the first century CE, suffered damage during removal. It was later reassembled between 1919 and 1922 and is now displayed in the Aquileia Museum. Measuring 2.49 x 2.33 meters (8.17 x 7.64 feet), it covered an entire room, though its central *emblema* is missing, leaving only partial details of a feline paw and a bird’s wing. Additional examples of asarotos oikos mosaics have been found in Tunisia, though they are smaller and do not extend across entire rooms. The earliest, discovered at Salonius House in Oudna, consists of five *emblemata* (60 x 70 cm — ±23 x 27.5 inches each) dating to the late first or early second century CE. These were later repositioned at the center of a grand villa’s floor and are now housed in the National Museum of Bardo. Another example, found at Maison des Mois in El Djem, dates to 210-235 CE and features a U-shaped frieze, part of the decorative layout common in triclinia. It is currently preserved in the Archaeological Museum of Sousse. A final example was incorporated into the floor of a Byzantine basilica in Sidi-Abich but was completely destroyed upon extraction. ![A possible representation of an ancient Roman mosaicist at work, while finishing a mosaic](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-possible-representation-of-an-ancient-Roman-mosaicist-at-work--while-finishing--a-mosaic.jpg) A possible representation of an ancient Roman mosaicist at work, while finishing a mosaic. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### Status, Art, and Mortality The asarotos oikos mosaics were crafted using the *opus vermiculatum* technique, which employed tiny *tesserae*—(Latin for “cubes” or “dice”) pieces that have been cut to a triangular, square, or other regular shape so that they will fit closely into the grid of cubes that make up the mosaic surface—(ranging from 1 to 4 mm) of irregular shapes to create highly detailed and multi-colored compositions. Given their subject matter—depicting food scraps strewn across a dining room floor—it is highly plausible that these mosaics adorned the triclinium, the Roman banquet hall. Their imagery directly referenced the Roman custom of discarding meal remnants onto the floor during feasts. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/Detail-with-a-chicken-leg-from-the-asarotos-oikos-mosaic--the-unswept-floor-.jpg) ## However, a deeper symbolic function is also suggested: during banquets held in honor of the dead, offerings were made to the deceased by throwing food on the ground. **Detail with a chicken leg from the asarotos oikos mosaic. Credits: Dmitriy Moroz, Alamy* In this context, the asarotos oikos could serve as a permanent artistic representation of symbolic [funerary](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/) offerings, replacing the actual practice with a more enduring tribute. The revival of the asarotos oikos theme in second-century Rome was not coincidental; it aligned with the Second Sophistic, a cultural movement that sought to revive the glory of Hellenistic traditions, a goal actively promoted by emperors such as [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/) and [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-four-journeys-of-hadrian-the-globetrotter-emperor-of-the-roman-empire/). This deliberate [Philhellenism](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) was an intellectual and political strategy. As Greek culture gained renewed prominence, visual quotations of classical Hellenistic art—such as the asarotos oikos, originally introduced by Sosos of Pergamon—became status symbols for elite Romans. By commissioning these works, wealthy patrons sought to present themselves as erudite connoisseurs, steeped in Greek artistic and philosophical traditions. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/Detail-with-a-mouse-and-a-walnut-from-the-asarotos-oikos-mosaic--the-unswept-floor-.jpg) ## The asarotos oikos exemplifies how Hellenistic visual techniques aimed at eliciting emotional responses, such as laughter, surprise, or reflection. **Detail with a mouse and a walnut from the asarotos oikos mosaic. Credits: Dmitriy Moroz, Alamy* Sosos’s innovative motif—depicting the remnants of a meal as an independent artistic subject—reflected a broader artistic trend: a fascination with everyday life and its fleeting nature. The imagery resonated with hospitality traditions, luxurious banqueting customs, and even philosophical reflections on mortality. ### Aesthetic Erudition and Social Distinction Scholar Jeremy Tanner explores the sociological role of art in the Greco-Roman world, emphasizing that artwork functioned as “expressive symbolism”, reflecting social relationships and intellectual hierarchies. In [classical Athens](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrian-gate-in-downtown-athens-below-acropolis-a-gateway-to-history/), art primarily served political or ritual purposes, functioning as part of daily life and civic identity. However, in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, art transitioned into the private sphere, where it took on a new social function. A sophisticated elite viewing culture emerged, characterized by aesthetic formalism, a deep knowledge of classical art history, and an ability to engage in artistic criticism. Mastery of these cultural tools allowed elite Romans to distinguish themselves from newly wealthy individuals, who might possess economic power but lacked proper artistic and intellectual refinement. Pliny the Elder’s [*Naturalis Historia*](https://amzn.to/3R1LpE5?ref=romanempiretimes.com) reflects this elevated approach to viewing art, wherein appreciation requires leisure, silence, and erudition. By the Imperial period, an entire infrastructure of artistic culture had developed: collectors, art dealers, forgeries of classical masters, exhibition halls in private villas, and even art tourism. The act of viewing art was no longer passive; it was a learned skill, an intellectual exercise requiring training in rhetoric, philosophy, and mythological knowledge. This elitist approach to art consumption was designed to exclude those without proper education, reinforcing social hierarchies in an era of increasing class mobility. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/02/50853340897_fc58b62904_k.jpg) Detail of the unswept floor mosaic. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC 2.0 DEED ### Banquet Imagery and the Philosophy of Death The asarotos oikos mosaics did not merely serve as banquet decorations—they encapsulated an elite philosophical worldview. The theme aligned with the Roman obsession with mortality, deeply rooted in Epicurean and [Stoic traditions.](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/) In both literature and visual culture, banqueting was metaphorically tied to life’s transience. Lucretius, Horace, and [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/) all reference the notion that one should enjoy life’s pleasures while they last, for death is inevitable. This idea is epitomized by the famous saying from the pseudo-Vergilian Copa: *"Vivite," ait, "venio"*—Live, for I am coming. During banquets, miniature skeletons were passed among guests as [*memento mori*](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/), reinforcing the idea that pleasure should not be delayed. This motif appears in Petronius’ [*Satyricon*](https://amzn.to/4hwlQFX?ref=romanempiretimes.com), where the freedman Trimalchio presents a silver skeleton during a lavish feast, proclaiming: > "Let us live, then, while it goes well with us." The asarotos oikos visually embodies this philosophy. The scattered meal remnants symbolize the impermanence of life and earthly pleasures—once rich and abundant, now mere debris. The juxtaposition of luxury and waste suggests a dialectic of nourishment and decay, fertility and withering, life and death. ### The Vatican *Asarotos Oikos* Mosaic: A Program of Elite Discourse The most famous asarotos oikos mosaic, attributed to Heraklitos, discovered in 1833 near the Aurelian Wall on the Aventine Hill—a district known for its affluent Roman villas, dating to the early second century CE, is now housed in the Vatican Museums. The decorative program of the room it adorned was highly sophisticated: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/02/50852528003_7f6214841f_k--1-.jpg) Array of theatrical masks inserted in the mosaic of the uswept floor and Heraklitos' signature. Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC 2.0 DEED - Three outer friezes mirrored ceiling decorations. - Two inner friezes depicted scattered food scraps (asarotos oikos theme). - A third frieze showcased Dionysian masks and artifacts, reinforcing the banquet’s association with wine, revelry, and mystery cults. - The central emblema (now lost) may have depicted Sosos’ "drinking doves," another motif referenced by Pliny. - The Dionysian masks visually connect the theme of banqueting with the metaphor of life as a theatrical performance, a concept explored by Lucian and Aristophanes. Lucian’s satirical dialogues compare human existence to a stage play, where individuals temporarily adopt different roles before death strips them of their status. This philosophical perspective is echoed in elite Roman culture, which valued self-control, intellectual engagement, and an ability to interpret multi-layered artistic and rhetorical symbols. ### A Last Stand Against Social Change The elite commissioning of asarotos oikos mosaics was not simply an artistic indulgence—it was a reaction to the shifting social order of the Imperial period. As newly wealthy individuals gained political and economic power, Rome’s traditional aristocracy sought to reaffirm its superiority through cultural exclusivity. These mosaics served as a final bastion of distinction, demanding an elite education to fully decode their meaning. Beyond intellectual posturing, the asarotos oikos also tied into mystical religious beliefs. In addition to referencing Roman funerary rites, these mosaics hint at the esoteric traditions of the Dionysian Mysteries and the cult of Osiris and Isis, which promised their initiates a privileged afterlife. Thus, the asarotos oikos thematically links hedonistic pleasure, philosophical reflection, and religious aspiration—all expressions of the Roman elite’s attempt to grapple with mortality in a rapidly changing world. Heraklitos crafted an intricate mosaic for the floor of the triclinium, welcoming visitors with a design featuring theatrical masks, ceremonial items, and the artist's own signature at the entrance. The primary decorative element of the mosaic showcased a detailed Nilotic scene, which has largely been lost over time. Surrounding the room's perimeter, the "assarotos oikos"-themed mosaic depicted the leftovers of a feast against a white backdrop, portraying what would typically be discarded. It's fascinating to attempt to discern what Heraklitos included in this remarkable floor design... various fruits, leafy greens, claws of lobsters and crabs, shells of clams and oysters, sea urchins, chicken bones, and nutshells, including a small mouse nibbling on a walnut shell (as pictured above). ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/Detail-with-a-sea-shell-from-the-asarotos-oikos-mosaic--the-unswept-floor--1.jpg) ## The artist's ability to convey depth through the use of contrasting colors and creating shadows on the white floor, is simply **impressive*. **Detail with a sea shell from the asarotos oikos mosaic. Credits: Dmitriy Moroz, Alamy* ### Tiberius: Power, Paranoia, and Politics in Imperial Rome URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/tiberius-power-paranoia-and-politics-in-imperial-rome/ Last updated: 2026-02-03T12:57:26.000Z Tiberius’ reign was marked by military success, administrative efficiency, and an increasing paranoia that led to purges and political repression. While historians such as [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) and [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) paint him as a bitter and reclusive tyrant, others acknowledge his contributions to Rome’s stability. But who was the real Tiberius—an able statesman trapped by circumstance, or a ruler consumed by mistrust and detachment? ### The Enigmatic Emperor Who Shaped Rome’s Future Tiberius' reign, often overshadowed by the grandeur of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) and the [excesses of later rulers](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), was nonetheless a defining period in the consolidation of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/). A deeply private and reluctant leader, Tiberius navigated the complex political landscape with pragmatism, efficiency, and a deep-seated suspicion that would come to characterize his rule. Born into the prestigious Claudian family, Tiberius was shaped by a lineage of statesmen, [warriors](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-was-the-best-roman-warrior-scipio-africanus-a-man-who-never-lost-a-battle/), and reformers who had left their mark on [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/) for centuries. Though a Claudian by birth, his ancestry was complicated by adoption and marriage alliances, tying him to the influential Livii Drusi and Julian families. His early years saw him thrust into the volatile politics of the late Republic, where shifting allegiances and Octavian’s consolidation of power forced his father, Ti. Claudius Nero, into exile. The sudden elevation of his mother, [Livia Drusilla](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/), to the role of Augustus’ wife placed Tiberius in the imperial fold, but also under the shadow of the ambitious Julian lineage. Trained in rhetoric, law, and military strategy, Tiberius was an intellectual with a deep appreciation for history and philosophy. He excelled in military command, securing Rome’s frontiers in Germany, Pannonia, and Armenia, but his personal disposition made him an uneasy participant in the political maneuverings of the imperial court. His retreat to Rhodes in self-imposed exile remains one of the most puzzling episodes of his life, reflecting both his discomfort with imperial expectations and his growing distrust of Augustus’ succession plans. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-closeup-photo-of-a-bust-of-roman-emperor-Tiberius.jpg) ## Despite his reluctance, Tiberius eventually became Rome’s second emperor in AD 14\. A closeup photo of a bust of roman emperor Tiberius. Credits: His early rule was marked by administrative competence and military discipline, but his withdrawal from public life and increasing reliance on the ambitious prefect Sejanus led to an era of paranoia and political purges. His final years, [spent in isolation on the island of Capri](https://romanempiretimes.com/villa-jovis-the-secret-lair-for-the-dark-pleasures-of-an-old-emperor/), cemented the image of a suspicious, misanthropic ruler, whose policies—whether wise or oppressive—were dictated by an unshakable belief in the inherent dangers of power. Yet Tiberius’ reign was crucial in defining the imperial system. He fortified the bureaucratic and military foundations laid by Augustus, resisted reckless expansionism, and upheld a strict financial policy that stabilized Rome’s economy. While ancient sources, particularly Tacitus and Suetonius, portray him as a tyrant plagued by secrecy and cruelty, modern scholarship offers a more nuanced view of his rule—one of calculated governance, political survival, and a complex personality caught between duty and detachment. *Who, then, was Tiberius?* A capable administrator undone by his mistrust of others? A reluctant ruler trapped in a role he never desired? Or a pragmatic leader whose legacy was distorted by history’s harshest critics? ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/Roman-Emperor-Tiberius-Bust-from-Warsaw--Poland-2.jpg) Roman Emperor Tiberius Bust from Warsaw, Poland. Credits: Roman Empire Times ### From Political Refugee to Reluctant Emperor Tiberius’ life was marked by political maneuvering, shifting allegiances, and the weight of imperial expectations. From the moment he entered the world, his fate was intertwined with Rome’s turbulent political landscape. Born into the prestigious Claudian family but raised in the shadow of the emerging Augustan regime, he was, at different points in his life, both a political refugee and a rising star within the new imperial order. His early years saw him adopted as heir by M. Gallius, a move that could have signified a shift in allegiance, but Tiberius declined to take the Gallius name, remaining firmly a Nero. The death of his father, Ti. Claudius Nero, in the early 30s BC further cemented his integration into Augustus’ circle, with the future princeps drawing him ever closer. His betrothal to Vipsania, daughter of Augustus’ trusted general Agrippa, further solidified his place in the inner ranks of the new regime. ![A line engraving of Vipsania Agrippina, first wife of Tiberius Caesar](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-Line-engraving-of-Vipsania-Agrippina--first-wife-of-Tiberius-Caesar.jpg) A line engraving of Vipsania Agrippina, first wife of Tiberius Caesar. Credits: Rawpixel, Public domain From an early age, Tiberius was thrust into the world of politics and military affairs. He rode beside Augustus in his Actium triumph, trained alongside his cousin Marcellus, and took part in military campaigns in Spain, earning valuable experience. His role as an advocate in legal cases before the Senate and Augustus himself revealed both his rhetorical skill and his alignment with the imperial court. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-Gold-Roman-Aureus-Coin-of-Emperor-Tiberius-1.jpg) ## When a political crisis arose in 23 BC, Tiberius was called upon to prosecute those who threatened the stability of Augustus’ principate—demonstrating his loyalty but also earning the resentment of Rome’s lingering Republican faction. **A Gold Roman Aureus Coin of Emperor Tiberius. Public domain* His career flourished in the East, where he played a key role in Augustus’ diplomatic efforts with Parthia, securing the return of [Crassus’ lost standards](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/) and installing a pro-Roman king in Armenia. These missions enhanced his reputation, but they also revealed a key trait: his preference for duty over ambition. Unlike his more charismatic stepbrother, [Nero Drusus](https://romanempiretimes.com/drusus-the-elder-rome-most-successful-germanic-commander/), Tiberius was methodical, disciplined, and cautious—traits that would come to define his rule. The evolving Augustan succession plan placed Tiberius in an increasingly complex position. The deaths of Marcellus and Agrippa reshaped the imperial family, and while Agrippa’s sons, Gaius and Lucius Caesar, were groomed as heirs, Tiberius remained a key figure. His successful military campaigns in the Alps and Germany further established his credentials, but he remained in the shadow of Augustus’ preferred successors. By 13 BC, Tiberius had achieved the pinnacle of a traditional senatorial career, serving as consul and leading military operations in Rome’s frontier regions. Yet, his personal life was disrupted when Augustus forced him to divorce Vipsania and marry Julia, the widow of Agrippa and the emperor’s only daughter. This political marriage, meant to bind him even more closely to the dynasty, was a source of deep personal misery. In the coming years, his growing dissatisfaction and the increasing pressures of the succession crisis would drive him to a self-imposed exile on Rhodes—an episode that underscored his reluctance for supreme power. Tiberius’ story is one of contradictions. He was a man of immense talent, yet often reluctant to wield power. He was a key architect of Rome’s imperial stability yet haunted by the burdens of rule. His early career—shaped by alliances, military successes, and political survival—set the stage for his eventual reign, which would prove as enigmatic and complex as the man himself. ([*Tiberius the politician*](https://amzn.to/3QWXpGX?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Barbara Levick*) ![A painting of Tiberius and Vipsania, by Rubens](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-painting-of-Tiberius-and-Vipsania--by-Rubens.jpg) A painting of Tiberius and Vipsania, by Rubens. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### Tiberius and Rome’s Northern Frontier: Conquest, Strategy, and Expansion In 16 BCE, despite having received praetorian rank in 20 BCE, Tiberius formally held the office of praetor at the age of twenty-five. The period following his tenure in this position until his eventual withdrawal to Rhodes was predominantly occupied with military campaigns along Rome’s northern frontier. Augustus saw considerable work to be done in this region, focusing on three major objectives: 1. First, he aimed to subdue the Alpine territories, whose inhabitants frequently raided Italy and [Gaul](https://romanempiretimes.com/locusta-of-gaul-the-imperial-poisoner-of-ancient-rome/). 2. Secondly, he sought to extend Roman control over Illyricum up to the Danube, securing the valleys of the Save and Drave. This expansion would establish a more direct link between Macedonia, Italy, Gaul, and the Rhine. If successful, the Rhine and Danube would serve as Rome’s natural frontiers. 3. The third area of military engagement was Germania, where the Romans conducted expeditions across the Rhine, exploring the possibility of extending their control to the Elbe. This initiative was likely driven by the strategic advantage of shorter supply lines that an Elbe–Danube boundary could offer. To oversee the early phases of this expansion, Augustus traveled to Gaul in 16 BCE, accompanied by Tiberius. The following year, Tiberius and his younger brother, [Drusus](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-were-the-funeral-rites-and-rituals-of-ancient-rome/), launched a campaign against the Rhaetians and Vindelicians. Due to the fragmented nature of ancient sources, their precise movements are difficult to reconstruct. However, it appears that Drusus initially engaged the Rhaetians near the Tridentine Alps, securing a victory that earned him praetorian honors. Despite this success, the Rhaetians continued to pose a threat to Gaul, though they refrained from further incursions into Italy. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/Drusus-the-Elder-bust.jpg) ## Tiberius later joined forces with Drusus, and together they divided their army, assigning separate detachments to their legates. **Drusus the Elder bust. Credits: Scailyna, CC BY-SA 4.0* Based on the order in which the names of the conquered tribes appear on the victory monument at La Turbie, it is likely that Drusus advanced via the Brenner Pass into Vindelicia, progressing through the Bavarian Alpine foothills into Upper Swabia. Meanwhile, Tiberius appears to have moved eastward from Vindonissa along the Rhine toward Lake Constance, which he crossed by boat. After these initial maneuvers, the brothers coordinated their forces and advanced together. The rapid movement through the Alpine valleys, coupled with a strategy of dispersing their forces to prevent enemy tribes from massing against them, led to a swift victory. The territory up to the Danube was conquered but not permanently occupied. At this stage, there were no Roman garrisons positioned directly along the river. Instead, the army was stationed at Oberhausen, allowing for rapid deployment in response to any emerging threats. This approach was likely due to the sparsely populated nature of the Danubian region and the absence of any significant external power capable of mounting an immediate invasion. Consequently, there was little need to station troops in forward positions either to suppress local resistance or to defend against external aggression. ### Marriage, Duty, and Succession By 13 BCE, at the age of twenty-eight, Tiberius had reached the consulship. One of his key responsibilities that year was organizing the celebrations marking Augustus’ return from Gaul. As part of the event, he made a pragmatic decision to seat the young Gaius Caesar beside his adoptive father, Augustus. However, this act earned him a reprimand from the princeps, who likely felt it was too soon for such a public display of Gaius’ position. That same year, Agrippa returned from the East to assume command in Illyricum. His tribunician power was renewed for another five years, and he departed for the Balkans with imperium superior to that of other provincial governors, ensuring he held supreme authority in the region. However, his strenuous efforts had taken a toll on his health, and the harsh Pannonian winter proved too much for him. In February of 12 BCE, Agrippa passed away. Agrippa’s death was a significant loss for Augustus, not only depriving him of his most capable general and administrator but also reigniting the succession dilemma. While Augustus now had heirs in Gaius and Lucius Caesar, he lacked a seasoned and loyal deputy who could protect their interests should he himself die. The practical solution was clear: Julia, Agrippa’s widow, needed a new husband—someone who could assume Agrippa’s role both politically and within the imperial family. **The ideal candidate was Tiberius**. ![A portrait head of Tiberius from the front](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-portrait-head-of-Tiberius-from-the-front.jpg) A portrait head of Tiberius from the front. Credits: Getty Museum, CC0 1.0 Augustus showed little regard for personal feelings in his dynastic arrangements. It was irrelevant that Tiberius was happily married to Vipsania, that she was pregnant, or that she was still mourning the recent loss of her father. With Agrippa gone, Tiberius had become Rome’s foremost military commander—the only figure capable of succeeding Agrippa as Augustus’ right-hand man. His prominence and influence were bound to grow, and Augustus could not afford to leave him out of his succession plans. Marrying him to Julia was the logical solution. This union would further intertwine the Julian and Claudian bloodlines, ensure that Gaius and Lucius had a stepfather to guide them, and help contain any ambitions that Tiberius or his mother, Livia, might have nurtured regarding the succession. Tiberius was ordered to divorce Vipsania, and he complied, becoming betrothed to Julia. However, the marriage did not take place immediately, as Tiberius was dispatched as Augustus’ legate to assume command in Illyricum, filling the vacancy left by Agrippa’s death. It was only in 11 BCE, after two successful campaigns in Pannonia, that the marriage was finally formalized upon his return to Rome. A flaw in Augustus’ carefully constructed plan soon became evident. In the following year, Julia gave birth to a son in Aquileia. Had the child survived, Tiberius might have been inclined to prioritize his own son over Augustus’ chosen heirs, Gaius and Lucius, potentially disrupting the succession arrangement. However, the child died in infancy, preventing any such complications. The issue of succession did not arise again, as by 6 BCE—possibly even earlier—Tiberius and Julia had effectively ceased living as husband and wife. ([*Tiberius*](https://amzn.to/3FksLEX?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Robin Seager*) ![A possible representation of Tiberius and his second wife Julia, after what appears to be a quarrel](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-possible-representation-of-Tiberius-and-his-second-wife-Julia--after-what-appears-to-be-a-quarrel.jpg) A possible representation of Tiberius and his second wife Julia, after what appears to be a quarrel. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### The Fall of Sejanus: A Turning Point in Tiberius’ Reign Tacitus marks the fall of Sejanus as a defining moment in Tiberius’ life and rule, a shift that plunged [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) into a reign of terror. With Sejanus eliminated, the question of succession appeared to settle, as [Gaius Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-caligula-mad-or-just-sick/), aided by his chief supporter Macro, solidified his position. However, the greater consequence of Sejanus’ downfall was the vengeful purge that followed—“a witch-hunt,” as Tacitus suggests—where fear, political opportunism, and betrayal dictated the fate of Rome’s elite. For Tiberius, the discovery that his trusted confidant had been a “murderous schemer” was a profound shock. His paranoia only deepened when Apicata, Sejanus’ former wife, sent him a letter revealing the Prefect’s involvement in the poisoning of his son, Drusus. Tiberius, already known for his cold and calculated demeanor, did not act in haste. The destruction of Sejanus was a “brilliantly thought out and executed action,” but it did not bring peace. Instead, the emperor retreated further into himself, indulging in self-pity, and addressing the Senate with words laced with irony and despair: > “What I am to write to you, conscript fathers, or how I am to write it, or what I am to refrain from writing at this time, may the gods and goddesses all send me to perdition quicker than I feel I’m going already, if I know.” [The Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/), sensing the shift in power, sought to erase Sejanus from memory. His statues were torn down, and his name was subjected to [*damnatio memoriae*](https://romanempiretimes.com/damnatio-memoriae-condemnation-and-eradication-in-the-political-sphere-of-rome/). The senators, eager to prove their loyalty, held an annual festival to commemorate his fall and forbade excessive honors to any future man, except for Macro, the new power behind the throne. Yet, the purges did not stop with Sejanus. His allies—Blaesus, Bruttedius Niger, and even men of seemingly innocent connection—were swiftly accused and executed. Some, like Sextius Paconianus, were charged with ensnaring [Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-caligula-really-declare-war-on-neptune/), while others, such as Lucanius Latiaris, were caught in the political web they had once helped weave. The hunt for Sejanus’ supporters extended even to prominent consulars, causing a wave of fear throughout the Senate, as Tacitus notes: > “There was hardly a senator who had no tie with these distinguished men.” As the purges continued, self-preservation led many to turn against their own allies. Accusations became a weapon—men denounced their friends, and those who had been fervent supporters of Sejanus suddenly became his loudest enemies. > “Men competed to kick the corpse,” Tacitus remarks, describing how the mob and senators alike rushed to distance themselves from the fallen Prefect. Others, like the former consul L. Fulcinius Trio, attempted to rehabilitate their position by pointing fingers at others, turning the Senate into a theater of suspicion and retribution. ![Engraving of Aelius Sejanus, prefect under Emperor Tiberius, thrown at the Gemonian Stairs, mistreated and strangled, 31 BC.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/10/Engraving-of-Seianus--prefect-under-Emperor-Tiberius--is-mistreated-and-strangled--31-BC.-Aelius-Sejanus--Favour-of-Emperor-Tiberius--Strangled--and-at-the-Gemonic-Steps--his-body-Mistreated.jpg) Engraving of Aelius Sejanus, prefect under Emperor Tiberius, thrown at the Gemonian Stairs, mistreated and strangled, 31 BC. Credits: Jan Luyken, Rijksmuseum, CC0 1.0 By 33 CE, Tiberius had eradicated the remnants of Sejanus’ network, but his own grip on power had begun to loosen. Isolated on Capri, he seemed more a shadow than a ruler. The year saw the deaths of Agrippina the Elder, the last real opposition to Tiberius, along with her son Drusus, whom the emperor allegedly starved to death. In a final act of cruelty, Tiberius had Drusus’ dying words recorded and read aloud to the Senate, just as he reminded them that Agrippina had perished on the same date as Sejanus—an unsubtle suggestion that both were equally deserving of their fates. The Senate, in turn, showered him with grotesque flattery, praising his *clementia* even as bodies continued to pile up. Though the terror eased somewhat in the last years of Tiberius’ reign, the damage had been done. Rome had become a place where fear ruled, where whispers could mean death, and where the Senate, stripped of dignity, played along with the emperor’s whims. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-possible-representation-of-Caligula--smirking-from-the-shadows.jpg) ## Meanwhile, Caligula was quietly maneuvering into position, ensuring that, when Tiberius finally died in 37 CE, he would rise **unchallenged*. **A possible representation of Caligula, smirking from the shadows. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney* ### Roman Engineering: The Backbone of an Empire URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-engineering-the-backbone-of-an-empire/ Last updated: 2025-08-21T21:27:58.000Z From towering [aqueducts](https://romanempiretimes.com/marvel-ancient-roman-aqueducts/) that stretched across landscapes to roads that connected an [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/), Roman engineering was more than just a technical achievement—it was the foundation of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s enduring dominance. The Romans were not merely builders; they were innovators, problem-solvers, and visionaries who transformed the natural world to suit their needs. By [mastering concrete](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-concrete-stronger-self-healing-and-built-to-last-forever/), [perfecting road construction](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/), and [designing architectural wonders](https://romanempiretimes.com/unveiling-the-eternal-things-about-the-pantheon-you-did-not-know/), they left behind a legacy that still shapes modern engineering. Their creations, many of which have withstood the test of time, speak to their exceptional inventiveness and the strategic brilliance behind their infrastructure. ### Innovation and Influence Empires have been defined in multiple ways—by their territorial expanse, longevity, economic power, or military dominance. While the Roman Empire was not the largest in land area or the longest-lasting, its true legacy lies in its engineering and architectural achievements. Military strength enabled [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) to expand its borders, but it was the Romans' unique ability to build that both symbolized the [Empire in its prime](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/) and continues to define it today. The materials they used, the construction techniques they perfected, and the architectural styles they pioneered in government buildings, entertainment venues, residential structures, bridges, and aqueducts remain lasting proof to their ingenuity. The vast scale of Roman construction, its spread across the Empire, and the impressive ruins that endure today all reinforce Rome’s identity as an empire of builders. The study of Roman engineering is enriched by primary sources such as [*De Architectura*](https://amzn.to/4ieGj3i?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (Ten Books on Architecture) by [Marcus Vitruvius Pollio](https://romanempiretimes.com/vitruvius-the-roman-who-shaped-modern-architecture/), written between 30 and 20 BCE. Vitruvius, born around 80 BCE and deceased by approximately 10 BCE, provided invaluable insights into Roman architectural principles. ![A depiction of Vitruvius presenting De Architectura to Augustus.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-depiction-of-Vitruvius-presenting-De-Architectura-to-Augustus..jpg) A depiction of Vitruvius presenting De Architectura to Augustus. Public domain The historian Titus Livius ([Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/)), who lived from 60 BCE to 17 CE, chronicled Rome’s development in his monumental [*Ab Urbe Condita*](https://amzn.to/3FdloiG?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*,* while Gaius Plinius Secundus ([Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-the-author-of-the-worlds-first-encyclopaedia-was-roman/)), writing in the first century CE, offered extensive observations on natural sciences and engineering in [*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/3DDiF1k?ref=romanempiretimes.com). Another crucial source is [*De Aquis Urbis Romae*](https://amzn.to/3FatF6O?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (The Water Supply of the City of Rome), written in 97 CE by Sextus Julius Frontinus, who served as Rome’s water commissioner after his military tenure in Britain. While Livy and Pliny recorded Rome’s history, Vitruvius and Frontinus provided technical accounts that, despite their original instructional intent, have become invaluable historical records. These works collectively illuminate the sophistication and enduring impact of Roman engineering, a discipline that helped shape not only the ancient world but also modern architectural and infrastructural developments. ### Roman Engineering and Architectural Mastery The Roman approach to technology was deeply rooted in practical application, as noted by Pliny. The Romans mastered the use of materials, construction techniques, and architectural principles to create structures that not only served their purposes but also symbolized the grandeur and power of the Empire. From [temples](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/), [marketplaces](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/), and government buildings to aqueducts, [baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), and [houses](https://romanempiretimes.com/insulae-apartment-buildings-ancient-rome-romans/), these structures reflected Rome’s dominance and innovation. The engineering wonders of Rome were not merely functional but also conveyed a political message, projecting the strength and stability of the Empire. [Water supply](https://romanempiretimes.com/romans-consumed-250-gallons-of-water-per-person-daily-why-is-this-important-for-modern-cities/) was a crucial aspect of Rome’s infrastructure, and the construction of aqueducts made a lasting impression on both Roman citizens and those in the Mediterranean. The Empire built nearly 800 miles of aqueducts, a proof to their engineering skill and ability to manipulate natural resources for the benefit of urban development. These aqueducts, with their imposing architectural style, stood as visible and enduring symbols of Rome’s authority. ![Roman aqueduct in Segovia, Spain](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/roman-aqueduct-in-Segovia--Spain--2-.jpg) Roman aqueduct in Segovia, Spain. Credits: Yury Kirillov, Unsplash In terms of construction materials, the Romans utilized a variety of stones, each chosen for its strength, durability, and aesthetic appeal. Locally sourced stone was commonly used, while brick and concrete became essential when efficiency and rapid construction were necessary. The tools used for stone masonry—hammers, chisels, saws, and mallets—remained largely unchanged from Roman times to the present day. Vitruvius, discussed different types of stone, highlighting the importance of travertine for its durability, tufa for its ease of use in interior structures, and marble for its decorative applications. The introduction of [extensive marble use](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-severan-marble-plan/) during the reign of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) significantly influenced the Empire’s architectural aesthetic, as Rome became adorned with vibrant facades of white, red, green, and yellow marble. Vitruvius also provided insights into Roman preferences for construction materials, offering recommendations based on their qualities and structural resilience. He described tufa as a porous volcanic stone best suited for interior applications, while travertine was praised for its ability to endure stress and harsh weather conditions. The Romans also imported high-quality marble from distant provinces, further reinforcing their architectural grandeur. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/Roman-wood-surface.jpg) ## Beyond stone, the Romans made significant use of wood in construction. **A wood surface. Credits: Trifonov\_Evgeniy from Getty Images Pro, by Canva* Although no wooden structures have survived, evidence suggests that wood was widely used in roofing, staircases, and large-span structures like basilicas. Pliny credited Daedalus with the invention of woodworking tools such as the saw, axe, and plumb-line, highlighting the sophistication of Roman carpentry. Vitruvius elaborated on different timber types, noting the specific uses of oak, fir, cypress, and pine based on their properties. The careful selection and treatment of timber ensured the longevity and stability of wooden structures in Roman construction. Another noteworthy Roman innovation was the use of [glass](https://romanempiretimes.com/have-romans-discovered-an-indestructible-glass/). While primarily used for vessels and decorative art in the early years, glass was later employed for window glazing by the late first century CE. Pliny’s account of its accidental discovery—where traders inadvertently created glass by heating soda and sand—illustrates the experimental nature of ancient technology. The integration of glass into Roman buildings allowed for more light-filled interiors, enhancing both functionality and aesthetic appeal. Bricks played a vital role in Roman construction, particularly in areas where stone was scarce. Vitruvius mentioned the use of unbaked mud bricks in early Rome, but by the first century CE, fired bricks became the standard. These bricks were manufactured in standardized sizes—such as the *pentadoron*, which measured 14.5 x 14.5 inches (36.83 x 36.83 cm)—allowing for rapid and uniform construction. ![The Red Basilica at Pergamon, built using Roman brick. Credits: Prioryman, CC BY-SA 3.0 ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/The-Red-Basilica-at-Pergamon--built-using-Roman-brick.jpg) The Red Basilica at Pergamon, built using Roman brick Baked bricks provided durability and facilitated the expansion of cities, fortifications, and aqueducts across the Empire. The use of brick as a primary building material enabled Rome to construct large-scale structures with remarkable speed and efficiency. Perhaps the most significant Roman contribution to construction was the development of [concrete](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-concrete-stronger-self-healing-and-built-to-last-forever/). This versatile material allowed for the construction of massive vaulted ceilings, domes, and durable structures. Vitruvius emphasized the importance of high-quality sand in concrete production, recommending volcanic pozzolana as a key ingredient. This discovery revolutionized Roman engineering, as pozzolana-based concrete could set underwater, enabling the construction of artificial harbors, [bridge foundations](https://romanempiretimes.com/trajan-bridge-ancient-world-first-to-surpass-1km-kilometer-2000-years-ago/), and other maritime structures. Despite the brilliance of Roman concrete, its use declined after the fall of the Empire and was only rediscovered in 1756 when a British engineer sought a durable material for rebuilding the [Eddystone Lighthouse](https://maps.app.goo.gl/ELLHF7d8iXQYB95N7?g%5Fst=com.google.maps.preview.copy&ref=romanempiretimes.com). In addition to structural materials, the Romans also used plaster, paints, and decorative elements to enhance their buildings. Vitruvius documented the use of various pigments, including blue made from copper and sand, and [purple](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/), which was derived from sea mollusks and symbolized imperial power. The Roman mastery of materials and construction techniques played a fundamental role in shaping the built environment of the Empire. Their architectural achievements, from aqueducts and temples to roads and amphitheaters, not only met the practical needs of a vast and growing civilization but also projected Rome’s power and legacy across time. Even today, the ruins of Rome continue to inspire admiration, a testament to the engineering ingenuity that defined an empire. (*Roman Building Materials, Construction Methods, and Architecture: The Identity of an Empire, by Michael Strickland, Clemson University*) ![The Pantheon dome in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/View-of-the-Pantheon-dome-in-Rome.jpg) The Pantheon dome in Rome. Credits: Evan Qu, Unsplash ### The Structural Genius Behind Roman Engineering Robert Mark, in his article on American Scientist, “*Reinterpreting Ancient Roman Structure*,” challenges long-standing assumptions about the innovation behind Rome’s most remarkable architectural feats. He argues that while the use of concrete was revolutionary, the true ingenuity of Roman builders lay in their mastery of structural principles developed over centuries. Their knowledge of [arch behavior](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrians-arch-of-triumph-in-ancient-jerash-a-gateway-to-the-past/) allowed them to construct increasingly ambitious domes, with the Pantheon as the [pinnacle of this evolution](https://romanempiretimes.com/unveiling-the-eternal-things-about-the-pantheon-you-did-not-know/). Traditionally, scholars have viewed the Pantheon’s dome as a single monolithic structure, held in place by its massive supporting walls. However, Mark’s structural analysis and computer modeling suggest that the dome functions more like a series of interconnected wedge-shaped arches. This explains how such a vast, unreinforced concrete dome has remained standing for nearly two millennia. Additionally, his research dispels myths surrounding Roman concrete. Unlike modern reinforced concrete, Roman concrete lacked tensile strength and had to be carefully layered by hand rather than poured. This required architects to design their structures in a way that compensated for its weaknesses. For example, the Pantheon’s dome exhibits visible cracks that likely developed soon after construction, contradicting the belief that Roman structures were immune to failure. Repairs were made early, showing that even the most advanced Roman engineers faced structural challenges. Mark also suggests that lessons learned from Roman architecture influenced later Byzantine construction. The Hagia Sophia, built in [Constantinople](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/) in the sixth century, incorporated windows at the base of its dome—an innovation that may have been a response to the cracking issues observed in the Pantheon. ### Roman Marine Concrete Roman builders developed a pozzolanic mortar capable of being mixed with seawater, a breakthrough that revolutionized maritime construction. This innovation enabled structures to endure for extended periods in the harsh marine environment, paving the way for the expansion of Rome’s harbors, which were crucial for both economic growth and military dominance. The mortar simplified marine construction by eliminating the need for double-walled caissons that would have required draining before work could begin. ![Caesarea harbour: an example of underwater Roman concrete technology on a large scale.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/an-example-of-underwater-Roman-concrete-technology-on-a-large-scale.jpg) Caesarea harbour: An example of underwater Roman concrete technology on a large scale. Credits: James Cocks, CC BY-SA 3.0 By the first century BC, observations of Late Republican maritime structures, alongside Vitruvius’ descriptions, indicated that Roman builders had recognized the superior durability of concrete mixed with volcanic ash. This realization led to the widespread use of pozzolanic concrete in marine environments. The second century BC saw advancements in standardizing concrete facings for monumental construction in Rome, which not only improved the efficiency of building but also reduced reliance on formwork. By the first century BC, techniques integrating dimension stone with concrete masonry were refined, and during the Augustan era, innovations in architectural concrete became standardized in both material selection and mixing procedures. Given the complexities of marine construction, the materials and techniques required for pozzolanic concrete were subject to careful refinement. Vitruvius dedicated considerable attention in *De architectura* to describing the production and placement of marine concrete, providing more detailed guidance than on terrestrial concrete techniques. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-wall-painting-depicting-a-harbour-landscape-scene--found-in--Herculaneum-1.jpg) ## Studies such as [ROMACONS](https://web.uvic.ca/~jpoleson/Harbour%20Concrete/HarbourConcrete.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com) have revealed a diverse tradition of formwork designs across the Mediterranean, which varied according to local conditions and available resources. **A wall painting depicting a harbour landscape scene, found in Herculaneum. Credits: ArchaiOptix, CC BY-SA 4.0* Despite the significance of these advancements, there is no surviving ancient record detailing how these engineering innovations spread beyond Central Italy. Vitruvius himself acknowledged that earlier Roman architects and engineers had not left organized, publicly accessible records of their techniques. His *De Architectura* sought to fill this gap, offering insights into both terrestrial and marine mortar compositions based on empirical observation. One of his objectives was to provide [villa](https://romanempiretimes.com/domus-romana-the-roman-villa-of-rabat-malta/) and farm owners with knowledge that would allow them to oversee their own construction projects, suggesting he intended his work for wide circulation. Vitruvius’ ambition for his work to endure beyond his lifetime proved correct. *De Architectura* remained influential for centuries, epitomized by Faventinus and later referenced in Palladius' agricultural handbook. Its significance persisted through the medieval and early modern periods, cementing its place as one of the most enduring technical treatises on Roman engineering. ### Piscinae, Prestige, and Marine Concrete: Roman Aristocracy and the Development of Maritime Engineering The earliest surviving examples of marine concrete construction in Rome are not large harbors but rather the fish-raising ponds (*piscinae*) built by aristocrats along the western coast of Central Italy in the first century BC. These piscinae, praised by Pliny as an innovation of L. Licinius Murena, served both practical and prestige purposes. Initially popular among the elite, they later declined in favor of larger industrial fish farms, such as those at Cosa. Though piscinae were a relatively minor element of Roman marine construction, their significance lies in their role as precursors to the grand Imperial harbors. Unlike those later structures, the social and technological contexts of piscinae are better documented in contemporary sources, including Varro, [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/), and Columella. Marine concrete used in piscinae demonstrated early Roman expertise in hydraulic engineering. Many were constructed with standardized, durable mortars containing volcanic ash from the Gulf of Naples, as evidenced in the materials of the *Santa Liberata* piscina. The knowledge gained from building these pools likely contributed to the Romans’ ability to construct submerged bridge foundations, such as those commissioned by M. Fulvius Nobilior in 179 BC for the [Tiber River](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/), and later, the great Imperial harbors. [Aristocratic villa](https://romanempiretimes.com/villa-jovis-the-secret-lair-for-the-dark-pleasures-of-an-old-emperor/) owners played an active role in the design of these piscinae, which often included elaborate compartmentalization to separate fish by species and size. Varro likened their arrangement to an artist’s paint box, suggesting that aesthetic considerations were as important as function. Lavish projects such as those by C. Sergius Orata, who built extravagant piscinae near Puteoli, demonstrate the social prestige attached to these structures. Orata even developed heated bathing pools, later known as *pecularia…maria* or "personal seas". ![The Piscina Mirabilis](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/The-Piscina-Mirabilis.jpg) The Piscina Mirabilis. Credits: Ra Boe, CC BY-SA 3.0 de Over time, these projects evolved beyond personal luxury. By the first century AD, Columella argued that saltwater piscinae could be profitable businesses, reflecting the increasing economic importance of fish-farming. This shift paralleled advances in marine concrete technology, which became essential for Imperial harbor construction. Piscinae required careful circulation of seawater to maintain fish health, a concern echoed in later harbor engineering, where similar principles were applied to prevent sedimentation. [Seneca](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-tragic-philosopher-seneca-the-younger-journey-through-stoicism-and-politics/) even described these pools as "harbors for extravagance", linking them conceptually to the monumental harbors that would define Rome’s maritime dominance. The methods developed in piscinae—including the use of volcanic ash, submerged concrete forms, and breakwaters—provided direct precedents for large-scale Roman harbor construction. The knowledge gained from villa-based marine engineering projects likely informed the sophisticated harbor-building techniques used in places like *Portus*, *Antium,* and *Centum Cellae*. This transition from aristocratic indulgence to Imperial infrastructure reflects a broader Roman pattern: technological innovation often began in private luxury before being adapted for state expansion. (*Building for eternity: The history and technology of Roman Concrete Engineering in the sea, by C.J. Brandon, R.L Hohlfelder, M.D Jackson and J.P Oleson, with contributions by* *L. Bottalico, S. Cramer, R. Cucitore, E. Gotti, C.R. Stern and G. Vola*) ### The Evolution of Roman Construction Methods As the Roman Empire expanded, the development of standardized and efficient construction methods became a necessity. Brick and concrete emerged as fundamental materials, but their effective use required advancements in construction techniques. Roman builders refined these techniques over time, leading to the widespread implementation of distinct masonry styles. A crucial step in Roman construction was the foundation. While modern large structures typically rely on bedrock, Roman foundations consisted of large stone rubble mixed with mortar, typically around three feet deep (±0.9m). These foundations, found across Roman ruins, suggest a relatively standardized approach, though they do not always indicate the type of structure they once supported. Roman concrete construction was categorized by its facing, with three primary types: *opus incertum*, *opus reticulatum*, and *opus testaceum*. In all three methods, concrete was poured between two layers of facing material, with walls typically measuring two to three feet (±0.6-0.9m) thick. ![Opus reticulatum with polychrome colouring and brickwork, Ostia Antica, Italy](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/Opus-reticulatum-with-polychrome-colouring-and-brickwork--Ostia-Antica--Italy.jpg) **Opus reticulatum* with polychrome colouring and brickwork, Ostia Antica, Italy. Credits: Alf.68, CC BY-SA 4.0 Opus incertum, the earliest technique, consisted of irregularly shaped stones gathered from local sources. It was widely used in fortifications and walls but began to decline in the first century BC as Rome’s population and economy expanded. The demand for construction efficiency led to the development of opus reticulatum, a technique in which stones were cut into standard square shapes and laid diagonally to create a uniform, net-like pattern. This innovation transformed construction work, shifting the laborer’s role from craftsman to assembler. The transition from opus incertum to opus reticulatum is evident in some structures, such as the cistern at the Forum Baths in[ Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/), where the lower levels feature the newer method while the upper levels revert to the older style. The use of opus reticulatum became widespread by the first century BC, as confirmed by Vitruvius, who stated that it “*is used by everyone now*.” Its popularity stemmed from both its practicality and its aesthetic appeal. By the late first century AD, opus testaceum, or brick-faced concrete, became the dominant construction technique. Unlike earlier methods that used irregularly shaped or diagonally placed stones, opus testaceum utilized baked bricks laid in horizontal courses. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/Opus-incertum-on-the-Temple-of-Jupiter-Anxur-in-Terracina--Italy-1.jpg) ## This transition marked a significant step in the standardization of Roman building materials. **Opus incertum on the Temple of Jupiter Anxur in Terracina, Italy. Credits: antonioa89, CC BY-SA 3.0* While the exact date of its introduction remains uncertain, its widespread use is evident in some of Rome’s most iconic structures, including the [Colosseum](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-romes-arena-of-death-and-glory/), [Trajan’s Market](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/), the Pantheon, the Tomb of Hadrian, the [Baths of Caracalla,](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-magnificent-baths-of-caracalla/) and the Basilica of Maxentius. The Colosseum, in particular, showcases the refinement of Roman brickwork, with its tiered arches and precisely placed keystones forming an intricate yet structurally sound design. The shift to opus testaceum reinforced Rome’s architectural dominance, enabling faster, more durable construction. The vast remnants of brick-faced structures in and around Rome stand as enduring evidence of the Empire’s architectural and engineering expertise. As one scholar noted, > “The strongest visual memory left in the minds of those who have visited Rome and its vicinity is one of the monumental body of brick from which there emerge, now and then, some isolated remains of travertine or marble.” Indeed, the sheer volume of surviving Roman brick structures highlights the lasting impact of their construction techniques, which allowed the Empire to **rapidly expand** and build an **enduring architectural heritage**. ### Plutarch: A Greek Voice in the Heart of Rome URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/ Last updated: 2025-03-02T22:47:30.000Z Plutarch’s [*Parallel Lives*](https://amzn.to/43hpd0j?ref=romanempiretimes.com) offered moral reflections wrapped in compelling biographies of Greek and Roman figures, while his [*Moralia*](https://amzn.to/3QFRxlq?ref=romanempiretimes.com) provided philosophical guidance that resonated with Rome’s intellectual [elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). Though deeply rooted in Greek traditions, Plutarch shaped the Roman understanding of their own history and virtues, bridging the [cultural divide between Greece and Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/). His writings not only entertained but also instructed, offering the Romans a mirror through which they could measure their own greatness against the legends of the past. Why did Plutarch’s works captivate his Roman readers, and how did they interpret his lessons? The answer lies in the complex interplay of admiration, identity, and the enduring influence of Hellenic thought on the Roman world. ![Possible bust of Greek historian, Plutarch](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/Bust-of-Greek-Historian-Plutarch.jpg) Possible bust of Greek historian, Plutarch. Credits: Marinos Karafyllidis, by Canva ### Between Two Worlds: Plutarch’s Greek Identity and Roman Engagement No other writer bridged the worlds of Greece and Rome as successfully as Plutarch. His greatest work, Parallel Lives, honors the virtues and legacies of both civilizations by drawing comparisons between their heroes and histories. His deep understanding of each culture and its influence on the broader world won him fame in his own time and secured his reputation as a key figure in classical literature. But how did a Greek intellectual come to speak so authoritatively about Rome? Plutarch was born in Chaeronea, a city long under Roman rule by his time. His homeland had been the site of pivotal battles—where Philip of Macedon defeated the Greek coalition in 338 BCE and where, centuries later, Sulla crushed the forces of [Mithridates](https://romanempiretimes.com/mad-honey-warfare-how-king-mithridates-poisoned-pompeys-legions/) in 86 BCE, securing Rome’s dominance over Greece. The relics of these conflicts, from monuments to buried weapons, were tangible reminders of his city's turbulent past. Roman authority was not always benign. Chaeronea itself narrowly escaped destruction when an altercation between a young local and a Roman officer nearly led to its downfall—only intervention by [Lucullus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-unknown-lucullus-far-more-than-just-lucullan-meals/), an officer under Sulla, spared it. Plutarch's own family had endured [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s demands; his great-grandfather was forced to carry grain for [Mark Antony](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/)’s troops before the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/)’s rule was an unchallenged reality in Plutarch’s life, yet its governance remained unstable, culminating in the civil war of 69 CE, which he witnessed firsthand. Despite this, Plutarch’s intellectual world was deeply Greek. His education in rhetoric, philosophy, and history, his priesthood at Delphi, and his reverence for Greek literary tradition—particularly Plato—defined his scholarly identity. He was among the earliest figures of the Greek literary revival of the second century CE, yet unlike his contemporary Dio of Prusa, he chose to define himself as a philosopher rather than an orator. What set Plutarch apart from other Greek intellectuals of his time was his profound knowledge of Roman history, politics, and institutions. Plutarch’s engagement with [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/) was deliberate and highly successful. His teacher in Athens, Ammonius, who held the office of Herald of the Areopagus, frequently interacted with Roman officials, perhaps inspiring Plutarch to pursue ties with the empire. An essential moment may have been [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/)’s visit to Greece in 68 CE, when the future emperor [Vespasian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/) was among the entourage. Plutarch writes of attending the games at Delphi with Ammonius, where he may have encountered influential Romans. Shortly after Vespasian became emperor in 69 CE, Plutarch likely traveled to Alexandria as part of a diplomatic mission. There, he met Lucius Mestrius Florus, a [senator](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/) and close associate of Vespasian, who would become his patron and benefactor. Florus granted him Roman citizenship, giving him the name *Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus*, and secured his place within the equestrian class. This prestigious connection not only elevated Plutarch’s status but also facilitated his introduction to Rome’s political elite. By the early 70s CE, Plutarch traveled to Rome, where Florus took him to northern Italy. Plutarch proudly recalls visiting the battlefield of *Bedriacum* and Otho’s monument at *Brixellum*, sites significant in Rome’s recent civil war. Florus’s patronage provided Plutarch with access to leading senators and, crucially, the emperor himself. Through these connections, he positioned himself as a Greek intellectual uniquely fluent in Roman history and political culture, securing his legacy as an enduring bridge between the two great civilizations. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/The-head-of-Chaeronea-s-Lion--before-its-reconstruction.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/Chaeronea-s-Lion-restored--as-is-today.jpg) 🏛️ The famous Lion of Chaeronea, before and after its restoration in Greece. Credits: #1: Giannis Giannakitsas, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times #2: Philipp Pilhofer, CC BY-SA 3.0 ### Plutarch in Rome Plutarch’s initial visit to Rome served multiple purposes: establishing his reputation as a philosopher and speaker, advocating on behalf of his fellow citizens from Boeotia or Delphi, and expanding his network of Roman acquaintances. As he later reflected: > “While I was in Rome and other parts of Italy, I did not have leisure to practice the Latin language on account of political business and people coming for philosophy.” This suggests that he gave lectures on philosophical topics, similar to the philosopher Euphrates, whom [Pliny the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/) admired. It is likely that these lectures were delivered in Greek. Among his audience was probably his patron, L. Mestrius Florus, who had a keen interest in philosophical discussions and regularly celebrated the birthdays of Socrates and Plato. Another influential Roman connection was Julius Secundus, a notable speaker during Vespasian’s reign. Although Plutarch does not specify his political engagements in Rome, they may have been related to Delphi. Vespasian granted Delphi the status of a free and autonomous city, along with other privileges. Plutarch may have also played a role in securing the appointment of Vespasian’s son, Titus, as *archon* (chief magistrate) of Delphi, a prestigious position that Titus held while serving as emperor in 79/80 CE, coinciding with the Pythian Games. Plutarch’s time in Rome also allowed him to develop reading and possibly speaking fluency in Latin. By the time he composed the [*Lives of the Caesars*](https://amzn.to/4iiEbr2?ref=romanempiretimes.com), likely in the mid-70s, he was already able to engage with Latin historical sources, some of which were later used by [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) and [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/). While he may have begun studying Latin in Chaeronea or Athens, his mastery of the language intensified as he expanded his intellectual and political engagement with Rome. He later wrote: > “I began to read Roman works late and when advanced in age” Implying that his deep engagement with Latin texts came only after years of Greek scholarship. He explained his method of learning: > “It happened that I followed along the words from the circumstances, insofar as I had some experience of them, rather than understood and recognized the circumstances from the words.” However, he admitted that he never mastered Latin rhetoric to the level of native speakers, stating: > “I think it charming and pleasurable to perceive the beauty and rapidity of Latin delivery and the stylistic figures and rhythms and the other features in which it glories, but practice and exercising for this purpose was not convenient: that is more for those whose greater leisure and suitable age permit such ambitions.” ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-portrait-of-Plutarch.jpg) ## Despite his humility, Plutarch’s extensive engagement with Roman historians and literature demonstrates his fluency rather than difficulty in reading Latin. **A portrait of Plutarch. Credits: Wellcome Images, CC BY 4.0* Beyond written sources, Plutarch’s interactions with Roman senators and intellectuals enriched his understanding of Roman history and culture. His speech [*On the Fortune of the Romans*](https://amzn.to/3XqdEA1?ref=romanempiretimes.com), likely delivered in Rome under Vespasian, reflects an impressive knowledge of Roman history from [Romulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-remus-legendary-founders-rome-tragic-sibling-struggle/) to [Augustus,](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) drawing upon sources like Valerius Antias and [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/). His familiarity with Roman customs was further deepened by his travels through Italy with Florus, which allowed him to visit battlefields and significant historical sites. His deep engagement with Rome continued in later works. [*The Roman Questions*](https://amzn.to/3XqdEA1?ref=romanempiretimes.com), written after the death of [Domitian ](https://romanempiretimes.com/dining-with-domitian-and-the-enigma-of-domitian-black-dinner/)in 96 CE, showcases Plutarch’s thorough study of Roman customs, history, and antiquarian traditions. Drawing on authors such as Varro and Verrius Flaccus, he sought to explain Roman rituals and practices in a way that resonated with Greek philosophy. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/An-engraving-on-laid-paper-of-Plutarch--by-L-onard-Gaultier.jpg) ## Rather than portraying Roman traditions as inferior or irrational, he highlighted their underlying wisdom, occasionally even preferring them over Greek customs. An engraving on laid paper of Plutarch, by Léonard Gaultier. Credits: National Gallery of Art, CC 1.0 Over the years, Plutarch likely visited Rome multiple times, possibly in 89 CE and again in 92 CE. After that, no records confirm his presence in the city, though [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/)’s expulsion of philosophers in 93 or 94 CE may have played a role in keeping him away. During his visits, he may have represented Delphi before Domitian, who restored the grand temple of Apollo in 84 CE. Plutarch also continued to teach philosophy, as seen in an anecdote where Iunius Rusticus, a [Stoic](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-timeless-appeal-of-stoicism-from-ancient-rome-to-today/) senator and former consul, attended one of his lectures. Rusticus was handed a letter from Domitian mid-lecture but chose to finish listening before reading it—a display of Stoic restraint that Plutarch admired. Unfortunately, Rusticus later fell victim to Domitian’s tyranny and was executed for his opposition to the emperor. ### Plutarch and the Emperors The [Roman emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/) stood at the pinnacle of society, and Plutarch, through his connections, had access to the imperial circle. He may have first encountered Vespasian in Alexandria, and his friendship with L. Mestrius Florus linked him directly to the emperor’s inner circle. Encouraged by these relationships, he embarked on a major literary project: [*Lives of the Caesars*](https://amzn.to/4iiEbr2?ref=romanempiretimes.com), a collection of biographies covering the reigns of emperors from Augustus to Vitellius (31 BCE–69 CE). Though only the Lives of Galba and Otho survive, the original work was an ambitious endeavor, spanning at least 375 modern pages, possibly 500\. It was also the first known work to present Roman history as a series of biographies, emphasizing the character and actions of individual rulers. This approach influenced later historians, including Suetonius and the authors of the Historia Augusta, while even Tacitus structured his historical narratives around the reigns of emperors. Plutarch approached history with a philosophical lens, focusing on moral values and just governance, principles that appear frequently in his essays and dialogues. He embraced the Platonic ideal of a ruler dedicated to the well-being of his people, promoting justice, harmony, and peace. As he wrote in [*Dion*](https://amzn.to/41jFHlY?ref=romanempiretimes.com): > "He would conform his character to the principle of virtue and render it similar to the most divine and holy model of reality which guides the universe from disorder to order, and thus would procure great happiness for himself and his citizens. > > He would achieve by his paternal rule, through self-control and justice and with the goodwill of his subjects, what \[before\] had been obtained from their discouragement and oppression, so that he would be a king rather than a tyrant." The Lives of the Caesars provided an opportunity to assess this ideal in reality. In the introduction to Galba, Plutarch invokes Plato’s Republic to describe the anarchy of the civil war: soldiers running amok, severed heads displayed, and tyrants rising and falling in quick succession—“*the complete breakdown of rational government*.” By contrast, [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/), at least in his later years, embodied the Platonic ideal. Though he had been as ruthless as any ruler during the civil wars, he ultimately became a stabilizing force. Plutarch later reflected that his policies: > “became much more kingly and helpful to the people toward the end of his life” (An seni 784D) (*An seni 784D- refers to a passage from Plutarch's*[***Moralia***](https://amzn.to/4klTZLh?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, specifically from his essay An Seni Respublica Gerenda Sit — Whether an Old Man Should Engage in Public Affairs*). This portrayal positioned Augustus as the wise ruler who restored order, in stark contrast to the chaos of Galba and Otho’s reigns. Though most of the other Lives are lost, Plutarch’s opinion of Nero survives. He acknowledged Nero’s proclamation of Greek freedom in 68 CE but dismissed any lasting virtue in him. According to Plutarch, [Nero’s crimes](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/), especially his murder of his mother, condemned his soul to reincarnate as: > “a frog in a swamp rather than as the viper his actions deserved.” ![An engraving depicting Jean-Jacques Rousseau greeted by Socrates, Montaigne and Plutarch on his arrival at the Elysian Fields](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/An-engraving-depicting-Jean-Jacques-Rousseau-greeted-by-Socrates--Montaigne-and-Plutarch-on-his-arrival-at-the-Elysian-Fields.jpg) An engraving depicting Jean-Jacques Rousseau greeted by Socrates, Montaigne and Plutarch on his arrival at the Elysian Fields. Credits: Rawpixel, Public domain The trajectory of the Caesars suggested a steady decline from Augustus' rule to the anarchy of 69 CE, and Plutarch likely viewed Vespasian’s reign as a necessary renewal for Rome. However, he remained realistic about imperial rule, recognizing that emperors rarely embodied the [philosopher-king ideal](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-marcus-aurelius-meditations-survive/). His work subtly implied that the Roman ruling class required moral guidance—perhaps even from a philosopher like himself. Plato had attempted to educate the rulers of Syracuse, and Plutarch, through his Roman friendships, might have envisioned a similar role for himself. Writing historical biographies that instilled political morality was his first step in that direction. Despite his philosophical ambitions, Plutarch acknowledged Vespasian’s shortcomings. He criticized the emperor for his harshness toward the wife of a Gallic rebel, the mother of a friend in Delphi, though he also recognized his good fortune. His diplomatic skills may have influenced Vespasian’s son Titus to serve as archon of Delphi and Domitian to restore Apollo’s temple. However, Plutarch later criticized Domitian's excesses. He noted wryly that the emperor named two months after himself: > “but not for long: they resumed their names again after his assassination.” In *Publicola*, Plutarch condemned Domitian’s extravagant palace on the Palatine, suggesting that someone might say to the emperor: > “You aren’t pious or liberal, you are diseased: you delight in building; just like Midas you want everything to be in gold or stone.” This mirrored an earlier passage in Solon, where Solon, upon seeing the court of King Croesus: > “ remained unmoved by the spectacle … he actually despised the vulgarity and petty ostentation of it all”. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-reconstruction-sketch-of-how-Domus-Flavia-looked-like--belonging-to-Roman-Emperor-Domitian.jpg) ## The scene likely reflects Plutarch’s own experience in Domitian’s lavish Domus Flavia. **A reconstruction sketch of how Domus Flavia looked like, belonging to Roman Emperor Domitian. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times* Despite his disdain for tyranny, Plutarch followed Solon’s example by continuing to engage with rulers rather than opposing them outright. The Parallel Lives were not written until after Domitian’s death, suggesting that Plutarch believed the emperor’s absolutism would not have tolerated the critical perspectives he had exercised in Caesars. Though no evidence links Plutarch directly to Nerva, he had strong ties to Trajan’s inner circle, particularly Sosius Senecio, a close advisor to the emperor. He even wrote for [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/trajan-bridge-ancient-world-first-to-surpass-1km-kilometer-2000-years-ago/) a collection of historical anecdotes, Sayings of Kings and Commanders, which he dedicated to the emperor with these words: > “These expressions and utterances, like mirrors, give the opportunity to observe the mind of each statesman.” This work aimed to provide [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/) with moral and political inspiration. However, Plutarch may have been disappointed that the emperor preferred short anecdotes over his deeply researched Lives. Although Plutarch shared many of [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/)’s ideals of governance, the emperor seemed more preoccupied with his Dacian and Parthian wars than with philosophical reflections on leadership. Whether due to Senecio’s influence or [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/)’s own recognition of Plutarch’s work, the emperor honored him with the *ornamenta consularia*, granting him the rank and privileges of a Roman consul. This prestigious recognition elevated him to a position of great respect within the empire. A later, less reliable source suggests that [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrian-gate-in-downtown-athens-below-acropolis-a-gateway-to-history/) appointed Plutarch as imperial procurator for Greece, though this might have been a more symbolic role. ([*Plutarch in Context*](https://amzn.to/4h7lSEj?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Philip A. Stadter*) ![A bust of Plutarch in his hometown of Chaeronea, Greece](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-bust-of-Plutarch-in-his-hometown-of-Chaeronea--Greece.jpg) A bust of Plutarch in his hometown of Chaeronea, Greece. Credits: Odysses, CC BY-SA 3.0, Edited by Roman Empire Times ### Bridging Two Worlds: Plutarch’s Greek Identity and Roman Engagement Plutarch was a Greek by birth, a lifelong resident of Greece, and a writer who composed all his known works in Greek. Yet, he lived in a world where Greece had been under Roman rule for ten generations. Over time, [Rome had absorbed much of Greek culture,](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) while the Greeks, though slow to embrace Roman ways, found means of coexistence under imperial governance. The Romans preferred a stable elite and sought to maintain peace among Greek cities rather than impose heavy-handed oppression. However, power could always turn brutal, as Plutarch well understood. His own great-grandfather, Nicarchus, had suffered under Roman demands, forced to carry grain for Antony’s army under the lash. Unlike the rapid Romanization of [Gaul](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/) or Spain, the Greeks held firmly to their own language, literature, and traditions, using their cultural legacy both as a source of identity and as a means of earning Roman respect. Romans themselves, from Aemilius Paullus to [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) and Pliny the Younger, admired Greek learning, recognizing it as the foundation of *humanitas*. As a result, Greek intellectuals remained committed to writing and speaking in a pure, classical Greek style, considering it the hallmark of true education. By the late first century AD, a resurgence in Greek literary and rhetorical culture, later termed the Second Sophistic, emerged as a response to Greek efforts to define their role within the Roman world. Philostratus, in his Lives of the Sophists, identified this movement as one focused on performative oratory, with figures like Dio of Prusa and, later, [Herodes Atticus](https://romanempiretimes.com/herodes-atticus-a-bridge-between-greek-heritage-and-roman-power/) at its forefront. Plutarch, however, stood apart from this tradition. Unlike Dio, who engaged in public discourse and civic debates to shape Greek cities under Roman rule, Plutarch took a quieter, more reflective approach. His Parallel Lives shifted the focus away from contemporary politics, instead drawing lessons from the great figures of Greek and Roman history. Dio’s oratory was dynamic, confrontational, and self-referential, while Plutarch’s tone was measured, aiming to counsel rather than command. He subtly wove his personal connections with prominent Romans into his works, dedicating treatises to them and portraying a blended society of Greeks and philhellenic Romans, as seen in his [*Table Talk*](https://amzn.to/4inOnOP?ref=romanempiretimes.com). While Dio used his speeches to assert influence in his home city of Prusa, Plutarch remained primarily a philosopher, not a statesman. His preferred form of expression was the essay, dialogue, or biography, rather than the grand oration. Despite this, Plutarch was one of the most articulate political thinkers of his time. His ethical essays, such as [*Talkativeness*](https://amzn.to/3QMEfU1?ref=romanempiretimes.com) and [*Curiosity*](https://amzn.to/43C6nRN?ref=romanempiretimes.com), addressed social ambitions within the elite, while his [*Advice for Politicians*](https://amzn.to/3XmRyyp?ref=romanempiretimes.com) was explicitly written for a young aristocrat aiming to build his career. However, his most influential work was the Parallel Lives, which examined the political and moral legacies of Greece and Rome through biographical comparisons. The pairing of Greek and Roman figures—such as Epaminondas and [Scipio](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-was-the-best-roman-warrior-scipio-africanus-a-man-who-never-lost-a-battle/), Pelopidas and Marcellus, or Philopoemen and Flamininus—created a framework where their virtues, struggles, and leadership styles could be weighed side by side. Plutarch’s comparisons suggested no inherent superiority of one culture over the other. His moral outlook, drawn from Platonic and Aristotelian traditions, emphasized self-control, reason, and civic virtue, ideals that he saw as universal rather than exclusively Greek or Roman. His Parallel Lives assumed a readership that shared this perspective, offering a vision of history where ethical leadership, rather than nationality, defined true greatness. Through his writings, Plutarch provided a bridge between two worlds, proving that the best ideals of Greece and Rome could coexist, shaping the moral and intellectual fabric of the empire. ![A mural depicting the historian Plutarch on the exterior of the Church of Saint John Gargarettas](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-mural-depicting-the-historian-Plutarch-on-the-exterior-of-the-Church-of-Saint-John-Gargarettas.jpg) A mural depicting the historian Plutarch on the exterior of the Church of Saint John Gargarettas. Credits: George E. Koronaios, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### Plutarch’s Table Talk and the Art of the Symposium Plutarch begins Table Talk with a lighthearted yet pointed remark: > “I dislike a drinking companion with a good memory”. He borrows this line from an early [poet](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/) but then promptly excuses himself for recording the many conversations he and his friends shared over wine. His Table Talk, a collection of nearly a hundred dinner discussions spread across nine books, is not meant to dwell on indiscretions but to celebrate the pleasures of conversation, friendship, and philosophy. The symposium, for Plutarch, was more than just drinking; it was *φιλοποιός*, “friend-making”. His work, too, serves this purpose—strengthening bonds with his friend Sosius Senecio and extending this friendship to his readers. Yet beneath the convivial tone, Plutarch subtly warns of the dangers of wine. > “What is said over wine is often better forgotten,” …he implies, recalling the violent feasts of Greek mythology, from the drunken rampage of the Centaurs to [Alexander the Great](https://romanempiretimes.com/alexander-the-great-in-roman-thought-hero-rival-and-legend/)’s fateful murder of Cleitus. A symposium could foster friendship, but it could also dissolve into *παροινία* (rowdy drunkenness). To ensure harmony, [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/) must be blended with intellect, Dionysus must be tempered by the Muses. In his [*Symposiaca*](https://amzn.to/4bmQOyY?ref=romanempiretimes.com), Plutarch repeatedly emphasizes the necessity of balance—*ἐμμέλεια* (harmony) and *κρᾶσις* (proper blending). In Table Talk, Plutarch positions himself as the ideal *συμποσίαρχος* (symposium leader), guiding his guests not by restricting their wine but by directing their conversation. His role, he suggests, is akin to a musician tuning a lyre— > “to tighten up on wine with one and relax on another” —ensuring a symphony of personalities rather than a cacophony of excess. Discussions should be a blend of *σπουδή* (seriousness) and *γελοῖον* (playfulness), reinforcing friendship rather than fueling hostility. ![A possible representation of Plutarch discussing about philosophical topics with fellow Romans during a symposium](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/A-possible-representation-of-Plutarch-discussing-about-philosophical-topics-with-fellow-Romans-during-a-symposium.jpg) A possible representation of Plutarch discussing about philosophical topics with fellow Romans during a symposium. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney Plutarch’s dialogues are not nostalgic indulgences but serve a deeper purpose. Roman feasts, unlike the Greek symposia, were often marked by excess—Sulla reveling with actors, [Antony’s legendary debauchery](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-intriguing-tale-of-mark-antony-from-rome-to-egypt/), even the [Stoic Cato ](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/)needing to be carried home. Plutarch avoids direct moralizing but instead presents an ideal, offering Table Talk as a subtle corrective to an age of indulgence. > “Dionysus must hide among the Muses,” …he writes, implying that wine, when tempered by intellect, fosters friendship rather than folly. Ultimately, Table Talk is not merely a collection of past conversations but a guide to the art of refined social interaction. Addressing his distant friend Senecio, Plutarch wistfully quotes Homer: > “For between us lie / full many a shadowy mountain and sounding sea.” The symposium, like Table Talk itself, bridges this divide—offering warmth, wit, and wisdom across time and space. ([*Plutarch and his Roman readers*](https://amzn.to/4kjD1xg?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Philip A. Stadter*) ### The Colosseum: Rome's Arena of "Panis et Spectacula" URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-rome-arena-of-panis-et-spectacula/ Last updated: 2025-08-21T21:16:38.000Z For centuries, the Colosseum’s towering arches and weathered stones have whispered tales of [gladiatorial combat](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/), [wild beast hunts](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/), and [grand public spectacles](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-romans-flood-the-colosseum-for-naval-battles-in-the-arena/) that captivated tens of thousands of spectators. Built to awe and entertain, this amphitheater was more than just an arena—it was a symbol of imperial power, a marvel of construction, and a stage where life and death unfolded for the entertainment of the masses. But beyond its grand façade lies a deeper story—of innovation, politics, and the lives forever shaped by the events that took place within its walls. ### The Colosseum’s Grand Opening: A Hundred Days of Blood, Spectacle, and Imperial Glory John Pearson, in his book, “[*Arena. The Story of the Colosseum*](https://amzn.to/4kbPgfs?ref=romanempiretimes.com)” with his engaging narrative style, gives us details about the opening of the Colosseum, based on well researched historical facts but with a flair of drama and interpretations that lean toward the sensational: In AD 80, the Colosseum opened with what was likely the longest and most gruesome public spectacle in history. According to [Suetonius,](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/) [Emperor Titus](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-titus-darling-of-mankind/) and a packed audience witnessed an unrelenting display of mass slaughter—both of men and animals—over the course of a hundred days. Far from being condemned, these violent displays were seen as a magnificent tribute to the Roman state, attended by [senators](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/), priests, [vestal virgins](https://romanempiretimes.com/vestal-virgins-keepers-of-romes-eternal-flame-and-protectors-of-the-state/), and even sacred representations of [the gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/). Titus personally financed the extravagant games, just as he and his father, [Emperor Vespasian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/), had funded the construction of the amphitheater. Such grand gestures were a privilege of power, ensuring that the new arena would be remembered as the emperor’s gift to the [Roman people](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/), securing his legacy for eternity. However, despite this ambition, the official name, the *Flavian Amphitheater*, faded over time. Instead, the structure took on a simpler, more enduring name derived from an unexpected source—Nero. Near the Colosseum’s site once stood a colossal statue of Nero, which Vespasian repurposed by replacing its head with that of Apollo. It was this colossus, built under Nero but reimagined under the Flavians, that ultimately gave the amphitheater its lasting name: the *Colosseum*. The grand opening was a spectacle of unmatched scale. For six years, Romans had watched skilled laborers drain the artificial lake of Nero’s Golden House, lay the massive foundations, and raise the towering walls. The project, initiated under Vespasian, was part of his broader effort to rebuild Rome after the devastation caused by the [Great Fire](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/). ![How did the Roman Colosseum look like, a reconstruction of the Flavian Amphitheatre with Nero’s Colossus, an engraving from the Granger Collection ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/How-did-the-Roman-Colosseum-look-like--a-reconstruction-of-the-Flavian-Amphitheatre-with-Nero-s-Colossus--an-engraving-from-the-Granger-Collection-.jpg) How did the Roman Colosseum look like, a reconstruction of the Flavian Amphitheatre with Nero’s Colossus, an engraving from the Granger Collection. Credits: Granger Historical Picture Archive The Colosseum was not merely an entertainment venue; it was a bold statement of imperial power, order, and grandeur, symbolizing the new regime’s strength. In one of his final acts before his death in AD 79, Vespasian proudly dedicated the structure. Titus, who succeeded him, took charge of completing the amphitheater and spared no expense in its inaugural festivities. Although the fourth and final tier was not yet built—it would be added by his successor, [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/)—the Colosseum already radiated an air of ostentatious luxury. Imperial [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/) reveled in extravagance, and the amphitheater reflected this excess. Its exterior was covered in plaster, masking the stonework, while statues of the gods adorned its niches. Inside, the stairways gleamed with gold and [purple-painted](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) ceilings, and the walls were faced with marble. In the weeks leading up to the grand opening, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) was abuzz with anticipation. The day had been declared a public holiday, and the event was promoted through posters and inscriptions announcing the featured combatants and the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/)’s generosity. Official programs were even available for purchase. Foreign dignitaries from across the [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/) poured into the city, reinforcing Rome’s status as the world’s capital. The poet [Martial](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-poet-of-sharp-words-martial-and-his-rome/), in verses honoring Titus, marveled at the diverse crowd: people from Rhodes, Anatolia, the upper Nile, Arabia, and beyond, all gathered to pay homage to Caesar. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/Colosseum-at-night.jpg) ## The opening ceremony unfolded with imperial grandeur. **Colosseum at night. Credits: Elnur, by Canva* As Titus made his entrance, the *Via Sacra* roared with the cheers of the gathered masses. Roman processions had long been used to unite the city in celebration, and this spectacle was no different. Led by lictors bearing fasces, followed by noble youths chosen to represent Rome’s finest, the parade displayed the full spectrum of Roman society—from knights and athletes to [gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-legends-about-gladiator-sweat-heres-what-we-found/) marching in formation. The final segment featured exotic animals, circus performers, and sacred figures, culminating in the emperor’s triumphant arrival. As Titus ascended to his seat in the amphitheater, the crowd erupted in a thunderous ovation, the sound reverberating through the colossal structure. The festivities began with an overwhelming display of bloodshed. In a scene of unparalleled carnage, thousands of wild animals—including lions, bears, leopards, elephants, and antelope—were set loose into the arena and slaughtered by trained *bestiarii,* hunters skilled in combat against ferocious beasts. The audience relished the spectacle, favoring mass executions over single combat, as entire groups of hunters and animals were pitted against each other in elaborate hunting tableaux. According to Suetonius, **5,000 animals perished in a single day**. Once the blood-soaked sand was raked clean and fresh layers were spread, the gladiators entered. On this first day, only the finest fighters, meticulously trained in the gladiator schools, took to the arena. They paraded beneath the emperor’s podium, clad in dazzling [armor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/) and plumes, while the crowd roared in excitement. ![A drone shot of the Colosseum in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-drone-shot-of-the-Colosseum--1-.jpg) A drone shot of the Colosseum in Rome. Credits: Unsplash The gladiators represented distinct fighting styles, each with its own supporters. The *hoplomachi*, heavily armored warriors, relied on brute strength, while the [Thracians](https://romanempiretimes.com/maximinus-thrax-how-did-a-towering-barbarian-giant-soldier-become-roman-emperor/), agile and lightly equipped, used speed and cunning. The *retiarii*, armed with nets and tridents, fought to entangle and stab their opponents. The emperor himself had his favorites—Titus favored the Thracians, while Domitian later became a devoted supporter of the hoplomachi. Before combat commenced, the gladiators saluted the emperor. Titus, as the host of the games, then performed the *probatio armorum,* personally testing the sharpness of the fighters' weapons. The matches that followed were brutal yet carefully choreographed. [Gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/ave-imperator-morituri-te-salutant-what-did-gladiators-actually-say-before-fighting/) battled in groups, reenacting famous battles and skirmishes. The excitement reached its peak when a fighter was wounded, prompting the audience to decide his fate. [If the crowd showed mercy](https://romanempiretimes.com/thumbs-down-to-the-myth-the-truth-behind-roman-arena-gestures/), the emperor would spare the fallen warrior. If not, the defeated man met his end at the hands of his opponent. Even in death, rituals were followed—Etruscan-clad attendants ensured the vanquished were truly dead, while [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) dressed as Mercury dragged the bodies away. Yet, the opening day was merely the beginning. The following days saw [naval battles](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-romans-flood-the-colosseum-for-naval-battles-in-the-arena/), held first in the flooded Colosseum and later in Augustus’ artificial lake. Full-sized warships clashed in staged conflicts, with slaves and prisoners forced to fight to the death. Titus orchestrated mock sieges, cavalry assaults on miniature towns, and elaborate performances featuring acrobats, dancers, and wild animal tamers. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/The-ruins-of-the-Colosseum-in-Rome-as-it-looks-today.jpg) ## The sheer scale of the spectacle was unprecedented. The Colosseum was not merely an arena; it was the ultimate expression of Roman power and excess. **The ruins of the Colosseum today. Credits: Unsplash* Lavish giveaways kept the crowd entertained—wooden balls inscribed with prizes such as gold coins, livestock, and even houses were tossed into the stands. Titus' generosity was boundless, ensuring that the people’s adoration matched the blood-soaked grandeur of the event. ### A Monument of Might The Colosseum we see today represents only a third of its original structure, with the remaining portions lost over centuries. Despite its massive scale, the ancient Romans completed its construction in just eight years (72–80 AD), using thousands of slaves captured by Vespasian and Titus during their campaigns in Palestine. Standing at an impressive height of 50 meters (164 ft), the Colosseum’s foundations extend 12 meters (39 ft) deep. The outer ring originally featured 80 arches across three levels, with 76 serving as public entrances. Specific entrances were reserved for key figures: - The emperor had his own exclusive entry - Senators entered through a separate gate - Gladiators had two distinct gates: - *Porta Triumphalis* (Triumphal Gate): The entrance for those stepping into the arena alive - *Porta Libitinaria*: The ominous exit for those who perished in combat The structure contained a total of 240 arches, likely adorned with statues on the first and second levels. To build this monumental arena, the Romans transported and assembled 100,000 tonnes (220,462,280 lb) of travertine (*Travertine is a sedimentary rock formed by the chemical precipitation of calcium carbonate minerals from fresh water, typically in springs, rivers, and lakes; that is, from surface and ground waters*) and used 300 tonnes (661,386 lb) of iron clamps to secure the blocks. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/03/The-travertine-quarries-of-Tivoli-along-the-via-Tiburtina-at-Villalba.jpg) ## A special road was even constructed to transport the travertine from the Tivoli quarries, which remains active to this day. **The travertine quarries of Tivoli along the via Tiburtina at Villalba. Credits: LPLT, CC BY-SA 1.0* The arena itself was elliptical, with axes measuring 188 and 156 meters (616 and 511 ft, respectively), forming a 527-meter (1,729 ft) perimeter. Its 80 by 55-meter (262 by 180 ft) floor covered an area exceeding 3,600 square meters (38,750 square ft). A 4-meter (13 ft) high wall separated the combat zone from the first row of seating. Inside, the Colosseum was designed with practicality and comfort in mind. It housed approximately 100 fountains for public use and featured an [advanced awning system](https://romanempiretimes.com/a-sail-above-the-sand-did-the-colosseum-really-have-a-retractable-roof/) known as the *velarium*, similar to modern retractable stadium roofs. 240 posts supported this massive shade structure, allowing Romans to adjust coverage based on the weather. The five tiers of seating were built at a 37.5-degree incline, ensuring a clear view from any seat. With a capacity of 55,000–60,000 spectators, the Colosseum was comparable in scale to a modern soccer stadium. The Romans also prioritized efficient evacuation routes. The *vomitoria* (exit passages) were so well-designed that the entire amphitheater could be emptied in just 8 to 10 minutes, an impressive feat even by today’s standards. The amphitheatre remained in use until 523 AD, with its most extravagant events taking place in its early years. To add to what we mentioned above, Emperor Titus’ inauguration celebrations in 80 AD lasted 100 consecutive days, during which 9,000 animals were slaughtered. [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/trajan-bridge-ancient-world-first-to-surpass-1km-kilometer-2000-years-ago/), after his Dacian campaigns (modern Romania), later outdid Titus, hosting 120 days of games that saw the deaths of 11,000 animals. Today, the Colosseum remains one of the world’s most visited landmarks, drawing over 5.6 million tourists annually, a proof to its enduring legacy as the ultimate stage for "*Panis et Spectacula*." ![Inside the Colosseum in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/Inside-the-Colosseum-in-Rome--1-.jpg) Inside the Colosseum in Rome. Credits: Unsplash ### Spectacle and Society: Seating, Rituals, and the Roaring Crowd of the Colosseum The games at the Colosseum were more than just entertainment; they were a social and political event that brought together people from all layers of Roman society. Ordinary citizens could see their leaders—senators and even the emperor—who, in turn, had the chance to interact with the public, receiving cheers, applause, and gratitude for sponsoring the games. Seating in the Colosseum was free but strictly divided by social class. However, in early [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/), senators and common citizens shared seats without strict separation. It was only toward the end of the first century BC, as social divisions became more pronounced, that Augustus issued the *Lex Iulia Theatralis* (between 17 and 20 BC) to regulate seating arrangements. The law was prompted by an incident in Pozzuoli, where a large crowd gathered for a show, yet no one offered a seat to an important senator, an act seen as disrespectful. [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) responded by ensuring that senators received the best seats, while other groups were assigned their own sections. From then on, [women](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) were no longer allowed to sit with men. These rules applied throughout the empire. The games were reserved for Roman citizens, and tickets were not available for purchase. Instead, seating was allocated to various institutions, including magistrates, religious groups, guilds, corporations, and unions, all of which held a specific role in Roman society. Those who did not belong to such groups needed an invitation from a higher-ranking individual. This system remained in place for centuries, and by the fourth century AD, seating arrangements became more formalized, with specific sections assigned to groups like senators. Archaeologists have found marble seat fragments inscribed with the names of families and senators, suggesting that prominent families sat together, reinforcing their status and influence in public view. If a seat changed ownership, the previous inscription was erased and replaced. The design of the Colosseum ensured that senators and common citizens never mixed. Their seating sections were physically separated, unlike other social classes, which could interact more freely. Spectators were also expected to dress appropriately—only Roman citizens could wear the toga, the ultimate symbol of their status. **Alcohol was prohibited**, and Emperor [Commodus](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-commodus-truly-the-megalomaniac-gladiator-emperor/) was criticized for breaking this rule by drinking while watching the games. Many spectators brought cushions from home for comfort, as their seats—made of stone, wood, or brick—were hard and uncomfortable. Senators and equestrians (*knights, who held a social status close to senators*) sat on movable seats, while the rest of the audience sat on fixed benches. ![A self-portrait with the Colosseum, by Maerten van Heemskerck](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-self-portrait-with-the-Colosseum--by-Maerten-van-Heemskerck.jpg) A self-portrait with the Colosseum, by Maerten van Heemskerck. Public domain Space was limited, and seating was cramped, as the average Roman was shorter and slimmer than people today. Sitting in the front rows was not always a privilege. On hot days, the velarium (*the Colosseum’s retractable awning*) could not provide shade to all areas, often leaving the most prestigious seats exposed to the sun. However, Vestal Virgins, the priestesses of Vesta, had reserved seats in the front row, alongside senators and high-ranking officials. ### The Roaring Crowds of the Colosseum The quality of performances at the Colosseum was exceptionally high, as Roman audiences were demanding and eager for novelty. Since the emperor often attended and financed the games, every spectacle had to be grand and spectacular. The atmosphere inside the Colosseum was loud and intense. It remains unclear whether Romans clapped like modern audiences, but some historians believe they waved handkerchiefs to show approval. What is certain is that spectators screamed, gestured wildly, and lacked any notion of fair play. Much like modern sports fans, Romans had fierce allegiances to different types of gladiators, cheering for their favorites based on fighting style and armor. These passions occasionally led to violence, similar to modern soccer riots. While [chariot races](https://romanempiretimes.com/fury-on-wheels-the-legendary-chariot-races-of-ancient-rome/) at the [Circus Maximus](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-circus-maximus-and-why-there-is-nothing-left-of-it/) were infamous for fan brawls, gladiatorial games also had their share of unrest. A notable riot occurred in [Pompeii](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/) in AD 59, when spectators from Pompeii and Nocera clashed due to long-standing local rivalries. The violence spilled outside the amphitheatre, resulting in many dead and wounded. As punishment, authorities banned games in Pompeii for 10 years, effectively "disqualifying" the amphitheatre from hosting events. ![A close-up of the magnificent Colosseum arches.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-close-up-of-the-magnificent-Colosseum-arches--1-.jpg) A close-up of the magnificent Colosseum arches. Credits: Unsplash ### Beyond the Battles: Daily Life and Pastimes in the Colosseum The games at the Colosseum followed a structured schedule of events that lasted for several hours. The morning program began with a grand introduction of the day's combatants, followed by animal fights, circus performances, and hunting games. At midday, during the lunch break, the Colosseum became the stage for public executions. These gruesome spectacles served a dual purpose: they acted as a warning to the public about the severe consequences of breaking Roman law, and they kept the audience entertained while the arena was being prepared for the afternoon’s main event. The afternoon was dedicated to the gladiatorial battles, the highlight of the games. Spectators often spent an entire day in the Colosseum, so there were breaks between performances to clear the arena, remove bodies, and reset the stage for the next show. But how did the audience pass the time during these pauses or during less exciting performances? Thanks to archaeological discoveries, we have a clear idea of how Romans kept themselves entertained in the stands. One of their favorite pastimes was playing games. Romans enjoyed board games similar to modern backgammon, carving gaming tables and checkerboards (*tabulae lusoriae*) directly into the stone steps of the amphitheater. The playing pieces were made from various materials, including animal bones, clay pebbles, and glass paste. ![Arches and pillars inside the ruin of the ancient Colosseum at Rome.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/Arches-and-pillars-inside-the-ruin-of-the-ancient-Colosseum-at-Rome_jpg.jpg) Arches and pillars inside the ruin of the ancient Colosseum at Rome. Credits: Unsplash However, not all games were innocent—[gambling](https://romanempiretimes.com/fortunes-favors-exploring-the-gambling-culture-of-ancient-rome-romans-gamble/) was common despite being officially forbidden for most of the year. Dice games were particularly popular, though they were only legally allowed during the festival of [Saturnalia](https://romanempiretimes.com/saturnalia-the-roman-festival-that-inspired-the-spirit-of-christmas/) (December 17–23). Despite the ban on gambling for the rest of the year, spectators regularly placed bets in the Colosseum, knowing that police checks were impossible in the massive crowd. Con artists and tricksters took advantage of the chaos, scamming unsuspecting gamblers. Evidence of this has been found in Pompeii’s amphitheater, where archaeologists discovered loaded dice and depictions of quarrels sparked by disputes over betting. The passion for games was shared by all Romans, from emperors to commoners, men and women alike. But gambling wasn't the only way to pass the time. Many spectators brought food from home and ate at their seats, while others grilled their meals on small barbecues inside the amphitheater. Women groomed themselves, giving each other manicures, adjusting their hairstyles with pins and slides, or sewing garments and blankets while waiting for the next spectacle. Some audience members even [carved drawings](https://romanempiretimes.com/whispers-on-the-walls-graffiti-as-a-voice-of-ancient-rome/) into the stone during breaks. Engravings of gladiators, animal hunts, and battle scenes have been uncovered during archaeological excavations, showing how spectators immortalized their favorite moments. What may have been a dull moment for a Roman viewer has now become a priceless glimpse into the everyday life of the Colosseum's audience centuries ago. ### A Day at the Colosseum For over four centuries, the schedule of events in the Colosseum remained unchanged. The games lasted for hours, offering spectators a variety of performances. The atmosphere at dawn on game days must have been haunting—the roars of lions, the trumpeting of elephants, and the howls of wolves and dogs filled the air, setting the stage for the violence to come. The morning session featured animal fights and hunting games, known as *venationes*, where trained hunters or condemned criminals faced off against wild beasts. By midday, as spectators took their lunch break, the Colosseum became the site of public executions for serious criminals, serving as both punishment and entertainment. These grim spectacles were sometimes interspersed with comedy acts or circus-style performances to keep the audience engaged. In the afternoon, the most anticipated event took place: gladiatorial combat. Though many ancient sources mention the fights, there are few detailed descriptions of a typical day at the Colosseum. Writers praised the bravery of gladiators, recounted duels to the death, or condemned the brutality of the games, but comprehensive accounts are scarce. ![A black and white shot of the Colosseum as it is today.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/inside-the-colosseum--1-.jpg) A black and white shot of the Colosseum as it is today. Credits: Unsplash Where, then, does our understanding of the games come from? While literary sources are fragmented, art has preserved vivid glimpses of what transpired in the arena. Mosaics, reliefs, and frescoes provide a more detailed and emotional depiction than written texts. These artistic representations serve as snapshots of the spectacle, capturing: - A gladiator’s final moments before death - A wild beast pouncing on a helpless victim - A referee stopping a fight when one combatant could no longer continue These "frozen moments" reflect the intensity of the arena and the deep impression it left on Roman artists and spectators alike. Many of these works, especially mosaics, adorned the lavish homes of wealthy patrons, serving as both status symbols and reminders of their financial ties to the world of games. For Rome’s elite, the Colosseum was not just entertainment—it was a source of prestige, wealth, and power. The 1349 earthquake resulted in significant damage to the Colosseum, causing the outer wall to crumble. The debris from this collapse was repurposed for the construction of Rome's hospitals, palaces, and various other buildings. Rome's practice of reusing materials from older edifices for new constructions affected the monument immensely. As it deteriorated, its marble exterior was commandeered for the construction of St. Peter's Basilica by papal decree, which today stands as another renowned attraction in Rome. The Colosseum remained in use for over four centuries, but with the [decline of the Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/), it fell into neglect. Over the years, it was stripped of its valuable materials, ravaged by earthquakes, and repurposed as a fortress, quarry, and Christian shrine. Despite this, **the Colosseum has endured**. Today, the Colosseum is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and one of the most popular tourist attractions in the world. It continues to be a powerful symbol of Rome, drawing millions of visitors who come to marvel at its grandeur and to reflect on the lives of those who fought and died within its walls. 📜 For those that want to learn more about how the Colosseum looked like and how it was constructed, we hope you’ll enjoy [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f29CABLueFA&ref=romanempiretimes.com): ### Romulus and Remus: The Legendary Founders of Rome URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-and-remus-the-legendary-founders-of-rome/ Last updated: 2025-03-06T09:58:43.000Z The myth begins with their lineage, deeply connected to both divine and royal ancestry. According to [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) and Plutarch, the twins were the sons of Rhea Silvia, a [Vestal Virgin](https://romanempiretimes.com/vestal-virgins-keepers-of-romes-eternal-flame-and-protectors-of-the-state/) and daughter of Numitor, the rightful king of Alba Longa. Their father was the [war god Mars](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/), though some later traditions suggested other fathers, such as Hercules or even an unknown mortal lover. ### The Myth’s Origins Numitor had been overthrown by his usurping brother Amulius, who, fearing a challenge to his rule, forced Rhea Silvia to become a Vestal Virgin, ensuring she remained childless. However, when she gave birth to Romulus and Remus, Amulius saw them as a direct threat. > “The descendants of Aeneas reigned as kings in Alba, and the succession devolved at length upon two brothers, Numitor and Amulius.​ > > Amulius divided the whole inheritance into two parts, setting the treasures and gold which had been brought from Troy over against the kingdom, and Numitor chose the kingdom. > > Amulius, then, in possession of the treasure, and made more power­ful by it than Numitor, easily took the kingdom away from his brother, and fearing lest that brother's daughter should have children, made her a priestess of Vesta, bound to live unwedded and a virgin all her days. > > Her name is variously given as Ilia, or Rhea, or Silvia.” [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/), [*The Life of Romulus*](https://amzn.to/418BbXj?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Amulius ordered the infants to be drowned in the [Tiber River](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/), but the river was swollen, and the servants tasked with the deed instead left the babies in a basket floating downstream. The basket eventually ran aground at the base of the Palatine Hill, near the Lupercal Cave. > “Wherefore Amulius was all the more afraid, and ordered a servant to take the boys and cast them away. > > This servant's name was Faustulus, according to some, but others give this name to the man who took the boys up. > > Obeying the king's orders, the servant put the babes into a trough and went down towards the river, purposing to cast them in; but when he saw that the stream was much swollen and violent, he was afraid to go close up to it, and setting his burden now near the bank, went his way. > > Then the overflow of the swollen river took and bore up the trough, floating it gently along, and carried it down to a fairly smooth spot which is now called Kermalus, but formerly Germanus, perhaps because brothers are called "germani." Plutarch, [*The Life of Romulus*](https://amzn.to/418BbXj?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ![A dramatic representation of Romulus and Remus in the basket and the flooded waters of the Tiber river](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/07/romulus-remus-babies-basket-river-tiber-flood-water.jpg) A dramatic representation of Romulus and Remus in the basket and the flooded waters of the Tiber river. Illustration: Midjourney Here, the most famous episode of the myth took place: the twins were discovered and suckled by a she-wolf (*lupa*). Some versions suggest that the lupa was actually a local shepherd’s wife, as the word could also mean “prostitute.” The Roman historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus, emphasizes this ambiguity, but the traditional image of the she-wolf nursing the infants became central to Roman identity. > “So they made shift to discharge the king's command, by exposing the babes at the nearest point of the overflow, where the fig-tree Ruminalis —formerly, they say, called Romularis —now stands. > > In those days this was a wild and uninhabited region. > > The story persists that when the floating basket in which the children had been exposed was left high and dry by the receding water, a she-wolf, coming down out of the surrounding hills to slake her thirst, turned her steps towards the cry of the infants, and with her teats gave them suck so gently, that the keeper of the royal flock found her licking them with her tongue.” Livy, [*The History of Rome, Book 1*](https://amzn.to/4hP8PIK?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Eventually, a shepherd named Faustulus and his wife Acca Larentia found and raised the boys as their own. The twins grew up among shepherds, learning survival skills and leadership. > “Tradition assigns to this man the name of Faustulus, and adds that he carried the twins to his hut and gave them to his wife Larentia to rear. > > Some think that Larentia, having been free with her favours, had got the name of “she-wolf” among the shepherds, and that this gave rise to this marvellous story.” Livy, [*The History of Rome, Book 1*](https://amzn.to/4hP8PIK?ref=romanempiretimes.com) As young men, Romulus and Remus became natural leaders among the local youth, engaging in raids and contests of strength. Their true identity was eventually revealed when Remus was captured by Numitor’s men after a skirmish. Taken to Alba Longa, Numitor suspected a connection and, with Faustulus’ confirmation, recognized the twins as his grandsons. With their newfound lineage exposed, Romulus and Remus raised a force of local shepherds and successfully overthrew Amulius, restoring Numitor to the throne of Alba Longa. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/Peter-Paul-Rubens--version-of--Romulus-and-Remus.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/Sebastiano-s-Ricci-painting-of-the-childhood-of-Romulus-and-Remus.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/Pietro-da-Cortona-s-painting-of-Romulus-and-Remus-sheltered-by-Faustulus.jpg) 🏛️ ****Iconic Depictions of Romulus and Remus** Romulus and Remus are commonly depicted as infants nursing from a she-wolf, a motif frequently portrayed on coins and various artworks. The enduring saga of Romulus and Remus has served as a wellspring of inspiration for numerous Renaissance artists, including Berrettini, La Fosse, Cesari, and Rubens. ****Credits** #1: Peter Paul Rubens’ version of Romulus and Remus #2: Sebastiano’s Ricci painting of the childhood of Romulus and Remus #3: Pietro da Cortona’s painting of Romulus and Remus sheltered by Faustulus ### The Founding of Rome Rather than staying in Alba Longa, the twins decided to found their own city. They sought an auspicious location and chose different hills—Romulus favored the Palatine Hill, while Remus preferred the Aventine Hill. > “The Alban state being thus made over to Numitor, Romulus and Remus were seized with the desire to found a city in the region where they had been exposed and brought up. > > And in fact the population of Albans and Latins was too large; besides, there were the shepherds. > > All together, their numbers might easily lead men to hope that Alba would be small, and Lavinium small, compared with the city which they should build.” Livy, [*The History of Rome, Book 1*](https://amzn.to/4hP8PIK?ref=romanempiretimes.com) To resolve their dispute, they turned to augury. According to one version, Remus saw six vultures first, but Romulus saw twelve vultures later, which he took as a superior omen. Disagreement over the interpretation led to tensions. > “These considerations were interrupted by the curse of their grandsires, the greed of kingly power, and by a shameful quarrel which grew out of it, upon an occasion innocent enough. > > Since the brothers were twins, and respect for their age could not determine between them, it was agreed that the gods who had those places in their protection should choose by augury who should give the new city its name, who should govern it when built. > > Romulus took the Palatine for his augural quarter, Remus the Aventine.” Livy, [*The History of Rome, Book 1*](https://amzn.to/4hP8PIK?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ![A possible representation of Romulus counting the vulture sightings, against his brother Remus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-possible-representation-of-Romulus-counting-the-vulture-sightings--against-his-brother-Remus.jpg) A possible representation of Romulus counting the vulture sightings, against his brother Remus. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### The Death of Remus The conflict escalated, and in a fit of rage or necessity, [Romulus killed Remus](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-romulus-kill-remus-the-tragic-tale-of-the-founders-of-rome/). The circumstances of Remus’ death vary: Livy says that Remus mockingly jumped over Romulus' walls, and Romulus struck him down, declaring, “*So perish anyone who crosses my walls!*” Plutarch on the other hand suggests that Remus was slain by one of Romulus’ men, possibly at Romulus' command. Dionysius of Halicarnassus lays another claim, stating that Remus was killed in a brawl between factions. In any case, after Remus’ death, Romulus formally established the city of Rome on April 21, 753 BCE, according to later Roman tradition. He divided the population into military and social groups, created the first Roman laws, and established a ruling system. ![A possible representation of the final moments of Remus, after he was just being attacked by his assailant](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-possible-representation-of-the-final-moments-of-Remus--after-he-was-just-being-attacked-by-his-assailant.jpg) A possible representation of the final moments of Remus, after he was just being attacked by his assailant. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### The Evolution of the Myth The origins of the Romulus legend can be traced to an approximate timeframe by analyzing the various stages through which the myth developed. The earliest indications of a narrative about [Rome’s foundation](https://romanempiretimes.com/foundations-of-justice-romes-twelve-tables/) appear at the beginning of the fourth century BCE, originating from Greek sources rather than Roman ones. At this stage, the story centered on an eponymous heroine, Roma (*Ῥώμη*), as recorded by Damastes of Sigeion (circa 400 BCE) and Hellanikos (late fifth century BCE). Around the same time, an alternative version emerged featuring an eponymous hero, Romos (*Ῥῶμος*), as documented by Agathocles of Cyzicus and Antigonus, the historian of southern Italy. Initially, these two variations coexisted, but an early attempt at harmonization led to the notion that Romos was the son of Roma. The Romans adopted the concept of an eponymous founder from the Greeks when the legend of Romos was introduced to them. However, they adapted it in a distinctly Roman manner, modifying it to fit their own identity. While they retained the idea of a city founder, they changed the name to one that was already in use among them—Romulus. This name was not a diminutive form but rather the eponym of the gens Romulia. Some scholars argue that the gens Romulia had Etruscan origins and played a crucial role in the founding of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) as a city (*urbs*), distinguishing it from earlier settlements (*oppida*). However, regardless of any historical basis, the legend remained purely mythical and was not derived from direct tradition. With this transformation, the Greek *Ῥῶμος* evolved into the Latin Romulus, marking the second stage of the legend’s development. Just as the names *Ῥώμη* and *Ῥῶμος* were initially reconciled, the parallel forms Ῥῶμος and Romulus were later merged. Greek sources incorporated both names, presenting them as brothers—*Ῥῶμος* and *Ῥωμύλος*. However, *Ῥῶμος* continued to hold the primary role in the story, as seen in the accounts of Kallias, Kephalon of Gergis, and Demagoras of Samos. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-possible-representation-of-Romulus-and-Remus-celebrating-the-inauguration-of-their-new-city--Rome.jpg) ## This marked the third stage of the legend, in which Romos and Romulus were depicted as co-founders of Rome, although Romos was still the central figure. **A possible representation of Romulus and Remus celebrating the inauguration of their new city, Rome. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney* The presence of two legendary founders led to speculation about its connection to Roman political structures. Mommsen (*Christian Matthias Theodor Mommsen was a German classical scholar, historian, jurist, journalist, politician and archaeologist. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest classicists of the 19th century*) suggested that this myth reflected the later dual consulship system. However, this interpretation does not hold, as the true legendary parallel to the consulship was found in Romulus and Titus Tatius, who, according to tradition, ruled jointly. By contrast, Remus died before Rome’s foundation, making the consulship explanation less plausible. The Greek legend of Ῥῶμος and Ῥωμύλος eventually returned to Rome, where a further modification occurred—Ῥῶμος was deliberately replaced with Remus. This was not a simple linguistic change but a deliberate act of substitution. It was likely during this process that the concept of the twin brothers emerged. The earliest known reference to Romulus appears in a Greek quotation from Kallias, dating to around 300 BCE. Since even Ῥῶμος does not appear in recorded sources until approximately 400 BCE, it is reasonable to conclude that the Romulus legend developed during the fourth century BCE. This dating is further supported by the fact that the other major Roman foundation myth—the story of Aeneas—also took shape during this period. The historian Timaeus, known for his influence on the Aeneas legend, may have played a similar role in shaping the Romulus myth. Additional evidence for the fourth-century development of the legend comes from material culture. The Ogulnian wolf, a famous statue depicting the she-wolf and twins, dates to 296 BCE, aligning with this timeframe. Similarly, Roman-Campanian coinage from the same period features the same imagery. Thus, by around 300 BCE, the legend of Romulus and Remus as twin founders was firmly established. Since this dating diverges significantly from the commonly accepted timeline, it was necessary to examine the evidence in detail to justify this conclusion. ![The Apotheosis of Romulus, a ceiling painting by Mariano Rossi](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/The-Apotheosis-of-Romulus--a-ceiling-painting-by--Mariano-Rossi-1.jpg) The Apotheosis of Romulus, a ceiling painting by Mariano Rossi. Credits: Juan Sáez, CC BY-SA 2.0 ### From Founding Hero to Deified Quirinus The legends surrounding Romulus can be classified into three major groups: 1. The Romulus-Remus cycle 2. The Romulus-Titus Tatius narratives 3. Stories of Romulus as a solitary figure A chronological analysis suggests that the Romulus-Remus legend is the oldest, followed by the accounts of Romulus and Titus Tatius, while the stories of Romulus alone, including those concerning his death, emerged last. The legend of Romulus' death likely originated in the third century BCE rather than the fourth, with the earliest reference found in Ennius: > "Romulus in caelo cum dis genitalibus aevum degit." > Romulus lives from age to age in Heaven with the gods that gave him birth. This suggests that Romulus was envisioned as deified, though the specific details of his death were not initially provided. However, the prevailing belief was that he vanished mysteriously—what later traditions would describe as his divine translation to the heavens. Similar narratives exist for other mythical figures such as Aeneas, Latinus, and Aventinus, reinforcing the idea that this was the earliest version of the legend. Over time, additional details were attached to the story. Romulus' disappearance was later said to have occurred during a military purification ritual, or *lustratio*, in the Campus Martius, specifically at *Caprae Palus* (the Goat Marsh), near the [Pantheon](https://romanempiretimes.com/unveiling-the-eternal-things-about-the-pantheon-you-did-not-know/). The date of his disappearance was fixed on the Nones of July, known as the *Nonae Caprotinae*, likely influenced by the similarity in the words Caprae Palus and Caprotinae. Natural phenomena were also incorporated into the legend—Romulus’ sudden vanishing was explained by a violent thunderstorm and an eclipse that plunged the city into darkness, making the event seem more extraordinary and divine. As rationalist interpretations gained traction in later centuries, particularly following the influence of Ennius, these supernatural elements became unsatisfactory to some thinkers. ![A possible representation of the mysterious eclipse and thunderstorm which culminated to Romulus’ disappearance](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-possible-representation-of-the-mysterious-eclipse-and-thunderstorm-during-Romulus--disappearance.jpg) A possible representation of the mysterious eclipse and thunderstorm which culminated to Romulus’ disappearance. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney The same intellectual climate that reinterpreted the she-wolf (*lupa*) as a prostitute (*meretrix*) and the legendary chasm of Marcus Curtius as a mere bog, now sought a more human explanation for Romulus’ disappearance. An alternate, more sinister version emerged: **Romulus was murdered by the** [**Senate**](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/). According to this account, the senators, motivated by resentment toward his increasingly autocratic rule, conspired against him, tore his body apart, and concealed the remains under their togas to prevent detection. In this version, his reputation was further tarnished—his supposed trickery in the augury contest with Remus, his perceived injustice toward Titus Tatius, and his autocratic tendencies, including the establishment of a personal bodyguard, were all cited as justification for his [assassination](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-shadow-of-the-dagger-assassinations-of-roman-emperors/). However, this version of the story eventually provoked a reaction in favor of the earlier belief in Romulus' divine ascension. In the final century of the Republic, the theory of apotheosis gained renewed emphasis, reinforced by the growing identification of Romulus with Quirinus, a god associated with the Roman state. The earliest known references to this identification appear on the coins of Caius Memmius (60 BCE) and in [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/)’s [*De Republica*](https://amzn.to/4id7FGz?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (written between 54–51 BCE). The Proculus Julius episode, which described how a noble Roman witnessed Romulus’ posthumous appearance and confirmed his divinity, played a crucial role in solidifying this belief. The name Proculus Julius hints at the possible influence of the Julian gens, which sought to elevate Romulus as a model of divine rulership. Cicero’s later remark in [*De Officiis*](https://amzn.to/3CRMo6F?ref=romanempiretimes.com), “pace vel Quirini vel Romuli dixerim” (*By your leave, whether I say Quirinus or Romulus*), suggests that even by 44 BCE, this identification was still relatively new. Whether or not the Julian family was responsible for promoting this version of the legend, it was [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/) and [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) who ultimately popularized it. Romulus and Quirinus became so closely intertwined that the ancient goddess Hora Quirini, one of the earliest figures in Roman religion, was later equated with Hersilia, Romulus' legendary [wife](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/). This final stage of the legend firmly established Romulus as both a historical founder and a divine figure, ensuring his lasting place in Roman mythology. (*American school of Classical Studies in Rome – "The Death of Romulus" by Jesse Benedict Carter*) ### Myth and Meaning CM Crawford, in "*Romulus, Remus and the Foundation of Rome*," examines the origins and evolution of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/)’s most famous foundation myth. He highlights how the legend of the twin [brothers](https://romanempiretimes.com/brothers-divided-the-tragic-tale-of-emperors-caracalla-and-geta/), raised by a she-wolf and destined to establish the Eternal City, was not a uniquely Roman invention but rather a fusion of Greek, Etruscan, and Indo-European storytelling traditions. The tale, shaped over centuries, served not only as a mythical explanation for Rome’s beginnings but also as a reflection of its values, political ideologies, and religious beliefs. The earliest references to the legend can be traced to Greek sources around the fourth century BCE, where Roma (a female figure) or Romos (a male hero) were credited with founding the city. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-possible-portrait-of-Romulus--the-official-founder-of-Rome.jpg) ## The Romans, however, transformed these ideas to fit their own narrative, ultimately settling on Romulus as the city's eponymous founder. **A possible portrait of Romulus, the official founder of Rome. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney* The story as we know it—featuring the twins' divine parentage, their abandonment at birth, and their subsequent rise to power—became fully developed by the third century BCE. By this time, the *lupa* (she-wolf) and the pastoral upbringing by the shepherd Faustulus had become central elements of the myth, reinforced by the famous statue of the Capitoline Wolf, erected in 296 BCE. A key function of the myth was to establish Rome’s divine origins. By making Mars the father of the twins and linking Romulus to Quirinus (the early Roman deity we aforementioned), the story legitimized Rome’s militaristic and sacred destiny. [The rivalry between the brothers](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-romulus-kill-remus-the-tragic-tale-of-the-founders-of-rome/), culminating in Remus’s death, echoed themes of sacred boundary violations seen in other ancient myths. Romulus’s act of fratricide symbolized the supremacy of law and order over kinship—a fundamental principle in Roman political life. The tale also evolved to reflect shifting political realities. Initially, Romulus ruled alone, but later traditions incorporated Titus Tatius, the Sabine king, as his co-ruler, likely to reconcile Rome’s dual identity as both Latin and [Sabine](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-truly-happened-with-the-sabine-women/). By the time of the late Republic, when concerns over tyranny grew, Romulus’s story was adapted once more—his mysterious disappearance during a storm was reinterpreted as an assassination by the Senate. This version served as a warning against unchecked monarchical power. Despite its mythical nature, the story of Romulus and Remus had real-world implications. The fratricide of Remus justified Rome’s strict adherence to its pomerium (sacred boundary), while the abduction of the Sabine women explained early Roman expansion and diplomacy. Over time, the legend helped cement Rome’s identity, balancing its divine mission with its political pragmatism. ![Guercino’s painting of Hersilia separating Romulus and Tatius](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/Guercino-s-painting-of-Hersilia-separating-Romulus-and-Tatius.jpg) Guercino’s painting of Hersilia separating Romulus and Tatius. Public domain ### The Lupercalia and the Mythic Origins of Rome P.M.W. Tennant, in “*The Lupercalia and the Romulus and Remus Legend*”, explores how Rome’s foundation myth evolved, shaped by cultural influences over time. He highlights the Greek origins of the legend, the significance of the she-wolf motif, and the connection between the myth and the ancient Roman festival of *Lupercalia*. Greek historians, as already mentioned, were among the first to construct Rome’s foundation story, often assigning Greek founders such as "Rhomylos" or "Alba" to the city. This suggests that early Rome lacked a strong indigenous foundation myth, allowing Greek narratives to shape its origins. The name "Romulus" appears to have developed later, with the myth gradually adapted to align with Roman identity. One of the most enduring elements of the legend is the she-wolf that nurtured the twins. Tennant examines whether this motif predated the Romulus and Remus story, possibly emerging from Etruscan or Latin superstitions about wolves' supernatural significance. The famous Capitoline Wolf statue, suggests that this imagery existed before the legend was fully formed. ![The famous She-Wolf statue of Romulus and Remus in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/The-famous-She-Wolf-statue-of-Romulus-and-Remus-in-Rome.jpg) The famous She-Wolf statue of Romulus and Remus in Rome. Credits: EHStock from Getty Images Signature, Roman Empire Times, by Canva Additionally, Tennant argues that the connection between the twins and the wolf may stem from Lupercalia, an ancient Roman festival linked to fertility and purification. The festival, dedicated to the god Faunus, involved young men dressed in wolf skins running through the streets, a practice that may have influenced the framing of the twins' survival story. Another key point Tennant explores is the role of Mars in the myth. The god’s later inclusion as the father of Romulus and Remus may have been influenced by the she-wolf’s sacred association with Mars in early Latin religion. This addition elevated the myth, reinforcing Rome’s divine origins and its warrior ethos. Over time, the Romulus and Remus legend underwent transformations, incorporating Greek, Etruscan, and Roman religious elements. Tennant suggests that as Rome grew in power, the myth was reshaped to serve political and cultural purposes, emphasizing divine ancestry and the city’s destined supremacy. While many aspects of the story were influenced by external traditions, its evolution ultimately reflected Rome’s self-image, intertwining history, religion, and mythology into a narrative that endured for centuries. ### How was the Roman Empire Formed? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/how-was-the-roman-empire-formed/ Last updated: 2025-02-16T22:40:35.000Z The Roman Republic did not fall in a single day, nor at the hands of a lone man. It died slowly, battered by civil wars, political ambition, and the weight of its own contradictions. What began as a system built to prevent the rise of a king collapsed under the rule of generals who commanded armies more loyal to them than to the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/). The [assassins of Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-shadow-of-the-dagger-assassinations-of-roman-emperors/) believed they were striking a blow for freedom, yet their daggers only hastened the Republic’s demise. In the power vacuum that followed, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s fate was sealed—not by the ideals of the past, but by the will of a single man who would reshape it forever. From the ashes of the Republic, the [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/) was born. ![Robert Seuffert’s painting of Mark Antony orating above the body of Julius Caesar](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/Robert-Seuffert-s-painting-of-Mark-Antony-orating-above-the-body-of-Julius-Caesar.jpg) Robert Seuffert’s painting of Mark Antony orating above the body of Julius Caesar. Public domain ### Power, Perception, and Political Change Clifford Ando, in his work “*From Republic to Empire*”, published in *The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World*, examines the crucial turning points that led to the transformation of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/beauty-in-ancient-rome/)’s political structure, particularly the events of 27 BCE. At Senate meetings on January 13 and 16 of that year, Octavian, later known as [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), formally relinquished the extraordinary powers he had accumulated in the chaotic years following [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/)’s assassination. This act symbolized the end of a century-long crisis of civil wars. However, the relinquishment was only partial. [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/) retained an array of powers that maintained the outward appearance of republican governance while fundamentally altering the balance of authority. As Augustus himself stated in his [*Res Gestae*](https://amzn.to/4hYhrwk?ref=romanempiretimes.com): > “In my sixth and seventh consulships, after I had extinguished the civil wars, having through universal consent mastery in all things, I transferred the commonwealth from my power to the discretion of the Senate and People of Rome. > > For this good deed I was named Augustus by decree of the Senate… > > After this time I excelled all in authority, but I had no more power than the others who were my colleagues in office.” ![A marble portrait of the Emperor Augustus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-marble-portrait-of-the-Emperor-Augustus-1.jpg) A marble portrait of the Emperor Augustus. Credits: The MET Museum, CC0 1.0 Despite this claim, [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/is-mark-zuckerberg-just-a-roman-empire-nerd-or-augustus-octavian-descendant-ancestor/)' reign marked the definitive shift from republic to monarchy, a transition that [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) highlights in his [*Annals*](https://amzn.to/3WZPuw7?ref=romanempiretimes.com), emphasizing how the princeps absorbed the functions of the Senate, magistrates, and laws while preserving the traditional offices in name alone. Tacitus notes: > “Under the title of princeps, Augustus took unto himself *munia senatus magistratuum legum* (the separate powers of the Senate, magistrates, and laws), even as *eadem magistratuum vocabula* (the titles of magistracies remained the same).” This shift was widely acknowledged by contemporary Greek observers, who had no hesitation in calling the new system what it was: a monarchy. In contrast, Romans maintained a facade of republican continuity, though the reality was a consolidation of power under Augustus. The brutality of Augustus' rise to power presented a challenge to his later image as Rome’s stabilizing ruler. He had played a central role in the violent proscriptions of the triumvirate, including the infamous executions at Perusia, which imperial literature later described as ritualistic sacrifices at the altar of [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/). Tacitus notes that, upon Augustus' death, many Romans accepted that there had been: > “no other remedy for their strife-torn state than that it should be ruled by one.” For Velleius Paterculus, writing under [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/villa-jovis-the-secret-lair-for-the-dark-pleasures-of-an-old-emperor/), Augustus’ rule was not about constitutional restoration but about restoring order to a world shattered by civil war: > “The civil wars were ended after twenty years, foreign wars were buried; peace restored; the madness of arms everywhere put to rest. > > Strength was returned to the laws; authority to the law courts; dignity to the Senate.” ![A map of the Roman Republic in 44 BC (DCCX A.U.C in the Roman Calendar)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-map-of-the-Roman-Republic-in-44-BC--DCCX-A.U.C-in-the-Roman-Calendar-.jpg) A map of the Roman Republic in 44 BC (DCCX A.U.C in the Roman Calendar). Credits: [MadameYua](https://www.deviantart.com/madameyua/art/Roman-Republic-44-BC-953056718?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Ando argues that viewing Augustus' rise as a definitive revolution risks oversimplifying the complexities of Rome’s transition. The republic had long been an imperial power, subjugating Italy and beyond, centuries before Augustus took the throne. He notes that [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) himself identified the annexation of Sicily in 241 BCE as the beginning of Rome’s imperial ambitions: > “Sicily was the first province to be so named, an ornament, as it were, of empire; Sicily it was who taught our ancestors how outstanding a thing it is to exercise imperial power over a foreign race.” Thus, Rome had been an imperial state long before it was ruled by emperors. The division of its history into "Republic" and "[Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-of-diversity-romans-beyond-rome/)" obscures the deeper continuity of Rome’s expansionist policies. Ando suggests that the end of the republic was not merely the birth of an empire but rather a consequence of an empire that had outgrown its republican institutions. The influx of wealth and power from foreign conquests, coupled with internal political crises, created tensions that the republican system could no longer contain. By the early principate, Rome’s government underwent not just a political shift but a deep social transformation. The Augustan age brought legal and administrative reforms that penetrated deeply into provincial life, establishing an unprecedented level of Roman governance. Meanwhile, the old republican framework, though still visible, had lost much of its original meaning. The creation of *res publicae* at the local level in the provinces offered a semblance of self-governance, yet it was the [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/) who ultimately held control. The failure of the republic was not due to a lack of constitutional adherence but rather to its inability to accommodate the complexities of an expanding [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/). Ultimately, Ando argues, Augustus' rule was both a culmination of Rome’s imperial tendencies and a response to the deep fractures within its society. His principate offered stability, but at the cost of republican ideals—replacing the rule of many with the rule of one. ![A painting of Ernest Joseph Bailly, depicting the Vestal Virgins handing over the Testament of Emperor Augustus to the Roman Senate](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-painting-of-Ernest-Joseph-Bailly--depicting-the-Vestal-Virgins-handing-over-the-Testament-of-Emperor-Augustus-to-the-Roman-Senate.jpg) A painting of Ernest Joseph Bailly, depicting the Vestal Virgins handing over the Testament of Emperor Augustus to the Roman Senate. Public domain ### The Paradox of Rome’s Revolution Richard Alston, in his book “[*Rome’s Revolution: Death of the Republic and Birth of the Empire*](https://amzn.to/3EHpNKo?ref=romanempiretimes.com)”, explores the complex and paradoxical nature of Rome’s transition from Republic to [Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-roman-empire-a-brief-history/). He notes that for over two millennia, scholars have debated the roles of [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/) and Augustus, as they stood at the center of this transformation. [Caesar’s legacy](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/) has been particularly significant, as his name has become synonymous with a form of authoritarian rule—Caesarism—where strong leaders impose reforms that reshape history. Figures like Napoleon have been linked to this concept, though later authoritarian rulers turned it into a justification for dictatorship. However, Alston argues that Caesar himself was not the radical reformer many assume. While he was a brilliant military leader who conquered Gaul and [emerged victorious in civil wars](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/), he did not institute a lasting political structure. His rule was abruptly ended by [assassination](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-most-famous-roman-emperor-failed-assassination-attempts-2/), and his policies did not establish a stable government. Instead, it was his heir Octavian, who truly transformed Rome. Despite Augustus’ immense influence, Alston suggests that he did not necessarily have a grand, premeditated vision for Rome’s future. Rather, he navigated the chaotic political landscape through pragmatic decision-making, responding to immediate challenges rather than pursuing a single ideological goal. While Augustus was undoubtedly an astute politician, his success was partly a result of adaptability rather than a carefully planned revolution. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-Roman-Battle--a-painting-by-Simon-Peter-Tilemann-1.jpg) ## The collapse of the Republic remains a paradox; for centuries, Rome thrived under republican rule, conquering Italy and much of the Mediterranean. **A Roman Battle, a painting by Simon Peter Tilemann. Public domain* Yet, by the late first century BCE, Romans abandoned this system, embracing the imperial monarchy—despite its seeming incompatibility with their traditional political values. The vast majority of scholars agree that the critical moment in this transformation was the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE. Ironically, those who killed Caesar did so in the name of preserving the Republic, believing him to be a tyrant. Their act, intended as a defense of Roman law and liberty, ultimately set the stage for the very monarchy they sought to prevent. Marcus Junius Brutus, one of the leading conspirators, had a deeply personal connection to Caesar, as his mother, Servilia, was rumored to have been the dictator’s lover. Rather than supporting Caesar, Brutus sought to emulate his supposed ancestor, Lucius Junius Brutus, who had overthrown the last Roman king in 509 BCE. The conspirators expected to be hailed as liberators, but their actions backfired. Instead of restoring the Republic, they were forced into exile and eventually defeated in battle, paving the way for Rome’s transformation into an empire. Augustus consolidated this shift in 27 BCE, when he formally declared the "restoration" of the Republic while actually establishing a monarchy. Even his final testament to the Roman people, inscribed on bronze pillars outside his mausoleum, emphasized this idea of restoration. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-portrait-of-Roman-Emperor-Augustus-from-a-marble-bust--1.jpg) ## Yet, the reality was starkly different. **Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0* The regime maintained the appearance of republican governance, but power was firmly concentrated in Augustus’ hands. His rule marked the beginning of a system that future historians and satirists would recognize as an illusion—**an empire disguised as a republic**. Unlike modern revolutions, the Roman transition lacked a clear ideological or social upheaval. There was no overthrow of a monarch, no radical reformation of class structures, and no grand political manifesto. Yet, Alston insists it was still a revolution. The shift from republic to empire fundamentally altered Rome’s political culture, replacing the power of the [traditional elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) with a centralized autocracy. This transformation was not immediate but occurred over decades, through war, state-sponsored violence, and the slow realization among Rome’s ruling class that the nature of their government had irreversibly changed. ### How did the Roman Republic Maintain their Power The senators of Rome were deeply rooted in tradition, governing a society where hierarchical structures were reinforced by history and cultural expectations. The Roman elite carried the burden of maintaining these traditions, believing them to be integral to Rome’s identity. Despite enduring numerous crises over the final century of the Republic, the political system proved resilient. Between 133 and 31 BCE, Rome experienced at least eleven major episodes of civil unrest and conflict, including several full-scale civil wars. The Republic’s ability to recover was not solely due to its political institutions or reverence for tradition but rather to the deep integration of political and social structures. In Rome, politics was not separate from society; rather, it was embedded within it. This inseparability forces modern scholars to approach Roman politics differently than contemporary political systems. Rome functioned as a political culture, where social and political hierarchies were indistinguishable from one another. The senators were not just lawmakers—they were also the wealthiest citizens, cultural patrons, religious representatives, judges, and military commanders. Their authority was legitimized by historical precedent and their own successes. ![A painting of Cesare Maccari, depicting Appius Claudius Caecus in the Roman Senate](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-painting-of-Cesare-Maccari--depicting-Appius-Claudius-Caecus-in-the-Roman-Senate.jpg) A painting of Cesare Maccari, depicting Appius Claudius Caecus in the Roman Senate. Public domain To dismantle senatorial power would mean more than just political reform—it would require a complete restructuring of Roman society. Such a transformation would erase traditions, undermine the social order, and throw the state into chaos. For Romans, a Rome without the Republic was an unthinkable catastrophe—an end to Rome itself. This deeply ingrained political culture fostered an elite consensus on governance. Rome’s political hierarchies were so tightly interwoven with its economic and social frameworks that, from the elite’s perspective, the system appeared absolute, with no viable alternative. While competition within the aristocracy was fierce, there was no structured opposition to the system itself. Yet beyond the ruling elite, there existed millions of [ordinary Romans](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/) whose voices are rarely preserved in historical records. The city of Rome alone had over a million inhabitants, while Italy as a whole was home to more than five million people. It is likely that the lower classes held political views distinct from those of the elite. While their perspectives remain largely absent from the historical record, it is improbable that they simply accepted the values and beliefs of the ruling class without question. Their experiences and interpretations of Rome’s political transformation were undoubtedly different, even if they remain largely unknown to us today. ### Rome’s Revolution: Chaos, Continuity, and the Transformation of Power Revolutions occur when a dominant ideology collapses, making way for a new political culture. However, revolutions are often chaotic and violent, with the new order forming gradually over time—often retaining elements of the old. After 43 BCE, when Rome fell under the control of the triumvirs, the state was plunged into upheaval. Traditions were abandoned, and between 43 and 32 BCE, every aspect of Roman society was destabilized. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/One-of-the-three-famous-paintings-of-Antoine-Caron--depicting-the-massacres-of-the-Triumvirate.jpg) ## Yet, despite the disorder, a new political system emerged, and Rome endured. **One of the three famous paintings of Antoine Caron, depicting the massacres of the Triumvirate. Public domain* Modern historians tend to downplay the idea of Rome experiencing a true revolution. As aforementioned, the final century of the Republic was marked by assassinations, riots, and civil wars—clear indications of a failing political system. Yet, there was no specific radical movement advocating for systemic change. While modern scholars identify economic inequality, agrarian crises, and social disparities as key issues of the late Republic, Roman political discourse barely addressed them. Reform efforts focused on restoring lost moral values rather than restructuring the political or economic order. Ancient sources express deep skepticism about Rome’s ability to recover. Many believed that imperial expansion had eroded the traditional moral and social framework that had once upheld the Republic. A return to earlier values seemed impossible without sacrificing the wealth and dominance Rome had gained through conquest. This paradox was central to the **Augustan transformation**. By 14 CE, despite claims of a revolution, much of Rome’s governing class remained unchanged. The aristocracy, largely descended from the old Republican elite, still held power. The Senate continued to function, magistrates were elected, and government institutions remained intact. Some historians have even argued that Augustus merely refined an inefficient system rather than initiating a true revolution. However, such interpretations overlook the drastic shift in power dynamics. By 40 BCE, Rome’s leadership was entirely different from that of previous generations. The new ruling class had seized power through force, eliminating opposition and rewarding their supporters—particularly the military. Just a few years earlier, senators could insult and dismiss military officers without consequence; by 40 BCE, those same soldiers controlled Italy. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-portrait-of-Roman-Emperor-Augustus-from-a-marble-bust.jpg) ## The Senate still existed, but it no longer ruled Rome. **Credits: Egisto Sani, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0* To fully grasp this transformation, one must abandon conventional frameworks that focus solely on institutions and legal structures. Roman politics was not driven by constitutional change but by shifting networks of power, where alliances and military loyalty determined authority more than traditional senatorial governance. In the end, Rome shifted towards an empire through the lens of history; an empire that some argue, exists in a different form till this day. ### The Antonine Plague: A Devastation that Reshaped the Roman Empire URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-antonine-plague-devastation-reshaped-roman-empire/ Last updated: 2025-09-23T13:34:13.000Z It began with a whisper—a fevered breath carried on the winds of war. At first, it was nothing more than a distant murmur, a shadow lurking at the edges of the empire’s vast frontiers. Soldiers returned from distant campaigns, their victories overshadowed by an unseen specter. The streets of once-thriving cities grew quieter, temples filled with desperate prayers, and physicians, powerless in their craft, looked on in horror. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) had faced countless enemies before, but this one did not come with swords or siege engines. It crept through the veins of the empire itself, silent, insatiable, and utterly indifferent to the might of men. ![Delaunay’s painting of the Angel of Death distributing the Antonine plague in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/Delaunay-s-painting-of-the-Angel-of-Death-distributing-the-Antonine-plague-in-Rome.jpg) Delaunay’s painting of the Angel of Death distributing the Antonine plague in Rome. Public domain ### A Silent Catalyst of Rome’s Decline Many historians attribute the fall of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/) to internal instability, economic downturns, and weakened military defenses after the golden age of [Pax Romana](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-pax-romana-was-rome-ever-a-peaceful-empire/). However, there is no singular event that clearly marks the decline of Roman imperial dominance. The Antonine Plague was a turning point in the empire’s downfall—an often-overlooked epidemic that raged from 165 to 180 CE during the final years of the Antonine Dynasty. As the first recorded epidemic in history, it resulted in the **loss of 10% of the empire’s population**, amounting to approximately **five to ten million deaths**, and significantly undermined the prestige of Roman power. The Roman world, once characterized by the phrase “*Dominus Et Deus*” (Lord and God), was now subject to the dominance of a force beyond human control—one that dictated the health, stability, and imperial future of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/beauty-in-ancient-rome/). ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-painting-dubbed-Medicine-in-the-Middle-Ages-by-Veloso-Salgado--Galen-is-in-the-middle.jpg) ## The Antonine Plague, also known as the **Plague of Galen*, is named after the Greek physician Claudius Galenus, who documented its effects in **Methodus Medendi*. **A painting dubbed Medicine in the Middle Ages by Veloso Salgado, Galen is in the middle. Public domain* The disease, which afflicted victims for nearly two weeks with a 25% mortality rate, is even attributed to have claimed the life of Emperor [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-marcus-aurelius-meditations-survive/). [Galen ](https://romanempiretimes.com/galen-of-pergamon-rome-most-famous-physician-galenus/)described its symptoms and healing process: > “On the ninth day a certain young man was covered over his whole body by an exanthem, as was the case with nearly all who survived. > > Drying drugs were applied to his body. On the twelfth day he was able to get out of bed.” > "Of some of these which had become ulcerated, that part of the surface called the scab fell away and then the remaining part nearby was healthy and after one or two days became scarred over. > > In those places where it was not ulcerated, the exanthem was rough and scabby and fell away like some husk and hence all became healthy." Due to the lack of inscriptions dated between 167 and 180 CE, historians estimate a severe population decline—ranging from five to ten million deaths to a highly debated 33% mortality rate among the empire’s 75 million inhabitants. The disease likely originated in the Far East, brought back by Roman soldiers returning victorious from the Parthian Wars. Many scholars believe it was a form of **smallpox or typhus**. The epidemic significantly reduced life expectancy, with Italy suffering the greatest impact, as it coincided with malaria and other seasonal diseases. The plague rapidly spread across the empire’s vast transit network, affecting Asia Minor, Egypt, Greece, and Italy. At its peak, the plague claimed **2,000 lives per day** in Rome. Despite its catastrophic consequences, it is often overshadowed by other major outbreaks, such as the Plague of Athens under Pericles and the Justinian Plague centuries later. ![Delacroix’s painting of Marcus Aurelius’ death, possibly from the Antonine plague](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/Delacroix-s-painting-of-Marcus-Aurelius--death--possibly-from-the-Antonine-plague.jpg) Delacroix’s painting of Marcus Aurelius’ death, possibly from the Antonine plague. Public domain ### The Economic Devastation of the Antonine Plague The Antonine Plague dealt a severe blow to Rome’s economy, causing widespread stagnation. Trade slowed, economic activity declined, and the value of goods depreciated. Records from Roman Egypt suggest that wages remained stable, but broader economic trends indicate serious disruptions across the empire. Archaeological evidence, such as reduced air pollution and a decline in Iberian mining activities, points to a major decrease in industrial output. As the population declined, the land-to-labor ratio increased, leading to lower incomes and cheaper land values. Between 158 and 219 CE, agricultural output suffered, with transaction records showing a sharp drop in wheat production and a rise in the consumption of luxury goods like [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/). As demand shifted, the economy favored smaller, high-profit ventures over large-scale agriculture, setting the stage for future shortages. Over time, this shift contributed to a dramatic rise in commodity prices due to population recovery outpacing production. Though some argue that food prices rose more quickly between 165 and 180 CE than during the Crisis of the Third Century, this comparison does not fully account for coinage policies and later [Diocletian](https://romanempiretimes.com/diocletian-architect-of-the-roman-empires-renewal/) reforms. Nonetheless, declining wheat rents provide a clear indicator of economic distress. Before the plague, land rents for major wheat-producing regions—Arsinoite, Oxyrhynchite, and Hermopolite—were stable at 7.5 to 8 artabas per aroura. By the late second century CE, these values had dropped to 5.5, 6, and 3.6 artabas, respectively, reflecting a sharp decline in agricultural profitability. The depopulation crisis forced landlords to lower rent prices to encourage cultivation, but this strategy proved ineffective. By 180 CE, the empire harvested only 27.5% of the expected wheat yield, leading to widespread starvation. This prolonged agricultural failure hindered population and economic recovery. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-painting-from-Michiel-Sweerts-and-Workshop--dubbed-Plague-in-an-Ancient-City--possibly-Athens-.jpg) ## The economic decline further deactivated industries, particularly factories and mines, exacerbating the downward spiral. **A painting from Michiel Sweerts and Workshop, dubbed Plague in an Ancient City (possibly Athens). Public domain* Even after the plague subsided, its economic aftershocks persisted. Wages in wheat units rose by 20%, while the nominal price of essential goods like wine and oil increased by nearly 50%. The situation was especially dire in Egypt, a region heavily reliant on grain exports. As foreign demand surged, price levels spiked, worsening economic conditions long after the plague had ended. The inability of Roman citizens to afford basic necessities made economic survival increasingly difficult. ### Faith in Crisis: The Shift from Paganism to Christianity During the Antonine Plague, traditional Roman Pagan religious institutions experienced a decline in influence, while monotheistic faiths, particularly Christianity, gained followers across the empire. Throughout history, people of faith have turned to religion for comfort during crises—from the Pilgrims of the New World praying for their survival in the 17th century to the Jewish defenders at Masada choosing death over surrender. In Rome, such spiritual reliance typically centered around the Greco-Roman god of healing, Asclepius, whose worship was introduced from Greece in 293 BCE. However, during the Antonine Plague, there is no clear evidence that Roman citizens overwhelmingly sought divine protection from Asclepius. Modern quantitative research analyzing Latin inscriptions and [epigraphic evidence](https://romanempiretimes.com/whispers-on-the-walls-graffiti-as-a-voice-of-ancient-rome/) suggests that Asclepius did not gain popularity during the epidemic. The number of inscriptions, monuments, and textual references dedicated to him remained stagnant. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-painting-depicting-the-plague-of-the-Philistines-at-Ashdod--after-Nicolas-Poussin.jpg) ## This decline in faith during a medical crisis is a key indication of the weakening of traditional Roman religious practices and the growing appeal of monotheism, particularly Christianity. **A painting from Michiel Sweerts and Workshop, dubbed Plague in an Ancient City (possibly Athens). Credits: Wellcome Images, CC BY 4.0* Before the plague, Christians were a small and persecuted minority, estimated at 40,000 adherents—only 0.07% of the empire’s population. Despite being marginalized, many Christians, as recorded in biblical and Christian sources, provided care for the sick and extended aid even to non-believers. In contrast, Emperor [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/10-things-you-did-not-know-about-marcus-aurelius/) responded to the crisis by restoring Pagan temples and monuments while continuing the persecution of Christians who refused to worship the Greco-[Roman gods](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/). Once again, [Christians were blamed](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/) for the empire’s misfortunes. However, their humanitarian response set them apart. Unlike the state-sponsored religious cults that focused on ritual and worship, Christians gained greater popularity because they offered direct help to those in need. This compassionate response contributed to a surge in conversions. While the exact numbers remain unknown, by 180 CE, the Christian population had grown to 100,000 followers, reflecting a 150% increase. This rise in Christianity paralleled the decentralization of Pagan religious dominance and a growing acceptance of monotheistic faiths. The influence of Christianity continued to shape imperial policies. Under Emperor Gallienus, the empire officially ended the persecution of Christians. Another epidemic, the Cyprian Plague, further contributed to the faith’s expansion. Named after Cyprian, the Christian Bishop of Carthage, the plague became a defining moment for Christian martyrdom. Cyprian refused to renounce his faith and, like many early Christian figures, was executed for his beliefs. His death cemented his status as a Christian saint and reinforced Christianity’s growing reputation for resilience. (*Antonine Plague: The Overlooked Turning Point in Roman Empire’s History, by Harrison H. Tang*) ![An icon of Saint Cyprian from the Byzantine workshop of Constantine G. Antoni](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/An-icon-of-Saint-Cyprian-from-the-Byzantine-workshop-of-Constantine-G.-Antoni.jpg) An icon of Saint Cyprian from the [Byzantine workshop of Constantine G. Antoni](http://www.agiografies-ioannina.gr/p/blog-page%5F13.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ### Rome’s Deadly Encounter with an Unseen Enemy The Roman world frequently faced deadly epidemics, with historical records suggesting that major outbreaks occurred approximately every 10 to 20 years. However, the Antonine Plague stood out due to its unprecedented severity and rapid spread. It became one of the defining events of [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-stoic-emperor-how-marcus-aurelius-outwitted-death-in-the-germanic-wilds/)’ reign. When the plague first emerged, Galen—the only available medical observer—quickly abandoned Rome, where the disease had claimed nearly all his [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/). He later witnessed its return in 168 CE, which forced both emperors to leave Aquileia, with: > “one of them dying suspiciously soon on the journey home.” The historian [Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/) recorded a later outbreak in 189 CE, stating that it "*killed 2,000 people per day*." Even two centuries later, [Ammianus Marcellinus](https://romanempiretimes.com/ammian-or-ammianus-marcellinus-from-a-roman-soldier-to-one-of-the-best-historians-of-all-time/) described the Antonine Plague as an event that: > “after generating the virulence of incurable disease (under Marcus and Verus), polluted everything with contagion and death, from the frontiers of Persia all the way to the Rhine and to Gaul.” Cold winters and low rainfall were especially conducive to smallpox transmission, as evidenced by a detailed study of London deaths from 1659 to 1835\. The outbreak in Aquileia in 168/9 was particularly severe in winter, with Galen recalling that: > “most of us died, not merely from the plague, but because the epidemic was happening in the depths of winter.” Similarly, January and February 179 CE saw a significant rise in fatalities at Soknopaiou Nesos in Egypt. The timeline of epidemic outbreaks in China closely aligns with that of the Antonine Plague, suggesting a shared origin. China also experienced seasonal concentrations of deaths, with notable spikes in February 173, March 182, and the spring of 179. ### The Vulnerability of Rome’s Slaves Epidemics, including the Antonine Plague, disproportionately affected enslaved populations, whose harsh living conditions made them particularly susceptible. Slaves often endured cramped, communal sleeping arrangements and inadequate nutrition, factors that likely contributed to their high mortality rates. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/An-illustration-from-the-History-of-medicine-in-pictures--Galen-cupping-a-patient.jpg) ## As aforementioned, Galen recounts that the plague claimed nearly all of his slaves in Rome. **An illustration from the History of medicine in pictures, Galen cupping a patient. Credits: Rawpixel, CC0 1.0* Similarly, Aelius Aristides describes how an outbreak in Smyrna during the summer infected nearly everyone around him. At first, only a few of his servants fell ill, but soon the sickness spread, affecting both the young and the old. Aristides himself was the last to succumb, noting the horrifying speed of the disease: > “And if anyone tried to move, he immediately lay dead before the front door.” Historical parallels reinforce the devastating impact of disease on enslaved and impoverished communities. Dionysius and [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/) record that a plague in Rome in 451 BCE wiped out all the slaves and half the citizen population. Another outbreak in 428 BCE began as cattle disease before spreading to rural communities and slaves, eventually reaching the city. A similar event in 174 BCE devastated livestock before affecting slaves so severely that their unburied bodies lined the roads. These patterns persisted into later periods—in 1419, over half of the plague victims in Cairo were slaves, and in 1815, bubonic plague in Noja, Apulia, initially struck only the poor. While enslaved people are often underrepresented in ancient historical narratives, sources like Galen and Aristides highlight their extreme vulnerability during pandemics. The Roman annalists also acknowledge their plight, suggesting that severe outbreaks could cripple or decimate the labor force. Aelius Aristides, left with no one to care for him as his own slaves perished, was ultimately tended to by the slaves of the doctors who had come to treat him. ![A five-row gravure, possibly from Giovanni Giacomo de'Rossi, depicting Mario Chigi as he arrives in Rome where the plague reigns during 1656-1657](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-five-row-gravure--possibly-from-Giovanni-Giacomo-de-Rossi--depicting-Mario-Chigi-as-he-arrives-in-Rome-where-the-plague-reigns-during-1656-1657.jpg) A five-row gravure, possibly from Giovanni Giacomo de'Rossi, depicting Mario Chigi as he arrives in Rome where the plague reigns during 1656-1657\. Credits: Rijksmuseum, Public domain ### The Roman Army and the Deadly Spread of Plague The risks posed by a large standing army in spreading disease under pre-modern conditions were immense. Frequent military mobilizations, unit transfers, and the furlough of soldiers created ideal circumstances for the rapid transmission of epidemics. Historical sources emphasize the devastating toll of the Antonine Plague on the [Roman army](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/). Jerome asserts that by 172 CE, the army was nearly wiped out. Eutropius describes entire armies perishing, with nearly all the armed forces succumbing to disease, alongside massive losses in Rome, Italy, and the provinces. Orosius notes that the plague struck winter-quartered legions so severely that a three-year conscription drive at Carnuntum was necessary for the Marcomannic Wars. The [*Historia Augusta*](https://amzn.to/3PZ0N3M?ref=romanempiretimes.com) records that many thousands of soldiers died, forcing Marcus Aurelius to replenish the legions by recruiting slaves, [gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/), bandits, and Germanic mercenaries. Further evidence from military inscriptions suggests dramatic upheaval. A list of discharged [legionaries](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-enigmatic-disappearance-of-the-9th-roman-legion/) from VII Claudia in Lower Moesia (195 CE) implies an unusually large intake in 169 CE, with 270 survivors—double the expected number after accounting for deaths in service. Another legionary inscription from Alexandria (168 CE) shows a shift toward recruiting men born in military camps, rather than from traditional recruitment cities, pointing to severe manpower shortages. Additional army records reflect the plague’s impact in striking ways. Military discharge certificates (*diplomata*), which were regularly issued before the mid-160s, abruptly ceased after 167 CE and did not resume until a single instance in 177 CE. Before the outbreak, numbers were stable, with 22 certificates in 160 CE and 12 in 164 CE, but the sudden halt suggests a collapse in army administration during the plague years. This disruption may have been further worsened by metal shortages caused by mining issues. (*The Antonine Plague revisited, by R. P. Duncan-Jones*) ![A possible representation of a Roman soldier suffering from the Antonine plague](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-possible-representation-of-a-Roman-soldier-suffering-from-the-Antonine-plague.jpg) A possible representation of a Roman soldier suffering from the Antonine plague. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### Galen and the Antonine Plague: Identifying the Disease The Antonine Plague holds a significant place in medical history primarily due to its association with Galen, the renowned Greek physician. As we mentioned, Galen had firsthand experience with the epidemic, witnessing its devastation in Rome in 166 AD and again during an outbreak among troops stationed in Aquileia in 168/9 AD. While he meticulously recorded many medical conditions, his references to the plague remain scattered and incomplete. Unlike Thucydides, who documented the Athenian plague with future recognition in mind, Galen focused primarily on symptoms and treatment rather than providing a comprehensive account for later generations. Due to the scarcity of details in Galen’s writings, historians have debated the exact nature of the Antonine Plague. The prevailing theory identifies it as smallpox, particularly in its hemorrhagic form, though other possibilities such as exanthematous typhus or bubonic plague have been considered. However, the symptoms Galen described, particularly the exanthem (skin rash), strongly align with smallpox. He emphasized that the rash covered the entire body, turned black in many cases due to blood putrefaction, and often ulcerated—features consistent with hemorrhagic smallpox. > “In those who were going to survive who had diarrhea, a black exanthem appeared over the whole body. > > It (the exanthem) was ulcerated in most cases and dry (no liquid oozing out) in all. The blackness was due to a remnant of blood which had putrified in the fever blisters, like some ash which nature had deposited on the skin. > > Of some of these which had become ulcerated, that part of the surface called the scab fell away and then the remaining part nearby was healthy and after one or two days became scarred over. > > In those places where it was not ulcerated, the exanthem was rough and scabby and fell away like some husk and hence all became healthy." ![A possible representation of the Greco-Roman doctor and physician Galen treating one of his patients during the Antonine plague](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-possible-representation-of-Galen-treating-one-of-his-patients-during-the-Antonine-plague.jpg) A possible representation of the Greco-Roman doctor and physician Galen treating one of his patients during the Antonine plague. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney Galen also noted gastrointestinal symptoms, particularly severe diarrhea and black stools, which are frequently observed in hemorrhagic smallpox due to intestinal bleeding. He observed that patients who did not exhibit black stools often developed the characteristic black rash instead, aligning with modern medical understanding of the disease's progression. While Galen’s incomplete description leaves some room for debate, the detailed account of the rash, fever, ulcerations, and internal bleeding provides strong evidence that the Antonine Plague was indeed smallpox. The virulent nature of the outbreak, its high mortality rate, and the widespread devastation it caused suggest a particularly severe strain of the disease, with hemorrhagic smallpox being the most likely culprit. > “Those afflicted with plague appear neither warm, nor burning to those who touch them, although they are raging with fever inside, just as Thucydides describes (in the Athenian plague).” Comment. 1 in Hippocratis Libr. 6 [*Epidemiorum*](https://amzn.to/3Q74unO?ref=romanempiretimes.com) > “In many who survived, black stools appeared, mostly on the ninth day or even the seventh or eleventh day. > > Many differences occurred. > > Some had stools that were nearly black; some had neither pains in their excretions, nor were their excretions foul smelling. > > Very many stood in the middle. If the stool was not black, the exanthem always appeared. > > All those who excreted very black stools died. De Atra Bile (V 104–148 K), [*On Black Bile*](https://amzn.to/40FJXvH?ref=romanempiretimes.com) --- 📜 For those that want to learn more about the Antonine Plague, we hope you’ll enjoy this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKF3hT9UxbY&ref=romanempiretimes.com): ### How did the Roman Army Evolve through the Ages? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-the-roman-army-evolve-through-the-ages/ Last updated: 2025-02-01T01:06:13.000Z From its humble beginnings as a village on the [Tiber River](https://romanempiretimes.com/flowing-through-time-the-tiber-river-journey-in-roman-history/), Rome developed a structured and disciplined army that played a critical role in its rise to power. In its earliest days, the Roman army was a small, loosely organized force composed of the king, his bodyguards, retainers, and local clan groups. The equipment included oval or circular shields, leather corslets with metal chest protectors, and conical bronze helmets, though concrete evidence of the army's organization remains scarce. Early conflicts were little more than localized skirmishes between small raiding bands. The early Roman military closely resembled those of neighboring towns in Latium, influenced heavily by the Etruscans, the dominant power in central Italy during the first millennium BCE. Etruscan influence is evident in the names of the three original Roman tribes—*Ramnes, Tities*, and *Luceres*—each contributing 1,000 infantry and 100 cavalry to form a legion of 3,000 men and 300 equites (cavalry). This system established the framework for what would become the Roman *legio* (levy). ![A painting by Frans Wouters depicting Cloelia and Her Companions Escaping from the Etruscans](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-painting-by-Frans-Wouters-depicting-Cloelia-and-Her-Companions-Escaping-from-the-Etruscans.jpg) A painting by Frans Wouters depicting Cloelia and Her Companions Escaping from the Etruscans. Public domain ### The Servian Constitution Attributed to Servius Tullius, Rome's sixth king (580–530 BCE), the Servian Constitution formalized a military system based on wealth and class. Servius is credited with conducting Rome's first census, organizing the population into "centuries" for both voting and military purposes. Wealthier citizens provided their own arms and [armor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/), creating a system where the financial resources of the state were directly linked to its defense. ### Military Classes and Equipment - **Equites**: The wealthiest citizens, equipped as cavalry and organized into 18 centuries. - **First Class**: Armed with a bronze cuirass, spear, [sword](https://romanempiretimes.com/forged-for-battle-the-six-century-reign-of-the-roman-gladius/), shield, and greaves. - **Second Class**: Similar to the first but without a cuirass. - **Third Class**: Equipped with a spear, sword, and shield, but no greaves. - **Fourth Class**: Armed with a spear and shield only. - **Fifth Class**: Used slings or stones. Men over 46 years old (*seniores*) were assigned to defend the city, while younger men (*iuniores*) composed the field army. The [poorest citizens](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/) (*capite censi)*, without property, were excluded from service. The Servian reforms marked the adoption of a Greek-style hoplite army, with close-order infantry fighting in a phalanx formation. This system, likely influenced by both Etruscan and Greek military traditions, required heavily armed infantry to form tight ranks with overlapping shields and forward-pointing spears. The phalanx, typically eight ranks deep, relied on discipline and cohesion, with replacements stepping forward as casualties occurred. While Roman tradition credits the Etruscans for this military innovation, its roots trace back to Greece, where hoplite warfare flourished during the fifth century BCE. ![A painting depicting the Greek Phalanx in Battle with Persians](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-painting-depicting-the-Greek-Phalanx-in-Battle-with-Persians.jpg) A painting depicting the Greek Phalanx in Battle with Persians. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times Some historians question whether the Servian Constitution, with its complex class-based military organization, could have existed as early as the sixth century BCE. It is more plausible that the first stage involved a single *classis* of citizens who could afford the necessary equipment to serve as hoplites, while those without sufficient property (*infra classem*) were excluded. Throughout the Republic, [Roman soldiers](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) were drawn exclusively from the citizenry, reflecting a deeply ingrained sense of duty, privilege, and responsibility to defend the state. Early [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s military system laid the foundation for the disciplined, professional army that would eventually dominate the Mediterranean world. ### The Fall of Veii and Rome's Military Evolution In the sixth century BCE, the expulsion of the Tarquin kings marked the beginning of the Roman Republic. By the fifth century, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/) had established dominance over Latium through localized conflicts. Simultaneously, the Etruscans, [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/beauty-in-ancient-rome/)’s powerful northern neighbors, declined under pressure from Greek colonies and advancing [Gallic](https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/) tribes. Rome’s rivalry with Veii (*an ancient Etruscan city and one of Rome’s most formidable early rivals*) culminated in a ten-year war, ending with its capture in 396 BCE under M. Furius Camillus. The war prompted significant military reforms, including an expanded army, new equipment like the [scutum](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-last-legionary-unveiling-the-scutum-of-dura-europos/), and the introduction of soldier stipends (*stipendium*). However, soon after, the Gallic invasion in 390 BCE led to a devastating Roman defeat at the Battle of the Allia and the sacking of Rome. Camillus again rose to lead Rome’s recovery, driving the Gauls back and preserving the Republic. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/The-Gauls-entering-the-Roman-Capitol-during-the-Sack-of-Rome.jpg) ## These events marked a critical era of military adaptation and resilience for early Rome. The Gauls entering the Roman Capitol during the Sack of Rome. Public domain ### From Phalanx to Legion The Roman army underwent significant changes in response to weaknesses exposed during the Gallic invasions of the early fourth century BCE. The rigid phalanx formation was replaced by the more flexible maniple system, which allowed smaller units to act independently and adapt to dynamic battlefield conditions. This period also saw a shift in equipment, with the scutum becoming the standard shield and javelins replacing thrusting spears for most soldiers, enabling more effective ranged attacks before engaging in close combat. These innovations gave the [Roman legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-mystery-of-the-lost-roman-legion-the-ninths-final-march/) an advantage over opponents who maintained outdated phalanx tactics. By the early fourth century, the army expanded to four legions, each operating as a distinct division under the leadership of consuls or praetors. These reforms marked the beginning of Rome’s transition to a military powerhouse capable of adapting its strategies to conquer the Mediterranean. ([*The Making of the Roman Army. From Republic to Empire*](https://amzn.to/42AvbZG?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Lawrence Keppie*) ### The Evolution of the Roman Army: Adapting for Victory The Roman army underwent significant changes in response to weaknesses exposed during the Gallic invasions of the early fourth century BCE. The rigid phalanx formation was replaced by the more flexible maniple system, which allowed smaller units to act independently and adapt to dynamic battlefield conditions. This period also saw a shift in equipment, with the [scutum](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-last-legionary-unveiling-the-scutum-of-dura-europos/) becoming the standard shield and javelins replacing thrusting spears for most soldiers, enabling [more effective ranged attacks before engaging in close combat](https://romanempiretimes.com/testudo-the-military-formation-that-lasted-from-ancient-rome-to-today-2/). These innovations gave the Roman legions an advantage over opponents who maintained outdated phalanx tactics. By the early fourth century, the army expanded to four legions, each operating as a distinct division under the leadership of consuls or praetors. These reforms marked the beginning of Rome’s transition to a military powerhouse capable of adapting its strategies to conquer the Mediterranean. ![A depiction of the Roman Army & Chariot Experience, in the Hippodrome, Jerash, Jordan](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-depiction-of-the-Roman-Army---Chariot-Experience--in-the-Hippodrome--Jerash--Jordan-1.jpg) A depiction of the Roman Army & Chariot Experience, in the Hippodrome, Jerash, Jordan. Credits: yeowatzup, CC BY 2.0 ### From Career Service to Structural Transformation The Roman army's transition to a standing force was gradual and largely completed by 13 BCE, when [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) formalized military service terms, marking the beginning of the army as a career. Later reforms, including those under [Diocletian](https://romanempiretimes.com/diocletian-architect-of-the-roman-empires-renewal/) in the fourth century, were the result of incremental changes initiated by earlier emperors like Septimius Severus, Gallienus, and Aurelian. These reforms were not sudden but a culmination of ongoing adjustments over centuries. Traditional methods of analyzing the ranks of the army from a top-down perspective have created misconceptions about earlier structures, projecting later, rigid models backward. A bottom-up approach offers a more accurate picture, reflecting how soldiers experienced career progression in a dynamic and constantly evolving institution. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/Photo-from-a-Roman-Barbarian-festival--a-Roman-soldier-during-the-reconstruction-of-a-Roman-Barbarian-battle.jpg) ## This gradual evolution underscores the adaptability of the Roman army, which played a central role in the empire’s endurance and transformation. Photo from a Roman-Barbarian festival, a Roman soldier during the reconstruction of a Roman-Barbarian battle. Credits: Pavel21kriz, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### The Structure of the Roman Military: Core Units and Adaptations The Roman military system during the early Empire was structured into three main components: 1. **Forces Stationed in or Near Rome**: This included the [Praetorian Guard,](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/) *equites singulares*, urban cohorts, *vigiles* (fire brigade), and naval fleets at Misenum and Ravenna. These units were under the direct control of the emperor and held a higher status and pay than their provincial counterparts. 2. **Legions**: Comprising about 160,000 men (50% of the total armed forces), the legions were the backbone of the military, stationed primarily along the empire's frontiers. Despite their importance, legionaries were often resentful of the privileges enjoyed by the Praetorian Guard. The legions played a crucial role in conquests such as the invasion of [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-leave-britain/), which required one of the empire’s largest garrisons. Over time, the placement of legions became relatively stable, with some maintaining the same postings for centuries. 3. **Auxiliary Forces** *(Auxilia*): These units compensated for Rome's traditional deficiencies in cavalry and light-armed troops. Initially recruited from non-citizens (*peregrini*), auxiliaries were organized into cavalry (*alae*) and infantry (*cohortes)*, with regiments of 500 or 1,000 men. Over time, auxiliaries became more standardized, and citizenship was often granted upon discharge, blurring the distinction between them and legionaries. To counteract the loss of distinctiveness in the auxilia, new "irregular" regiments called *numeri* were created during [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/) and [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrians-wall-the-roman-empires-enigmatic-frontier/)’s reigns. These units were raised from less Romanized provinces and fought in their native styles, bringing fresh energy and diversity to the army. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/The-testudo-formation-displayed-in-the-Roman-Army-0ATactics-event-in-Scarborough-Castle-1.jpg) ## This tripartite system—central forces, frontier legions, and auxiliaries—formed the backbone of Roman military success and adaptability. **The testudo formation displayed in the Roman Army Tactics event in Scarborough Castle. Credits:* **David Friel, CC BY 2.0* ### The Rise and Role of the Praetorian Guard in the Roman Empire The Praetorian Guard, established as a permanent corps by Augustus in 27 BCE, evolved from earlier Republican-era general bodyguards (*cohors praetoria*) into a powerful force central to Roman politics and military affairs. Initially consisting of nine cohorts, the guard was stationed in Rome and nearby Italian towns, under the emperor's direct control. By 2 BCE, its command was delegated to two equestrian *praefecti praetorio*, making the prefecture a prestigious position. Under Tiberius, Sejanus centralized the Guard into one barracks near the *porta Viminalis*, consolidating its power in Rome. Subsequent emperors expanded the Guard: Gaius ([Caligula](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-caligula-mad-or-just-sick/)) increased its size to twelve cohorts, and [Vitellius](https://romanempiretimes.com/69-ce-the-year-of-the-four-emperors/) briefly expanded it to sixteen cohorts, totaling 16,000 soldiers, after replacing the original Guard with troops loyal to him. However, his successor [Vespasian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/) restored the Guard to its original nine-cohort structure, later increased to ten by [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/). The Guard was predominantly recruited from Italy and Romanized provinces, maintaining its elite status. This policy shifted under Septimius Severus, who replaced the existing Guard after its involvement in auctioning imperial power with soldiers from the loyal Illyrian legions. Praetorian service offered significant benefits, including higher pay, donatives, and promising career prospects. Veterans could advance to positions such as centurion in the legions or move into high-ranking roles within Rome’s urban forces. Ambitious members who excelled could achieve influential appointments in the Roman administrative hierarchy. Despite its elite standing, the Guard's history is marked by its political influence and frequent interference in imperial succession. It remained a key force until its disbandment by Constantine in 312 CE, marking the end of its contentious but impactful legacy. Life in the Roman army demanded unparalleled discipline, unwavering loyalty, and physical endurance. From the dusty roads of provincial marches to the meticulously organized military camps, soldiers adhered to a rigid daily routine that blended training, construction, and combat readiness. Yet, beyond the battlefield, the Roman soldier’s life was also shaped by camaraderie, strict hierarchies, and the relentless demands of expanding and protecting an empire. ![A painting by Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema depicting the Praetorian Guard proclaiming Claudius as an Emperor](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-painting-by-Sir-Lawrence-Alma-Tadema-depicting-the-Praetorian-Guard-proclaiming-Claudius-as-an-Emperor.jpg) A painting by Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema depicting the Praetorian Guard proclaiming Claudius as an Emperor. Public domain ### The Making of a Roman Soldier: Basic Training and Weapon Mastery Roman military training was a rigorous process designed to transform recruits into disciplined warriors. Vegetius' [*De Re Militari*](https://amzn.to/4aIOJwQ?ref=romanempiretimes.com), drawing from earlier sources like [Cato the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/) and Cornelius Celsus, details the essential phases of this training, emphasizing endurance, precision, and combat skills. Discipline began with marching—recruits had to cover 20 miles in five hours at standard pace. Vegetius stressed that maintaining formation was crucial to battlefield survival. Physical conditioning included running, jumping, swimming, and carrying heavy loads, all gradually introduced before full armor was added. Recruits first trained with wooden weapons twice the weight of real ones, practicing thrusting techniques on stakes. This method, borrowed from gladiatorial schools, refined their precision and endurance. Advanced training (*armatura)* included mock duels, where performance determined rations—failures received barley instead of wheat. Weapon training in the Roman army was heavily influenced by [gladiatorial combat](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/) techniques. In 105 BCE, P. Rutilius Rufus introduced gladiatorial instructors into military training, refining soldiers’ ability to anticipate and counter enemy moves. The final stage focused on the *pilum* (javelin), with weighted practice versions to build strength and accuracy. Effective use of the pilum was vital, as its design prevented enemies from reusing them in battle. > "At the beginning of their training, the recruits must be taught the military pace. For there is no point which must be watched more carefully on the march or in the field than the preservation of their marching ranks by all the men. > > This can only be achieved if by continuous practice they learn to march quickly and in time. For an army that is split and disarranged by stragglers is always in the most serious danger from the enemy." Vegetius, *De Re Militari* To maintain discipline, soldiers who failed to reach proficiency were punished by receiving barley rations instead of wheat. This penalty, though seemingly minor, had a significant impact, as barley was considered an inferior grain and harder to digest than wheat. ([*The Roman Soldier*](https://amzn.to/3WFLbWo?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Watson, George Ronald*) ![A modern version of an Albion Aquilifer Roman Gladius](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/A-modern-version-of-an-Albion-Aquilifer-Roman-Gladius.jpg) A modern version of an Albion Aquilifer Roman Gladius. Credits: Søren Niedziella, CC BY 2.0 A highly dramatized version of Roman military training, likely influenced by historical sources but with **fictionalized elements** can be enjoyed in the “[*Frumentarius - Codex I: Spy at the Service of Rome*](https://amzn.to/4aISHFL?ref=romanempiretimes.com)” by Alex Speri. He narrates: > "The weeks that followed have probably been the most physically demanding of my life. Every day, I had to run along the almost sixty stadiums of the Servian Wall and do several hundred squats and push-ups. I was also taught the genus bellator, a kind of obstacle race using specific gestures in order to reduce the need for strength, prioritizing speed and flexibility. > > Little by little, with a lot of pain and sweat, I began to master the movements of my habit and learned how to control them. Day or night, we would go out for wild races in the heart of Rome. At the same time, I was taught to climb with the tiger’s paws. The more the weeks went by, the more I appreciated the complexity of my work, the more I saw the determination required to fulfill my duty. > > Finally, after six weeks, when I had noticed many physical changes in myself, we began proper combat training. The first few weeks of that phase were painful, and almost every day I ended up in the office of the medicus, who spread antiseptic and healing ointments on me, like olive oil on bread. He also had me swallow powerful analgesic potions so that I could continue with my training. > > Every night, as I lay in bed, all my movements were slowed down because of the thousand and one pains I felt. At some point, I even lost count of the number of scratches and bruises that covered my body. At the same time, we began training on the use of weapons. Primus was right: the dragon’s tongue was a real nightmare to master. > > Little by little he also taught me everything about assassination tactics and the most suitable techniques for each. About a week before the October Equus feast, Primus announced: > > —You are ready! In a week’s time, you’ll take the confirmation test, and if you pass, you’ll become one of us. If you fail, you’ll perish. > > —Why should I die? > > —We can’t let an ordinary soldier know the Empire’s most secret techniques without being able to control him. > > —I understand. > > —Take advantage of these last few moments to rest. You really need enough rest before that day. Meet me seven days from now, before dawn by the Castra Prætoria, northeast of the city near Porta Viminalis. Put on your black habit." ![The book Frumentarius - Codex I, Spy at the Service of Rome, by Alex Speri](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/02/The-book-Frumentarius---Codex-I--Spy-at-the-Service-of-Rome--by-Alex-Speri.jpg) The book [Frumentarius - Codex I, Spy at the Service of Rome](https://amzn.to/4aISHFL?ref=romanempiretimes.com), by Alex Speri. Credits: Roman Empire Times ### Delving into the Details of the Gallic Wars of Julius Caesar URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/delving-into-the-details-of-the-gallic-wars-of-julius-caesar/ Last updated: 2025-03-17T14:50:07.000Z Eight years of relentless conflict saw the Roman Republic extend its control over Gaul, a vast and diverse region inhabited by fiercely independent tribes. More than a conquest, the Gallic Wars became a showcase of [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/)’s military genius, his political ambition, and his ability to manipulate alliances and rivalries to Rome’s advantage. Yet, the story of the Gallic Wars is not merely one of Roman dominance—it is also a demonstration of the resilience, culture, and eventual downfall of the Gallic peoples. Through bloody [battles](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-battle-of-cannae-romes-darkest-day/), shifting allegiances, and strategic brilliance, these campaigns reshaped the power dynamics of the ancient world and set the stage for the end of the Roman Republic. ### Julian in Gaul: A Region Always in War Before venturing into the past, we travel forward in time, to underline how *Gallia* has continuously being the target of Roman military through the ages, even when the Roman Empire [was close to its demise](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/). Between 356 and 361, Julian conducted six military campaigns on the frontiers of Roman Gaul, four of which were large-scale operations, while the final two were more limited. These campaigns were not only important in addressing external threats but also deeply intertwined with internal political dynamics. As Caesar of the West (before becoming Emperor of Rome), [Julian](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/)’s military endeavors significantly influenced his relationship with his cousin and superior, Constantius II, who had elevated him to power in 355\. This evolving dynamic forms a crucial aspect of Julian’s time in Gaul, but it cannot be separated from the details and strategies of the campaigns themselves, which were designed to counter threats from groups like the Alamanni and the Franks. ![A painting by Edward Armitage depicting Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate presiding at a conference of sectarian](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-painting-by-Edward-Armitage-depicting-Roman-Emperor-Julian-the-Apostate-presiding-at-a-conference-of-sectarian-1.jpg) A painting by Edward Armitage depicting Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate presiding at a conference of sectarian. Public domain The primary narrative of Julian’s campaigns comes from Ammianus Marcellinus’ [*Res Gestae*](https://amzn.to/4h89N2k?ref=romanempiretimes.com), an invaluable yet highly partisan source. [Ammianus](https://romanempiretimes.com/ammian-or-ammianus-marcellinus-from-a-roman-soldier-to-one-of-the-best-historians-of-all-time/) viewed Julian as a heroic figure, often comparing him to [Alexander the Great](https://romanempiretimes.com/alexander-the-great-in-roman-thought-hero-rival-and-legend/) and Achilles. While his account is meticulously detailed and rooted in extensive research, Ammianus’ clear admiration for Julian introduces biases. For instance, his portrayal of Julian’s conflicts—whether with Constantius II or his appointed officers—always casts Julian in a favorable light. Despite its length and vivid descriptions, Ammianus’ narrative often lacks critical details, particularly in the tactical and strategic aspects of the campaigns. Moreover, Ammianus’ focus shifted to the eastern frontier by 360, leaving gaps in his coverage of Julian’s later Gallic campaigns. Other sources, though fragmentary and equally biased, provide additional insights. Julian’s Letter to the Athenians, written in 361, offers a firsthand account of his military actions and their underlying motivations. Although not a complete narrative, it gives a unique perspective on what Julian considered key features of the wars. Libanius’ funeral oration for Julian and remnants of Eunapius’ history—though composed by non-eyewitnesses—preserve unique details, such as the context surrounding Julian’s decisive victory at Strasbourg in 357\. Archaeological evidence also sheds light on the broader context of these campaigns, particularly the Roman *limes* (frontier defenses) and the Alamannic and Frankish worlds beyond the Rhine. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-possible-representation-of-Ammianus-Marcellinus--or-commonly-known-as-Ammian.jpg) ## These sources collectively provide a patchwork of perspectives, but their biases and gaps in information pose challenges for historical analysis. **A possible representation of Ammianus Marcellinus, or commonly known as Ammian. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney* While Ammianus remains the most comprehensive narrative, his partisanship and omissions must be balanced with evidence from Julian’s writings, other ancient texts, and archaeological findings to form a more nuanced understanding of the campaigns that cemented Julian’s reputation as a military leader; but most importantly, showcase how the region of Gaul has always been the target of Rome’s military might. (*"The Gallic Wars of Julian Caesar" by Peter J. Heather, in the "*[*A Companion to Julian the Apostate*](https://amzn.to/3WBf0aB?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*" edited by Stefan Rebenich & Hans-Ulrich Wiemer*) ### A Legacy Forged in War Julius Caesar is arguably the most renowned Roman figure in history. As dictator, he laid the groundwork for the eventual establishment of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/) under [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), his great-nephew. His legacy includes a famous affair with [Cleopatra](https://romanempiretimes.com/caesarion-was-the-last-pharaoh-the-son-of-julius-caesar/), the introduction of the leap year, and his [infamous assassination](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-shadow-of-the-dagger-assassinations-of-roman-emperors/) by those who once supported him. Yet, before his dictatorship, Caesar achieved one of his most remarkable feats: the rapid conquest of Gaul, a region encompassing modern France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and parts of Germany west of the Rhine—a territory of over 300,000 square miles. Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul not only altered the political landscape of Europe but also cemented his place in Roman history. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-gravure-of-Julius-Caesar-landing-in-Britain-1.jpg) ## His expeditions saw him become the first Roman general to cross both the Rhine and the English Channel, exploring territories that were mysterious and feared in his time. **A gravure of Julius Caesar landing in Britain. Public domain* The primary surviving account of these events is Caesar's own [*Commentarii de Bello Gallico*](https://amzn.to/4hbZn1M?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (Commentaries on the Gallic War), an annual record written to keep the Roman populace informed about his victories. However, these commentaries served a dual purpose: they glorified his achievements while downplaying setbacks, making them both an invaluable resource and a piece of self-promotional propaganda. During the conquest of Gaul, the region was undergoing significant cultural and political transformations. Some tribes were adopting Roman customs and developing urban centers, partly influenced by trade with Rome’s southern provinces. These developments ironically facilitated Rome's conquest, as centralized and wealthier tribes were easier to defeat than their more dispersed counterparts. [Caesar exploited divisions among the Gallic tribes](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/), playing them against one another and securing alliances when beneficial. His disciplined and increasingly experienced legions, along with auxiliary forces from Gaul and Germany, overwhelmed the fragmented resistance. The conquest was far from seamless. The Gauls staged sporadic uprisings throughout Caesar’s campaigns, culminating in the major rebellion of 52 BCE led by Vercingetorix, who united the tribes in a last-ditch effort to expel the Romans. Employing guerrilla tactics and scorched-earth strategies, the Gauls challenged Caesar’s forces in a brutal war of attrition. The conflict reached its climax at the siege of Alesia, where Caesar’s engineering skillfulness and military strategy prevailed. Vercingetorix surrendered, and although Gaul would not be fully pacified until Augustus’ reign, the Roman victory was decisive. ![Statue of Vercingetorix in Alessia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Statue-of-Vercingetorix-in-Alessia.jpg) Statue of Vercingetorix in Alessia. Credits: KvdB50 from Getty Images Signature, by Canva Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul not only expanded [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s territory but also bolstered his political and military reputation, setting the stage for his eventual rise to power. The Gallic Wars reshaped Europe, paving the way for the transformation of Gaul into Roman provinces and, centuries later, the emergence of modern France. Caesar’s victories, however, came at a cost, leading to unrest in Rome and the civil war that would bring an end to the Republic. ([*Essential Histories: Caesar's Gallic Wars 58-50 BC, by Kate Gilliver*](https://amzn.to/3WxaOJ9?ref=romanempiretimes.com)) ### The Art of Conquest: Themes and Strategies in Caesar's *Gallic War* Paul R. Murphy’s analysis of Caesar’s [*Gallic War*](https://amzn.to/4gmhSPD?ref=romanempiretimes.com) reveals fascinating thematic elements that underscore the strategic and rhetorical brilliance of the Roman general. Caesar’s narrative is not merely a military chronicle but a deliberate construction, combining persuasion (*persuasio*), shrewdness (*calliditas*), and Roman virtues (*virtus*) to justify his campaigns and elevate his leadership. One notable example from this study is Caesar’s handling of the Helvetii in Book I. Through carefully crafted rhetoric, [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/) portrays the Helvetii as both a dire threat to Roman security and a justification for preemptive action. Murphy highlights Caesar’s statement: > “It is the way of the gods to sometimes allow the wicked to prosper, only so their ultimate downfall can be greater.” This interpretation aligns with Caesar’s broader strategy of framing his victories as divinely sanctioned and morally righteous, reinforcing his image as a protector of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) and its allies. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/An-illustration-of-a-Gallic-warrior.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/An-illustration-of-a-Roman-soldier--a-trumpet-and-an-Eagle-standard-holder.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/An-illustration-of-a-Gallic-chief.jpg) 🏛️ Illustrations from the NYPL, of a Gallic soldier, Roman soldiers, trumpeter and Eagle standard beared, and a Gallic chieftain. Public domain He also emphasizes Caesar’s use of *calliditas* (shrewdness) as a recurring theme. For example, Caesar outmaneuvered the Helvetii by destroying their supplies and forcing them into a disadvantageous position. By narrating these events, Caesar not only highlights his tactical ingenuity but also contrasts the disciplined, virtuous [Roman army](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) with the chaotic and aggressive Gallic tribes. This juxtaposition underscores the theme of Roman *virtus*, portraying the Romans as the embodiment of order, courage, and moral superiority. These thematic choices are not incidental but serve a larger purpose in Caesar’s *Commentarii*. Murphy suggests that the Gallic War was as much about [winning hearts and minds](https://romanempiretimes.com/guarding-the-word-speech-censorship-and-power-in-ancient-rome/) in Rome as it was about conquering Gaul. Caesar’s skillful blending of divine justification, strategic brilliance, and moral virtue created a narrative that celebrated his leadership and bolstered his political ambitions. This perspective adds depth to our understanding of Caesar’s work, revealing it as a masterpiece of persuasion as much as a record of conquest. (*Themes of Caesar's "Gallic War", by Paul R. Murphy*) ### The Mastermind Behind the Gallic Wars and their Narrative [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/) did not just wage the Gallic Wars on the battlefield; he also created them in writing, shaping the narrative through his Commentarii. As both the architect of the military campaigns and their chronicler, Caesar ensured that vital information was sent back to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/), likely to strengthen his political position and to use the Commentarii as a tool of propaganda. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/The-Ludovisi-Gaul--a-statue-commissioned-by-Caesar-depicting-a--Gallic-man-plunging-a-sword-into-his-own-chest--while-holding-his-dead-wife.jpg) ## In the ruthless world of Roman politics, it was essential to protect oneself, and Caesar excelled at doing so through carefully crafted self-presentation. **The Ludovisi Gaul, a statue commissioned by Caesar depicting a Gallic man plunging a sword into his own chest, while holding his dead wife. Credits: Stephen Chappell, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0* Contemporaries and later historians unanimously praised Caesar's literary style. [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/), in his [*Brutus*](https://amzn.to/42qxaQh?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (46 BCE), admired Caesar's oratory, noting his straightforward yet compelling delivery. [Sallust](https://romanempiretimes.com/sallust-details-on-the-historian-of-roman-elite-and-the-republic-decline/) considered Caesar an intelligent and skilled speaker, while Quintilian, writing in the first century CE, described Caesar as a fiery orator with exceptional energy. [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/), known for his sharp criticism, admitted that Caesar’s speeches were competent, though not extraordinary, but conceded that Caesar’s brilliance shone elsewhere. [Pliny the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/) ranked Caesar among the finest orators, and [Plutarch ](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/)remarked that Caesar could have achieved greatness in oratory had he not prioritized politics. Even [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/), known for his gossip-laden accounts, and Apuleius, writing later, commended Caesar’s unique warmth and brilliance as a communicator. The [*Commentaries on the Gallic War*](https://amzn.to/3PUHWqk?ref=romanempiretimes.com) represent a different kind of literary achievement. While oratory demands rhetorical flair, Caesar's Commentarii are notable for their clear and concise style, reflecting an older Roman tradition of historical writing. Cicero acknowledged this tradition in [*De Oratore*](https://amzn.to/4jw5Aal?ref=romanempiretimes.com) (55 BCE), linking Caesar’s work to the *annales-commentarii* genre of Roman historiography. Caesar’s general, Hirtius, admitted his own lack of elegance compared to Caesar's polished writing, praising the speed and precision with which the Commentarii were composed. Suetonius echoed this admiration, highlighting Caesar’s breadth of knowledge, efficient use of resources, and innovative techniques, such as the use of ciphers. Ultimately, Caesar’s Commentarii stand as a proof to his mastery of both strategy and style. Written while actively campaigning in Gaul, these works provide not just a firsthand account of the Gallic Wars but also a carefully curated narrative that immortalizes Caesar’s accomplishments. ![An engraving of Alesians begging for food from Caesar after being expelled from their homes](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/An-engraving-of-Alesians-begging-for-food-from-Caesar-after-being-expelled-from-their-homes.jpg) An engraving of Alesians begging for food from Caesar after being expelled from their homes. Public domain ### Dictating Greatness: Julius Caesar and the Role of Scribes in the Gallic Wars The creation of Caesar’s Commentarii raises two important questions: who crafted the narrative, and who physically put the words onto the page? While Caesar himself shaped the content and decided what he wanted to convey, the actual writing process relied heavily on the work of **scribes.** As a general constantly engaged in action, Caesar had little time for the act of writing. He described his responsibilities during battle in The Gallic War: > "All things had to be done at one time by Caesar: the banner had to be displayed, which was evident, when it was fitting to engage at arms; the signal had to be given by the trumpet; the soldiers had to be recalled from their work; those who had gone a little farther for the sake of seeking \[items for the\] the ramparts had to be summoned; the battle line had to be drawn up; the soldiers had to be encouraged; the signal had to be given." The responsibility of writing fell to scribes, often attached to the Quaestor’s staff. Plutarch provides a vivid image of Caesar’s working habits, noting that he dictated constantly, even while traveling: > "Most of his sleep, at least, he got in cars or litters, making his rest conducive to action, and in the day-time he would have himself conveyed to garrisons, cities, or camps; one slave who was accustomed to write from dictation as he travelled sitting by his side, and one soldier standing behind him with a sword." Plutarch, [*Life of Caesar*](https://amzn.to/4awDSGp?ref=romanempiretimes.com) [Pliny the Elder](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-elder-the-author-of-the-worlds-first-encyclopaedia-was-roman/) was similarly astonished by Caesar’s extraordinary mental capacity and multitasking abilities, highlighting his unique efficiency in [*Natural History*](https://amzn.to/3WAYBmM?ref=romanempiretimes.com): > "The most remarkable instance, I think, of vigour of mind in any man ever born, was that of Caesar, the Dictator. > > I am not at present alluding to his valour and courage, nor yet his exalted genius, which was capable of embracing everything under the face of heaven, but I am speaking of that innate vigour of mind, which was so peculiar to him, and that promptness which seemed to act like a flash of lightning. > > We find it stated that he was able to write or read, and, at the same time, to dictate and listen. > > He could dictate to his secretaries four letters at once, and those on the most important business; and, indeed, if he was busy about nothing else, as many as seven." ![Commentarii de Bello Gallico, or The Gallic Wars, by Julius Caesar](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Commentarii-de-Bello-Gallico--or-The-Gallic-Wars--by-Julius-Caesar.jpg) Commentarii de Bello Gallico, or The Gallic Wars, by Julius Caesar. Public domain These descriptions not only confirm Caesar’s reliance on scribes but also emphasize the efficiency with which his ideas were recorded. The scribes who served him might have been slaves or young men seeking political advancement by attaching themselves to his retinue. Through their work, his thoughts and strategies were transformed into written narratives that immortalized his campaigns. The Commentarii, thus, are not only a evidence of Caesar’s strategic brilliance but also to the indispensable role of his scribes, who ensured that his words and deeds were meticulously preserved, even in the midst of war. (*Who Wrote the Gallic Wars?, by Ruth L. Breindel*) ### Calculated Ambition and the Gallic Wars Jesse Fokke, in his newly released novel [*The Boar and the Eagle*](https://amzn.to/4hcSFZd?ref=romanempiretimes.com), sheds light on Julius Caesar’s calculated maneuvers during the Gallic Wars, providing a fresh perspective on his political and military strategies. Fokke portrays Caesar as a leader who used the Gallic Wars not merely as a campaign of conquest but as a carefully orchestrated platform to secure his political ambitions and circumvent the constraints imposed by the Roman Senate. One compelling example Fokke highlights is Caesar’s decision to recruit unauthorized legions in Gallia Cisalpina, a move that underscored his audacity and strategic foresight. He narrates: > ...Many gasped at this, and there were some furious whispers here and there. “Did the Senate sanction this, Gaius Julius?” Sulpicius Rufus asked. “I’m only asking out of curiosity.” > “The Senate has granted me the authority to do what’s necessary to serve Rome’s interests, Servius Sulpicius.” > “I see, thank you Gaius Julius.” > > That means the Senate did not sanction it, Crassus decided, with mounting amazement and concern. It was the prerogative of the Senate to order the recruitment of legions, so Caesar had overstepped his bounds as a magistrate. Moreover, he said he’d raised the legions in Gallia Cisalpina… > > “May I ask in which part of Gallia Cisalpina you’ve raised these legions, Gaius Julius?” Crassus asked hesitantly. > “Certainly,” Caesar said, not at all put out by the obvious shock among his officers. Clearly, he had expected it. > “The legions were recruited on both sides of the Padus.” > > An answer Crassus half expected but fully dreaded. Gallia Cisalpina was an odd province, divided into two parts, Gallia Cispadana—“Gaul on This Side of the Padus”—and Gallia Transpadana—“Gaul on the Other Side of the Padus,” the Padus river cutting the province in two. > > The province of Gallia Cisalpina had been so thoroughly Romanized that it was seen by many as simply a part of Italy, and most of the inhabitants themselves definitely saw it that way too. The population of Gallia Cispadana had been granted Roman citizenship thirty years ago, but Gallia Transpadana, that part which lay on the side of the Padus river farthest from Rome, hadn’t for some reason. That meant that even if the Senate had given Caesar permission to raise legions, he couldn’t have possibly raised them in Gallia Transpadana, as only Roman citizens were allowed to become legionaries. The whole thing was illegal in each and every way. > > “But Gaius Julius, won’t this put you in legal jeopardy?” asked Servius Sulpicius. > > Caesar only looked amused at this. “Ahhh. Like father, like son,” he said, folding his hands together. “All the Sulpicii Rufi are born and bred for the courts. I am certain the Senate will see that this was the right call when those legions are put to good use. I will ensure that they will earn their keep and more, and besides, by the time I will lose my *imperium* and become liable for prosecution, Gallia Cisalpina will already be a part of Italy. It will be a done deal.”​ Fokke’s narrative emphasizes Caesar’s ability to view military campaigns as extensions of his political strategy. By combining military power and demonstrating his leadership through the conquests in Gaul, Caesar built a foundation for his eventual rise to dictator. He masterfully played the dual role of general and statesman, ensuring that his victories resonated not only on the battlefield but also in the political arena of Rome. Through vivid storytelling and meticulous research, [*The Boar and the Eagle*](https://jessefokke.com/?ref=affziqdb) brings to life the complicated layers of Caesar’s ambitions, showing how his strategic brilliance during the Gallic Wars reshaped the trajectory of Roman history. [![The book The Boar and the Eagle, from Jesse Fokke](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/The-book-The-Boar-and-the-Eagle--from-Jesse-Fokke.jpg)](https://jessefokke.com/?ref=affziqdb) The book [The Boar and the Eagle](https://jessefokke.com/?ref=affziqdb), from Jesse Fokke. Credits: Roman Empire Times ## Reconstructing Time: Chronology Challenges in Caesar’s *Gallic War* In the 19th and 20th centuries, German scholars produced detailed commentaries on Caesar's Civil War and Gallic War. While the Civil War received precise chronological tables due to abundant time markers and corroborating evidence, such as Cicero's letters, the Gallic War lacked such detailed dating. Caesar’s narrative and Hirtius’ eighth book of the Gallic War provide only a few fixed dates, leaving scholars to rely on temporal clues, such as seasonal references and estimates of travel and march durations. Past efforts to construct a chronology of the Gallic War were broad, assigning events to general seasons. However, there exists a study that suggests, that a more precise chronology is possible by leveraging modern tools like GIS-based maps, Cicero’s correspondence, and calculations of marching speeds. By reanalyzing these data sources, a narrower and more accurate timeline for Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul can be developed, improving upon earlier, less precise reconstructions. ### Climate Conditions The Gallic War coincided with a warming period in central Europe, leading to glacier retreat and allowing for earlier crossings of Alpine passes. Caesar likely [crossed the Alps](https://romanempiretimes.com/hannibal-ad-portas-how-37-african-elephants-crossed-the-alps/) by early May, taking the most direct route without significant detours. ### Distances and Terrain Distances were measured using [Roman roads](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/) from the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. However, since Roman roads were not yet built in independent Gaul, pre-Roman routes were less direct, especially in rugged terrain. Adjustments to distances were made, increasing them by 25% to account for less efficient roads outside Roman provinces. Roman road distances in provinces like Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul were considered reliable. ![Ancient Roman Road Arch in Donnas, leading to Gaul](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Ancient-Roman-Road-Arch-in-Donnas--leading-to-Gaul.jpg) Ancient Roman Road Arch in Donnas, leading to Gaul. Credits: claudiodivizia, by Canva ### Time Requirements for Sieges and Town Surrenders A formal siege (constructing ramps, towers, etc.) typically required a minimum of two days, while surrender procedures (collecting hostages, resupplying the army, etc.) also took at least two days unless Caesar specified urgency. In some cases, towns were attacked immediately upon the army’s arrival. ### Chronological Estimates Precise dates for events in the Gallic War are rare, with most based on reasonable calculations. Fixed dates are occasionally derived from Caesar’s references to moon phases or equinoxes. The reconstructed chronology uses the Roman civil calendar, adjusting for discrepancies with the Julian calendar, which became significant only after the wars due to political disorder. ### Traveling and Marching Speeds Caesar’s accounts, along with other sources, provide insights into [the time it took](https://romanempiretimes.com/marking-the-hours-the-roman-way-of-measuring-time/) to traverse specific distances. The data highlight instances of rapid movements, aiding in reconstructing campaign timelines. ![A painting by Jacques Onfroy de Bréville depicting the Battle of Aduatuca, in the Vallee du Geer in 53 BC, the Eburons (Belgians) massacred the Roman Legions of Caesar during the Gallic Wars](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-painting-by-Jacques-Onfroy-de-Br-ville-depicting-the-Battle-of-Aduatuca--in-the-Vallee-du-Geer-in-53-BC--the-Eburons--Belgians--massacred-the-Roman-Legions-of-Caesar-during-the-Gallic-Wars.jpg) A painting by Jacques Onfroy de Bréville depicting the Battle of Aduatuca, in the Vallee du Geer in 53 BC, the Eburons (Belgians) massacred the Roman Legions of Caesar during the Gallic Wars. Upscaling by Roman Emprie Times ### Caesar’s Marches: Logistics and Tactical Movements Caesar’s own accounts provide invaluable information about the distances and speeds of Roman military marches during the Gallic Wars. He frequently used the term “a day’s normal march,” which he defined as approximately 16 Roman miles (15 modern miles or 24 kilometers), covered in around five hours. Hirtius also referred to standard daily marches but did not specify their length. In 57 BCE, Caesar traveled from Vesontio (modern Besançon) to the Matrona (likely near modern Épernay) in 15 days. Depending on whether he paused for rest, his army’s average daily distance varied from 20 km (12.4 mi) without stops to 23 km (14.3 mi) with two rest days. When urgency demanded, Caesar’s forces significantly increased their pace. For example, during the same year, he conducted a forced march of approximately 62.5 km (39 mi), augmented for rugged terrain, from the battle site at the Axona (near Berry-au-Bac) to Noviodunum (near Soissons). He attacked the town immediately upon arrival but failed to capture it. Another notable example occurred in late fall of 54 BCE, when Quintus Cicero’s winter camp was under siege by the Nervii and their allies. Caesar sent a mounted messenger in the late afternoon from Samarobriva (modern Amiens) to his [quaestor Marcus Crassus](https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/), whose camp was 37 km (23 mi) away. ![Painting 'The Women of Gaul' by August Barthelemy Glaize](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Painting--The-Women-of-Gaul--by-August-Barthelemy-Glaize.jpg) Painting 'The Women of Gaul' by August Barthelemy Glaize. Credits: Photos.com, by Canva Crassus mobilized his legion and traveled through the night, reaching Caesar in 8–9 hours, covering roughly 4.4 km (2.7 mi) per hour with a fully encumbered legion and baggage train. Caesar himself set out later that morning, covering an additional 30 km (18.5 mi) that day. In a striking demonstration of speed and endurance, Caesar left his camp at Gergovia in June 52 BCE with lightly equipped legions (legiones expeditae), covering 46.25 mi (74 km) in 24 hours, including a three-hour rest period. His forces engaged the Aeduan rebels in a peaceful confrontation and returned to camp before sunrise. In another instance, in May 58 BCE, Caesar led five legions from Ocelum, near the Mt. Genèvre Pass, to the Vocontii territory. Despite opposition from mountain tribes, the legions traversed an estimated 195 km (122 mi) over seven days, averaging 28 km (17.5 mi) per day. In this mountainous terrain, the army likely traveled with pack animals rather than wagons. These examples highlight the remarkable discipline and logistical efficiency of Caesar’s forces, proving their ability to adapt to varying terrain, weather, and tactical urgency, often achieving extraordinary feats of **endurance** and **speed**. ("Reconstructing the chronology of Caesar's Gallic Wars" by Kurt A. Raaflaub and John T. Ramsey) ### Why did the Roman Empire Fall? An Analysis by Experts URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-roman-empire-fall-an-analysis-by-experts/ Last updated: 2026-04-28T18:06:23.000Z The fall of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/) is one of the most pivotal events in Western history, marking the transition from the ancient to the medieval world. While the Empire’s decline was gradual and occurred over centuries, historians typically cite **476 AD as its endpoint**, when the last Roman emperor of the West, [Romulus Augustulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-augustulus-the-boy-who-became-rome-last-emperor/), was deposed. The reasons behind the fall are complex and multifaceted, involving a blend of internal weaknesses and external pressures that accumulated over time. The decline of the Roman Empire is a complex topic with many layers. At its peak, it extended from the damp hills of northern England to the dry deserts of Saudi Arabia. The specific moment when the Empire began to crumble is debated among historians. Some point to the sacking of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) by the Visigoths in 410 AD as a significant marker of its end, while others believe the Empire continued until the Middle Ages. The Empire was formally divided in 395 AD into the Western Roman Empire, with Rome as its capital, and the Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantine Empire, with Constantinople (now Istanbul) as its capital. This division marks a significant shift in how the Empire was governed. > "We tend to think of the Byzantines as this separate people and state from the Romans, but they called themselves "Romanoi" and saw themselves as citizens of a Roman government" > > **Kristina Sessa**, associate professor of history at The Ohio State University The decline of the Western Roman Empire was characterized by a gradual loss of centralized control, influenced by various factors including invasions by non-Roman tribes and betrayals within the Roman establishment itself. Pinpointing an exact moment when [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/bacchanalia-romes-forbidden-festival/) lost control over specific territories is challenging. Unlike the clear-cut decolonization events of the 20th century, the disintegration of Roman control was not typically marked by formal documents or declarations of independence. Between AD 460 and AD 480, for example, the Visigoths successfully captured significant portions of what is now France. The decline was not a sudden collapse but a slow and indistinct process where local autonomous leaders gradually took over the governance of regions previously under the control of a Roman emperor. ![A painting by Joseph-Noel Silvestre dubbed "The Sack of Rome by the Barbarians", depicting its plunder by the Visigoths in 410](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-painting-by-Joseph-Noel-Silvestre-dubbed--22The-Sack-of-Rome-by-the-Barbarians-22--depicting-its-plunder-by-the-Visigoths-in-410.jpg) A painting by Joseph-Noel Silvestre dubbed "The Sack of Rome by the Barbarians", depicting its plunder by the Visigoths in 410\. Public domain ## **So Why did Rome Fall?** ### A Crumbling Foundation: The Loss of Civic Virtue Edward Gibbon's “[*The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire*](https://amzn.to/40uas75?ref=romanempiretimes.com)” (with notes by H. H. Milman), provides a detailed exploration of the factors leading to the Roman Empire's decline, blending historical narrative with his interpretations: At the heart of Rome’s decline lay a gradual erosion of civic virtue and moral fiber among its citizens. The republican values of duty and self-sacrifice, which had once propelled Rome to greatness, gave way to personal ambition and complacency. The citizenry, increasingly preoccupied with [luxury and spectacle](https://romanempiretimes.com/realm-of-indulgence-leisure-pleasure-and-passions-in-ancient-rome-2/), grew detached from the responsibilities of governance and [military service](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/). This shift was mirrored in the [Roman elite](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/), whose pursuit of personal wealth and influence eroded the unity of the state. Public offices, once held as a mark of honor and service, became tools for personal enrichment, and corruption spread throughout the administrative machinery. The resulting inefficiency and dishonesty weakened Rome’s ability to respond effectively to crises. Rome’s cultural landscape shifted dramatically in its later years. Once a society built on discipline and civic responsibility, it became increasingly characterized by luxury and self-indulgence among the elite. Public officials, motivated by personal gain, neglected their duties, while the [general populace](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-were-the-plebeians-in-ancient-rome-the-plebs-urbana-of-the-roman-republic/) became disengaged from the affairs of state. Gibbon attributes part of this decline to the influence of [Christianity](https://romanempiretimes.com/were-christians-really-fed-to-the-lions-in-ancient-rome/), arguing that its emphasis on spiritual life led to a diminished focus on worldly matters. This perspective, while reflective of his own biases, highlights the significant cultural transformations that marked the empire’s later years. ![A gravure by Jan Luyken, depicting Roman Emperor Theodosius I slaughtering seven thousand residents of Thessaloniki](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-gravure-depicting-Roman-Emperor-Theodosius-I-slaughtering-seven-thousand-residents-of-Thessaloniki.jpg) A gravure by Jan Luyken, depicting Roman Emperor Theodosius I slaughtering seven thousand residents of Thessaloniki. Credits: Rijksmuseum, CC0 1.0 ### Economic Strain and Its Consequences The empire’s vast size brought not only glory but also immense economic challenges. Maintaining the Roman military, infrastructure, and bureaucracy required substantial resources, which placed a heavy burden on provincial economies and citizens. Excessive taxation stifled productivity, while the uneven distribution of wealth bred discontent and social unrest. Over time, economic exploitation of the provinces drained them of vitality, reducing their ability to sustain Rome’s needs. Agricultural decline, compounded by mismanagement and over-reliance on slave labor, further exacerbated the financial strain. As the empire struggled to balance its expenses, the silver content of [Roman coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) was gradually reduced, leading to rampant inflation and a loss of confidence in currency. Economic challenges compounded [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/)'s decline. The empire’s vast infrastructure required immense resources to maintain, leading to heavy taxation that stifled provincial economies. Inflation and debasement of currency further eroded economic stability, while corruption within the administration exacerbated inefficiencies. Agricultural production declined, particularly in the western provinces, where repeated invasions devastated the land. The reliance on [slave labor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) proved unsustainable, limiting innovation and adaptability in the face of changing economic conditions. ![A painting by Giuseppe Rava, depicting the Battle of Adrianople (Hadrianopolis)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-painting-by-0AGiuseppe-Rava--depicting-the-Battle-of-Adrianople--Hadrianopolis-.jpg) A painting by Giuseppe Rava, depicting the Battle of Adrianople (Hadrianopolis). Credits and print: [Meisterdrucke](https://www.meisterdrucke.uk/fine-art-prints/Giuseppe-Rava/1487007/Battle-of-Adrianople.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ### Military Decline and Vulnerability Rome’s military power, the cornerstone of its empire, began to falter due to internal decay and external pressures. The once-disciplined [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-mystery-of-the-lost-roman-legion-the-ninths-final-march/) were increasingly staffed by conscripts and mercenaries, many of whom lacked loyalty to the empire. Barbarian auxiliaries, while useful in the short term, often undermined cohesion within the army and posed a risk of rebellion. The [empire's military](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/), once its greatest strength, continued to deteriorate. The reliance on barbarian auxiliaries introduced instability, as these groups often prioritized their own interests over those of Rome. The Battle of Adrianople in 378 CE, where the Roman army suffered a devastating loss to the Visigoths, underscored the empire’s declining ability to defend its frontiers. This loss not only weakened Rome militarily but also emboldened other barbarian groups to challenge its authority. ![An artwork by Ludwig Thiersch depicting the Visigoth leader Alaric the Bold in Milan](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-gravure-depicting-the-Visigoth-leader-Alaric-the-Bold-in-Milan.jpg) An artwork by Ludwig Thiersch depicting the Visigoth leader Alaric the Bold in Milan. Public domain ### Barbarian Invasions: The Pressure from Without As Rome’s internal structure weakened, external pressures from barbarian groups intensified. The migration and invasion of peoples such as the Goths, Vandals, and Huns destabilized the western provinces. These groups, driven by a combination of environmental changes, population pressures, and the allure of [Roman wealth](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-roman-empire-treasure-ever-found/), sought both plunder and settlement within the empire’s borders. The sack of Rome in 410 CE by the Visigoths and the Vandal conquest of North Africa dealt severe blows to the empire’s prestige and resources. The inability to repel these invaders signaled the empire’s waning power and the erosion of its influence in the western territories. ### The Religious Shift and Its Implications One of the most significant shifts during Rome's decline was the rise of Christianity. Initially a persecuted sect, Christianity gained traction through its promise of salvation and its appeal to the disenfranchised. As emperors like [Constantine](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-truly-great-was-emperor-constantine-the-great/) began to favor the religion, it moved from the fringes of society to the center of imperial policy. The Edict of Milan in 313 CE, which granted religious toleration, marked a turning point. Over time, Christianity’s dominance reshaped the moral and cultural fabric of the empire. Traditional Roman virtues of civic duty and martial valor gave way to a focus on spiritual salvation, often diverting attention from the practicalities of governance and defense. Christianity also reshaped the Roman political landscape, with church leaders gaining influence alongside secular authorities. This dual power structure occasionally led to conflicts of interest, further complicating governance during critical periods of instability. Before its acceptance, Christianity faced intense persecution under several emperors. Efforts to suppress the faith through violence and legal measures failed to quell its growth. As Christianity became intertwined with imperial authority, it created both unity and discord. The elevation of Christianity as the state religion under Theodosius I, through policies like the prohibition of pagan practices, led to cultural clashes and further divided an already fragmented empire. Religious dissent and theological debates, such as those surrounding Arianism, consumed imperial resources and attention at critical moments. ![A painting by Alessandro Magnasco, depicting Roman Emperor Theodosius repulsed from the Church by Saint Ambrose because of his actions in Thessalonica](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-painting-by-Alessandro-Magnasco--depicting-Roman-Emperor-Theodosius-repulsed-from-the-Church-by-Saint-Ambrose-because-of-his-actions-in-Thessalonica.jpg) A painting by Alessandro Magnasco, depicting Roman Emperor Theodosius repulsed from the Church by Saint Ambrose because of his actions in Thessalonica. Credits: The Carouselambra Kid, CC BY-NC 2.0, Roman Empire Times ### The Splintering of Power and the Fall of the West The division of the Roman Empire into eastern and western halves under [Emperor Diocletian](https://romanempiretimes.com/diocletian-architect-of-the-roman-empires-renewal/) created administrative challenges that persisted for centuries. While the eastern half, centered on Constantinople, retained much of its stability and resources, the western half became increasingly fragmented. In 476 CE, the deposition of Romulus Augustulus by the Germanic chieftain Odoacer is traditionally marked as the end of the Western Roman Empire. This event symbolized the culmination of centuries of decline, leaving the eastern empire, known as the Byzantine Empire, to carry on Rome’s legacy for nearly a thousand more years. The lack of cohesion between the two halves, combined with their divergent fortunes, hastened the decline of the western provinces. This division created a scenario in which the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE became inevitable, even as the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire continued to thrive. ## A Story of Resilience and Transformation In “[*The Fall of the Roman Empire: Film and History*](https://amzn.to/4h7YlE0?ref=romanempiretimes.com)”, edited by Martin M. Winkler, we see a similar approach. We read that far from the dramatic implosion often imagined, the Roman Empire’s decline was a gradual process spanning centuries. By the time Romulus Augustulus, the last Western emperor, as already mentioned was deposed in 476 CE, the empire had already morphed into a patchwork of smaller kingdoms. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Genserich-s-Invasion-of-Rome--a-painting-by-Karl-Bryullov.jpg) ## These new polities were not merely Rome’s destroyers but also its heirs, preserving elements of Roman governance, law, and culture. **Genserich's Invasion of Rome, a painting by Karl Bryullov. Public domain* Modern historians highlight that the “fall” was not experienced uniformly. In the Eastern Mediterranean as aforementioned, the Byzantine Empire flourished for nearly a millennium after the Western Empire’s fall, safeguarding Roman traditions and fostering their adaptation to new cultural and religious contexts. On the other hand, Arther Ferrill in his book, “[*The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation*](https://amzn.to/3WsiyvJ?ref=romanempiretimes.com)”, claims that the main reason for Rome's collapse was not its internal fragility, as some historians have suggested, but rather the decline of its military forces. Ferrill says that Rome built one of the most powerful empires in the Western world, with legions defending an expanse stretching over three thousand miles, from Britain to Egypt, and safeguarding borders nearly six thousand miles long. The phrase “*the grandeur that was Rome*,” famously coined by Poe, continues to captivate poets, historians, and the general public alike. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/The-Colosseum-in-Rome.jpg) ## Emperors and empresses, military might, administrative brilliance, and grand pageantry created an enduring image of eternal strength. **The Colosseum in Rome. Credits: The\_Double\_A from pixabay, by Canva* The Rome of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) and [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/), of Christ and St. Paul, was seen as encompassing the entire civilized world, excluding only the untamed barbarians on the outskirts and the decadent Parthian Empire. The physical legacy of this majestic civilization endures in ruins such as [Hadrian’s Wall ](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrians-wall-the-roman-empires-enigmatic-frontier/)in northern England, the [aqueducts](https://romanempiretimes.com/marvel-ancient-roman-aqueducts/) of France and Spain, the [Colosseum](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-colosseum-romes-arena-of-death-and-glory/) in Rome, and the remains of Roman North Africa. Across the Mediterranean, travelers encounter reminders of Rome's former greatness, where the mere will of an emperor once inspired awe. A vivid anecdote illustrates Rome's power: Favorinus, a rhetorician and friend of [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/), deferred to [Emperor Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrian-gate-in-downtown-athens-below-acropolis-a-gateway-to-history/) in a linguistic debate, justifying his concession with the words, “*Who am I to argue with the commander of thirty legions?*” Rome’s achievements extended beyond its imposing architecture and military dominance. [The Pax Romana](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-pax-romana-was-rome-ever-a-peaceful-empire/) brought peace and prosperity, accompanied by a sophisticated legal and administrative system that united diverse peoples and cultures. Virgil captured this spirit in his poetry, lauding Rome’s rule of peace and justice. While the empire exploited its subjects, it retained their loyalty and even admiration for centuries. The intellectual, aesthetic, and literary contributions of Rome are unmatched, rivaled only by ancient Greece. Virgil’s Aeneid, inspired by Homer, solidified his place among the greatest epic poets, alongside Homer and Milton. [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/), though not Thucydides, remains a formidable historian of antiquity. However, Rome’s practical triumphs may eclipse even its intellectual ones. The empire set a standard of living unparalleled for centuries, with abundant fresh water delivered by [aqueducts](https://romanempiretimes.com/marvel-ancient-roman-aqueducts/), [heated public baths](https://romanempiretimes.com/ingenious-warmth-how-romans-heat-their-baths-with-the-hypocaust-system/), and advanced [sewer systems](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-romans-go-to-the-toilet-and-use-urine-in-ways-we-cannot-imagine-today/). These facilities, spread from Hadrian’s Wall to the Greek East, offered Romans hygiene and comfort unheard of until the 19th century. ![Battle of Adrianople (Hadrianopolis), a painting by Giuseppe Rava](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Battle-of-Adrianople--Hadrianopolis---a-painting-by-0AGiuseppe-Rava.jpg) Battle of Adrianople (Hadrianopolis), a painting by Giuseppe Rava. Credits and print: [Meisterdrucke](https://www.meisterdrucke.uk/fine-art-prints/Giuseppe-Rava/1487003/Battle-of-Adrianople.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com) This sense of achievement fostered belief in *Roma Aeterna*, the eternal city. Yet, despite its grandeur, Rome proved mortal, and its fall has haunted the Western imagination ever since. As one historian remarked, “*The best-known fact about the Roman Empire is that it declined and fell*.” Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” remains the quintessential work on the subject. Over time, countless explanations for the fall have emerged, with one study listing over 200 theories. While the multiplicity of interpretations may seem overwhelming, exploring the fall of Rome offers valuable insights into one of history's most enduring enigmas. The fall of the Roman Empire is not just the story of what was lost but also what endured. Roman law, engineering, and urban planning became the foundation of medieval Europe and influenced societies as distant as the Islamic Caliphates. Latin, the language of the empire, remained a *lingua franca* of education and religion for centuries. Even the image of Rome as a “fallen” empire carries symbolic power. Its story has been retold through countless lenses, reflecting the concerns of successive generations. For Renaissance humanists, Rome was a golden age lost. For Enlightenment thinkers like Gibbon, it was a cautionary tale of decadence and mismanagement. Today, the empire’s decline is studied not as an end but as a transformation—an evolution that gave rise to new worlds. ![Detail from a 9th-century Byzantine manuscript. Constantine defeats Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/04/BnF_MS_Gr510_folio_440_recto_-_detail_-_Constantine-s_Vision_and_the_Battle_of_the_Milvian_Bridge.jpg) Detail from a 9th-century Byzantine manuscript. Constantine defeats Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge; the vision of Constantine is a Greek cross with ἐν τούτῳ νίκα written on it via Bibliothèque nationale de France. Public domain ### **Why Two Empires?** In 324 CE, Constantine emerged victorious against Licinius, the eastern emperor, effectively uniting the Roman Empire under his rule. He established a new capital in the eastern half of the empire, at [Byzantium](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/byzantium/), which he rechristened as New Rome; the city later became known as [Constantinople](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-6-most-important-cities-in-the-roman-empire/), in honor of its founder. The strategic location of Constantinople on a defensible peninsula and near the empire's frontiers enabled quicker military responses to external threats. Additionally, some historians suggest that Constantine chose this site for his new capital to foster the growth of Christianity away from the perceived corruption of Rome, providing a nurturing environment for the burgeoning religion. The increasing involvement of church leaders in political matters further complicated the governance of Rome. Edward Gibbon famously supported the theory that Christianity contributed to the decline of Roman civic and moral virtues, a stance that has since faced significant scrutiny. ![The Statue of Roman Emperor Constantine in Yorkshire, England](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/The-Statue-of-Roman-Emperor-Constantine-in-Yorkshire--England.jpg) The Statue of Roman Emperor Constantine in Yorkshire, England. Credits: PaulaConnelly from Getty Images Signature, by Canva Today, **most scholars believe that while Christianity might have influenced some aspects of Roman culture**, the major causes of the empire's decline were more related to military, economic, and administrative challenges rather than religious transformation. The Western Roman Empire, where Latin was the primary language and Roman Catholicism the predominant faith, faced a steady decline, ultimately leading to its downfall. In contrast, the Eastern Roman Empire, which spoke Greek and practiced Eastern Orthodox Christianity, continued to flourish long after the west fell. This eastern continuation, known as the Byzantine Empire, thrived for centuries thereafter. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/The-colossal-head-of-Roman-Emperor-Constantine--in-the-Capitol--Rome.jpg) ## Consequently, the term "**fall of Rome*" specifically refers to the collapse of the ****western half** of the Empire. **The colossal head of Roman Emperor Constantine, in the Capitol, Rome. Credits: javarman3 from Getty Images, by Canva* ### 69 CE: The Year of the Four Emperors URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/69-ce-the-year-of-the-four-emperors/ Last updated: 2025-03-06T10:03:21.000Z The year 69 CE stands as one of the most tumultuous in Roman history—a year in which the mighty empire saw four emperors rise and fall in rapid succession. Known as the Year of the Four Emperors, it began with the death of [Nero](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-nero-the-one-who-started-the-great-fire-of-rome/) and the collapse of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, setting off a chain reaction of political instability, civil war, and shifting allegiances. The year ended with the ascension of [Vespasian](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/), whose rise marked the dawn of the Flavian dynasty and a return to stability after months of chaos. This dramatic sequence of events is a perfect example of the fragility of power, the ambitions of Rome’s leaders, and the complex dynamics of the empire's military and political machinery. ![A painting by Giulio Romano, depicting Emperor Vespasian’s Triumph alongside his son and future emperor, Titus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-painting-by--0AGiulio-Romano--depicting-Emperor-Vespasian-s-Triumph-alongside-his-son-and-future-emperor--Titus.jpg) A painting by Giulio Romano, depicting Emperor Vespasian’s Triumph alongside his son and future emperor, Titus. Public domain ## A Year of Turmoil: The Rise and Fall of Rome's Four Emperors in AD 69 A single year saw the rise and fall of Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and ultimately Vespasian, who managed to stabilize the empire and lay the foundations for the Flavian dynasty. Let us explore the timeline of events that led to a ‘bloodbath’ of emperors, through the lens of each person that came into power after [Nero’s catastrophic leadership](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/). ### Galba (Servius Sulpicius Galba) Galba, a senator from a noble and distinguished family, rose to prominence through his long and storied career under various emperors. Initially a governor and general in the Roman provinces, Galba's reputation for strict discipline and adherence to traditional Roman virtues made him a suitable candidate to oppose Nero during the emperor's final days. When Nero's authority crumbled due to widespread revolts, Galba declared himself emperor with the backing of the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/) and the military. Upon arriving in Rome, Galba attempted to restore order and rebuild trust in the imperial office. However, his measures, particularly financial austerity and refusal to reward key supporters, alienated many. His critical misstep was his failure to reward the [Praetorian Guard](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-praetorian-guard-romes-elite-bodyguards/), whose loyalty was essential for stability. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-possible-representation-of-Roman-Emperor-Galba--discussing-with-Piso-Licinianus-on-his-succession.jpg) ## Furthermore, his decision to adopt Piso Licinianus as his successor instead of his ally Otho created a rift that led to conspiracy and betrayal. **A possible representation of Roman Emperor Galba, discussing with Piso Licinianus on his succession. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney* Galba's reign ended abruptly when Otho, feeling spurned by his exclusion from succession, orchestrated a coup. Galba and Piso were assassinated by soldiers loyal to Otho on January 15, 69, just seven months after Galba had assumed power​. ### Otho (Marcus Salvius Otho) Otho was initially a supporter of Galba, expecting to benefit from his association with the new regime. However, when Galba adopted Piso as his heir, Otho saw his ambitions thwarted and plotted to seize power. Exploiting the discontent of the Praetorian Guard, he gained their allegiance through bribes and promises. Otho's reign began with an immediate challenge from Aulus Vitellius, a rival proclaimed emperor by the legions of the Rhine. Although Otho had strong support in Rome and the surrounding regions, he faced a decisive military confrontation with Vitellius' forces. Despite initial optimism and a series of strategic moves, Otho's forces suffered a critical defeat at the First Battle of Bedriacum in April 69. Demonstrating a rare sense of honor and a desire to avoid further bloodshed, Otho chose to end his life rather than prolong the civil war. His suicide, just three months after becoming emperor, marked a poignant end to his brief but tumultuous reign. ![A painting by Gerard van Honthorst, depicting Emperor Otho’s portrait](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-painting-by--0AGerard-van-Honthorst--depicting-Emperor-Otho-s-portrait.jpg) A painting by Gerard van Honthorst, depicting Emperor Otho’s portrait. Public domain ### Vitellius (Aulus Vitellius) Vitellius rose to power as the choice of the [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-enigmatic-disappearance-of-the-9th-roman-legion/) in Lower Germany, where he had been governor. His soldiers, particularly the legions of the Rhine, were eager to assert their independence and saw in Vitellius a figurehead for their ambitions. Declared emperor in January 69, Vitellius quickly advanced toward Italy, gaining support from disillusioned Roman factions. Upon Otho's suicide, Vitellius was unopposed and entered Rome as the new emperor. His reign, however, was marked by excesses, including lavish feasts and public spectacles, which drained the imperial treasury. His appointments, often driven by personal favoritism, weakened his administration. His rule was challenged when Vespasian, commanding legions in the East, was proclaimed emperor by his troops. As Vespasian's forces, led by generals like Antonius Primus, marched on [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/foundations-of-justice-romes-twelve-tables/), Vitellius found his position increasingly precarious. Despite attempts to negotiate and rally support, he was ultimately betrayed and captured. He was executed on December 20, 69, and [his body was desecrated by the mob](https://romanempiretimes.com/gemonian-stairs-rome-spot-mourning-execution-scalae-gemoniae/)​. ![A painting by Lenepveu Jules-Eugène, depicting the death of Vitellius](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-painting-by-Lenepveu-Jules-Eug-ne--depicting-the-death-of-Vitellius.jpg) A painting by Lenepveu Jules-Eugène, depicting the death of Vitellius. Credits: Beaux-Arts de Paris, Dist. GrandPalaisRmn ### Vespasian (Titus Flavius Vespasianus) [Vespasian's rise](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-soldier-to-sovereign-the-rise-and-reign-of-vespasian/) marked the end of the chaos. A seasoned general with extensive experience in the provinces, he had been leading the Roman campaign in Judaea when the civil war began. Encouraged by allies and recognizing the instability of Vitellius' rule, he declared himself emperor in July 69 with the support of the Eastern legions. Vespasian's forces, led by skilled commanders such as Mucianus and Antonius Primus, secured victory over Vitellius' troops in a series of battles. Rome itself was captured after significant fighting, and he was overthrown. Meanwhile, Vespasian consolidated his position by securing loyalty in the provinces and ensuring the cooperation of key officials. Arriving in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/) in the aftermath of the conflict, Vespasian focused on restoring order and rebuilding the empire's finances and infrastructure. His pragmatic approach and emphasis on discipline and efficiency earned him the respect of both the military and the Senate. Vespasian's reign inaugurated the Flavian dynasty, bringing stability after a year of turmoil​. ([*The Year of the Four Emperors*](https://amzn.to/4gcy7yR?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Kenneth Wellesley*)​ ![A painting by Viviano Codazzi, depicting Emperor Vespasian’s Triumph when entering Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-painting-by--0AViviano-Codazzi--depicting-Emperor-Vespasian-s-Triumph-when-entering-Rome.jpg) A painting by Viviano Codazzi, depicting Emperor Vespasian’s Triumph when entering Rome. Public domain ## The Long Year of 69 CE: A Deep-Dive Analysis Jon Mark Holtgrefe in his thesis, “*The Characterization of civil War: Literary, Nomismatic and Epigraphical Presentations of the Year of The Four Emperors*” presents—among other things—the works of 5 authors who wrote about the year 69 CE (*the one year in all antiquity for which we have the most detailed information*): Josephus, [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/), [Tacitus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/), [Suetonius](https://romanempiretimes.com/suetonius-the-faceless-scholar-of-imperial-rome/), and [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/). He analyzes the first four but not Cassius Dio, because he wrote 150 years later while the first four were contemporaries or near-contemporaries of the events of *The Year of The Four Emperors*. The year 69 CE stands out in Roman history for its dramatic events, fascinating individuals, and the survival of rich historical accounts by several ancient authors. Known as the "long year," it was a period marked by a devastating civil war and the recognition of four emperors—giving rise to its more famous title, "The Year of the Four Emperors." These events included two significant battles between [Roman legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/), the violent deaths of three emperors—two killed by mobs and one by suicide—and the catastrophic burning of the [Temple](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/) of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. However, what truly distinguishes 69 CE as the "long year" is not just the turmoil it witnessed but the unparalleled level of detail preserved about it. Among all ancient years, this one offers the most comprehensive historical record, thanks to the extant writings of the historians we aforementioned. Their accounts, supplemented by [coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) and inscriptions, allow modern historians to reconstruct the events of this year with remarkable precision, often narrowing uncertainties to a matter of days. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-possible-representation-of-Roman-scrolls-1.jpg) ## This abundance of documentation makes 69 CE uniquely significant in the study of antiquity. **A possible representation of Roman scrolls. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney* This wealth of information also reveals vivid portraits of key figures who shaped the events of 69 CE. Yet, understanding these characters involves navigating the perspectives of the authors who described them. Each writer presented their own interpretation of the year's events and individuals. While the general facts align, their opinions and characterizations diverge, reflecting the authors' distinct biases and intentions. Scholars have long debated which of these accounts is the "most accurate." However, the subjective nature of characterization complicates such evaluations. A seemingly balanced or unbiased portrayal does not necessarily equate to accuracy. Instead, what can be definitively gleaned is each author's perspective on the events and individuals they described. These differing portrayals also provide insights into the cultural and social attitudes of the authors' respective times. The ways in which ancient historians and chronographers chose to depict characters reveal as much about their own beliefs and values as they do about the historical figures themselves. This interplay between historical narrative and authorial perspective enriches our understanding of how these monumental events were perceived in antiquity. ![A possible representation of Plutarch, the famed Greek historian who wrote in great detail about the Roman Empire](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-possible-representation-of-Plutarch--the-famed-Greek-historian-who-wrote-in-great-detail-about-the-Roman-Empire.jpg) A possible representation of Plutarch, the famed Greek historian who wrote in great detail about the Roman Empire. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### Comparing the Different Perspectives This famous year was marked by political upheaval and civil war. The four emperors who rose and fell during this time—Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian—have been analyzed through the lenses of ancient historians Tacitus, Josephus, Plutarch, and Suetonius. Let us analyse each writer’s unique insights and delve into their character, leadership, and legacy, reflecting their historical context, personal biases, and narrative style of each one, while interpreting the different emperors’ role and moral elements. ### Galba: An Idealist Misplaced in a Corrupt Age Tacitus portrays Galba as a principled but impractical leader, whose austere virtues alienated those around him. Tacitus laments his inability to navigate the complex demands of the Principate, stating that Galba “*seemed greater than a private citizen but less than a ruler.*” His fatal decision to withhold a donative from the Praetorian Guard cemented his downfall, despite his intentions to restore morality to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/). Tacitus emphasizes Galba’s tragic nobility at his death: “*He offered his throat, saying, ‘Strike, if it be for the Romans’ good.’*” > “On catching sight of the approaching party of armed men, an ensign belonging to the cohort which formed Galba's escort — Atilius Vergilio, according to the tradition — ripped from his standard the effigy of Galba and dashed it to the ground, a clear indication that all the troops supported Otho. > > It was also a signal for a mass exodus of the civilian populace from the Forum. Swords were drawn to deal with recalcitrants. > > Near the Basin of Curtius, the panic of his bearers caused Galba to be flung sprawling from his chair. > > His last words are variously recorded by the conflicting voices of hatred and admiration. Some say that he grovelled, and asked what he had done to deserve his fate, begging a few days' grace to pay the bounty. > > The majority of the historians believe that he voluntarily bared his throat to the assassins, telling them to strike and be done with it, if this was what seemed best for the country. > > Little did the murderers care what he said.” Tacitus, [*Histories*](https://amzn.to/4hqAq2f?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ![A possible representation of Roman Emperor Galba, as he is exposing his throat to the assassins ready to murder him](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-possible-representation-of-Roman-Emperor-Galba--as-he-is-exposing-his-throat-to-the-assassins-ready-to-murder-him.jpg) A possible representation of Roman Emperor Galba, as he is exposing his throat to the assassins ready to murder him. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney Plutarch echoes this view, emphasizing Galba’s uprightness while blaming corrupt advisors and a morally decayed society for his demise: “*He was indeed among the troops and legions an upright ruler upon the antique model, but his reliance on others ruined him.*” Plutarch criticizes the greed of the soldiers who rebelled against him, reflecting his Platonic ideals of virtue. Suetonius adds nuance by blending rumor and fact, noting Galba’s reputation for “greed and cruelty” before he reached Rome. He subtly critiques Galba’s financial policies, calling his decision to recall Nero’s gifts an act of hypocrisy: “*There was nothing (Galba implied) he would not allow for his companions*.” Unlike Tacitus and Plutarch, Suetonius refrains from moral judgment, letting the emperor’s actions speak for themselves. Josephus, though focused on Vespasian, portrays Galba as a peripheral figure whose brief rule signaled the instability that paved the way for Vespasian’s rise. His account offers little character analysis but situates Galba within the broader chaos of the year. ### Otho: Redemption Through Sacrifice For Tacitus, Otho’s life embodies paradox. Initially characterized as dissolute and ambitious, he demonstrates surprising responsibility and leadership upon becoming emperor. Tacitus praises his selfless decision to commit suicide after defeat at Bedriacum, stating, “*By his death, he earned greater praise than he did by his life.*” This act, intended to spare [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/) further bloodshed, reflects Tacitus’s nuanced view of Otho as both a usurper and a redeemer. Plutarch similarly focuses on Otho’s moral growth, highlighting his transformation from a frivolous youth to a leader who prioritizes the common good. Otho’s final words, “*I can die with more honor than I can reign*,” underscore Plutarch’s admiration for his ultimate sacrifice. > …”Then, when the man had gone out, with both hands he held his sword upright beneath him, and fell upon it, giving but a single groan as he felt the pang. > > The servants outside heard his groan and raised a wailing cry, and at once the whole camp and the city were filled with lamentation. > > The soldiers, with loud cries, burst in at the door, and then bewailed their emperor, full of anguish, and reviling themselves because they had not watched over him and prevented him from dying in their behalf.” Plutarch, [*The Parallel Lives*](https://amzn.to/4h3rf85?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ![A possible representation of the servants of Roman Emperor Otho, screaming and crying at the suicide of their master](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-possible-representation-of-the-servants-of-Roman-Emperor-Otho--screaming-and-crying-at-the-suicide-of-their-master.jpg) A possible representation of the servants of Roman Emperor Otho, screaming and crying at the suicide of their master. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney Suetonius offers the most favorable portrayal, likely influenced by his father’s service under Otho. He emphasizes Otho’s distaste for civil war, stating that he “*would rather fall in battle than see Rome suffer*.” Suetonius’ detailed account of Otho’s suicide, including his reluctance to endanger loyal soldiers, reflects a rare instance of direct judgment. Josephus discusses Otho primarily to contrast him with Vitellius. While acknowledging his military failure, Josephus portrays Otho’s death as honorable and necessary for Rome’s stability. ### Vitellius: Weakness and Indulgence Tacitus delivers a scathing critique of Vitellius, portraying him as a gluttonous and ineffectual ruler consumed by personal indulgence. He highlights Vitellius’ inability to inspire or control his soldiers, noting that “*the Principate for him was a banquet, not a burden*.” Tacitus links Vitellius’ excesses to the broader moral decay of Rome, underscoring his unfitness for leadership. Plutarch, though his biography of Vitellius is lost, characterizes him briefly as weak-willed and easily swayed by external forces. He notes that Vitellius initially resisted power but succumbed, “*persuaded by drink*,” to accept the title of emperor. This depiction aligns with Plutarch’s moralistic focus, portraying Vitellius as a victim of his own vices. Suetonius reinforces this view with vivid anecdotes, describing Vitellius’ passive ascension: “*He was suddenly seized from his bedroom and declared emperor.*” Suetonius’ account of Vitellius’ quip at Bedriacum—“*A dead enemy smells good, and a dead citizen even better*”—serves as a sharp indictment of his callousness and unsuitability for rule. > “When he came to the plains where the battle was fought and some shuddered with horror at the mouldering corpses, he had the audacity to encourage them by the abominable saying, that the odour of a dead enemy was sweet and that of a fellow-citizen sweeter still. > > But nevertheless, the better to bear the awful stench, he openly drained a great draught of unmixed wine and distributed some among the troops. > > With equal bad taste and arrogance, gazing upon the stone inscribed to the memory of Otho, he declared that he deserved such a Mausoleum, and sent the dagger with which his rival had killed himself to the Colony of Agrippina,​ to be dedicated to [Mars](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/). > > He also held an all-night festival​ on the heights of the Apennines.” Suetonius, [*The Lives of the Caesars*](https://amzn.to/4g4Tp1b?ref=romanempiretimes.com) Josephus condemns Vitellius’ reign as emblematic of Rome’s decline, describing his soldiers as avaricious and unruly. He contrasts Vitellius’ chaos with Vespasian’s order, further legitimizing the latter’s rise. ![A possible representation of Roman Emperor Vitellius, indulging in another cup of wine](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-possible-representation-of-Roman-Emperor-Vitellius--indulging-in-another-cup-of-wine.jpg) A possible representation of Roman Emperor Vitellius, indulging in another cup of wine. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### Vespasian: The Pragmatic Reformer Tacitus portrays Vespasian as a reluctant yet pragmatic leader who restored stability to Rome. While his account is incomplete, Tacitus credits Vespasian’s commanders, such as Antonius Primus, for securing his victory. He acknowledges the moral ambiguities of Vespasian’s ascent but views him as the best option for Rome’s recovery. Josephus, writing under Flavian patronage, emphasizes Vespasian’s legitimacy through divine providence. He recounts his own prophecy: “*You, O Vespasian, are Caesar and emperor*,” aligning Vespasian’s rule with fate and necessity. Josephus praises his foresight in prioritizing Rome’s stability, contrasting him with Vitellius’ corruption. On a personal note, he was captured by Vespasian during the Jewish revolt, and sought to demonstrate his value to the Roman general. In a private conversation, Josephus reportedly proclaimed a divine revelation, stating: > "You imagine, Vespasian, that in Josephus you have merely captured a prisoner, but I bring you greater tidings. > > If I had not been sent by God, I should have accepted death, for I know well enough the Jewish Law and how generals should die. > > Are you sending me to Nero? Why? Will those that come after Nero, and before you, keep their inheritance for long? > > It is you who will be Caesar, Vespasian, and emperor, you and your son here. > > Shackle me now with greater care and keep me under guard for your own sake, for you, Caesar, will be not only my master, but master over land and sea and every nation of mankind, and I ask for the penalty of still harsher captivity if I prove to speak rashly of God’s will." Josephus, [*The Jewish War*](https://amzn.to/40qt3RK?ref=romanempiretimes.com) *(Bellum Judaicum)* ![A possible representation of Roman Emperor Vespasian, discussing with Roman historian Josephus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-possible-representation-of-Roman-Emperor-Vespasian--discussing-with-Roman-historian-Josephus.jpg) A possible representation of Roman Emperor Vespasian, discussing with Roman historian Josephus. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney Plutarch, though he did not write a biography of Vespasian, likely viewed him favorably as a ruler who restored order. His moral framework aligns with the idea of Vespasian as a stabilizing force. Suetonius focuses on Vespasian’s practical governance and his ability to rein in excesses. While critical of certain methods, Suetonius highlights Vespasian’s moral strength and reformative leadership. All in all, The Year of the Four Emperors was a defining moment in Roman history—a stark reminder of the volatility of power and the price of political ambition. It laid bare the fragility of Rome’s imperial system while also showcasing the resilience of its institutions. Out of the ashes of civil war, Vespasian emerged as a stabilizing force, ushering in a period of recovery and growth under the Flavian dynasty. This extraordinary year, with its vivid personalities, dramatic battles, and far-reaching consequences, continues to captivate historians and readers alike. It stands as a sign of evidence to the enduring complexity of the Roman Empire and the **lessons** it holds for leadership, stability, and governance. --- 📜 For those that want to learn more about The Year of the Four Emperors, we hope you’ll enjoy this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NzYZct8qpk&ref=romanempiretimes.com): ### No, Elon Musk Did Not Perform a Roman Salute at Trump’s Inauguration URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/no-elon-musk-did-not-perform-a-roman-salute-at-trumps-inauguration/ Last updated: 2025-03-17T14:52:22.000Z Although devoted to our pursue of historical truth while revisiting historical facts and events, there are times when contemporary stories force us to speak, research and set some things straight, like during [Mark Zuckerberg](https://romanempiretimes.com/mark-zuckerberg-secret-hidden-roman-message-t-shirt-tee-ai-llama-announcement-reel-instagram/)'s latest stunts regarding the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-meaning-behind-zuckerbergs-sculpture-for-his-wife-priscilla/), and his [devotion to Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/is-mark-zuckerberg-just-a-roman-empire-nerd-or-augustus-octavian-descendant-ancestor/). Our newest story, features another tech mogul. Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur and newly appointed head of the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) under President Donald Trump’s second administration, has sparked controversy following his appearance at the post-inauguration celebration at Capital One Arena. [During his speech](https://x.com/NewsHour/status/1881445540031857115?ref=romanempiretimes.com), Musk expressed gratitude to Trump supporters, stating, “*It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured.*” However, the event took a dramatic turn when Musk placed his hand on his chest and then raised it in a gesture strikingly similar to the infamous “Sieg Heil” salute used by Nazis. 0:00 /0:38 1× 🏛️ Video Credits: PBS News The gesture ignited a firestorm on social media and news outlets, with critics condemning Musk for what appeared to be a fascist salute. Defenders quickly argued that Musk’s motion was intended as a **Roman salute**, though historical experts and observers have pointed out significant differences between the two gestures. The incident has left many questioning Musk’s intent, particularly as the political climate under Trump’s second term intensifies. ### Elon Musk’s Plans with the US Government Elon Musk’s controversial salute wasn’t the only reason for his headline-grabbing appearance at the inauguration. Trump named Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This external commission is tasked with identifying inefficiencies within the federal government, recommending drastic cuts to programs and expenditures deemed non-essential. The department, which has [drawn criticism](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/12/us/politics/elon-musk-doge-government-trump.html?ref=romanempiretimes.com) for its lack of transparency, operates outside the federal bureaucracy, potentially violating government accountability laws. Musk has long advocated for government downsizing and has publicly criticized wasteful spending on several occasions. In his speech, Musk declared his intention to “*streamline federal operations*,” aiming to cut back what he described as “*unnecessary red tape*” stifling innovation and economic growth. Critics have raised concerns over the commission’s accountability, with lawsuits already filed against the Trump administration claiming that DOGE violates transparency laws by operating outside federal oversight mechanisms. ### What Is the Roman Salute? In the aftermath of Musk’s gesture, many defenders claimed he was merely performing a Roman salute, an ancient gesture misattributed to Nazi ideology. The Roman salute, as we explored in our article [*The Roman Salute: How Did the Romans Greet Each Other?*](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-salute-saluto-romano-how-did-the-romans-greet-each-other/), was a symbolic gesture of loyalty and acknowledgment in ancient Rome. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/The-painting-from-Jacques-Louis-David--Oath-of-the-Horatii--showing-a-common-misconception-of-what-a-Roman-salute-looked-like.jpg) ## Though popularized in modern media depictions, there is little solid historical evidence that the Romans used this gesture in the way it is commonly imagined today. **The painting from Jacques Louis David, Oath of the Horatii, showing a common misconception of what a Roman salute looked like. Credits: Google Art Project, Public domain* The salute is often depicted as a raised arm, extended outward at an angle, typically performed during military or political gatherings to signify respect and allegiance. However, many historians suggest this romanticized interpretation originates from Renaissance art and 19th-century neoclassical representations of ancient Rome rather than from documented Roman practices. ### The Differences Between the Roman and Nazi Salutes Musk’s defenders also claimed that his gesture was distinct from the Nazi salute, arguing it more closely resembled the Roman salute. However, a closer look reveals key differences. As outlined in [our article](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-salute-saluto-romano-how-did-the-romans-greet-each-other/), the Roman salute, if it existed, was generally performed with the palm facing downward and the arm extended diagonally. In contrast, the Nazi salute involves a fully extended arm with the palm facing outward in an upward trajectory, often accompanied by the cry “Sieg Heil.” Observers noted that Musk’s gesture did not align with the Roman interpretation. His motion—placing a hand on his chest and abruptly raising it upward—was inconsistent with both historical and cinematic depictions of the Roman salute. The similarity to the Nazi salute, however, was uncanny, leading many to believe that Musk inadvertently or intentionally mimicked the fascist gesture. ![A possible typical representation of the Roman salute](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/roman-salute.jpg) A possible typical representation of the Roman salute. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### Was Elon’s Salute a Fascist One? The controversy surrounding Musk’s gesture lies in the striking resemblance to the Nazi salute. His abrupt motion—a raised arm at an upward angle—ignited public outrage due to its historical associations with fascism. While Musk has yet to address the incident directly, it is difficult to classify the gesture as a Roman salute based on its execution and context. Instead, the gesture appeared closer to a fascist salute, raising questions about its intent. However, some have speculated that the gesture may have been unintentional. Stress and anxiety, common during high-profile speeches, could have led to the awkward motion, resulting in an unfortunate misunderstanding. Nevertheless, given the sensitive historical and cultural implications of such a gesture, public figures like Musk must exercise greater care in their actions. Regardless of intent, the incident underscores the potential for gestures to be misinterpreted in charged political environments. ### Crassus: The Wealthiest Man in History was Roman URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/marcus-licinius-crassus-wealthiest-man-history-was-roman/ Last updated: 2025-03-06T10:03:58.000Z Often cited as the wealthiest individual in Roman history, Marcus Licinius Crassus’s fortune was legendary. His wealth was estimated to be equivalent to the entire budget of the Roman treasury. Crassus’s wealth primarily came from real estate speculation, silver mines, and his role in the slave trade. His infamous use of a private fire brigade that would offer to buy burning buildings at a reduced price before extinguishing the fire exemplifies his ruthless approach to wealth accumulation. 🔔 **This article was first published on Roman Empire Times in April 2024\. It was updated in January 2025.* From buying up burning properties at bargain prices to financing political campaigns, Crassus turned wealth into power in a society where influence was often measured in [*denarii*](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/). But Crassus was more than a tycoon; he was a political mastermind, a member of the famed First Triumvirate, and a man whose ambitions ultimately led him to the desolate sands of Carrhae. His story is one of dazzling wealth, audacious ambition, and a tragic end that underscored the limits of even Rome’s richest citizen. In 2014, The Washington Post examined the comparative wealth of historical figures like Marcus Crassus against modern billionaires like Bill Gates. They drew on Branko Milanovich's book, "[*The Haves and Have-Nots*](https://amzn.to/3WqK6BJ?ref=romanempiretimes.com)", to estimate Crassus' wealth at **200 million sesterces**, suggesting an annual income of 12 million sesterces based on a 6% interest rate. However, considering the 12% interest rate set by Sulla in 88 BC and Crassus' notorious financial acumen, a more likely income could be 24 million sesterces per year. Branko Milanovic, a top inequality economist employs a method that equates wealth to the ability to purchase human labor, highlighting the vast difference in labor costs between ancient Rome and modern Western societies due to the competition from slave labor in Rome. While Milanovich uses an average Roman income of 380 sesterces for his calculations, this method suggests Crassus' income was equivalent to the earnings of 32,000 average Romans at a 6% rate, or 64,000 Romans at a 12% rate. Contrasting this with Bill Gates in 2005, when his wealth was estimated at $50 billion and annual income at $3 billion, Gates' wealth relative to the GDP per capita was approximately 75,000 times. Using Milanovich’s 6% return calculation, Gates appears more than twice as wealthy as Crassus. However, adjusting for the 12% rate, Gates' wealth still surpasses Crassus but not by as wide a margin. Business Insider in 2011 quoted economist Peter Bernstein, suggesting that if converted appropriately, **Crassus' wealth could be as much as $220 billion**, rivaling the wealthiest individuals of all time. ![A gravure by Haarlem, depicting the famous and infamous rich men, Crassus alongside Midas, Croesus, Sulla, Pithyus and Lucullus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-gravure-by-Haarlem--depicting-the-famous-and-infamous-rich-men--Crassus-alongside-Midas--Croesus--Sulla--Pithyus-and-Lucullus.jpg) A gravure by Haarlem, depicting the famous and infamous rich men, Crassus alongside Midas, Croesus, Sulla, Pithyus and [Lucullus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-unknown-lucullus-far-more-than-just-lucullan-meals/). Credits: Rijksmuseum, CC0 1.0 ## A Revaluation of Rome's Richest Man T.J. Cadoux, in his work “[*Marcus Crassus: A Revaluation, from Greece & Rome, Second Series*](https://amzn.to/3PHzCu6?ref=romanempiretimes.com),” challenges the traditional negative image of Marcus Licinius Crassus, often portrayed as a secondary figure in Roman history. Crassus has long been remembered as a greedy, inept politician and military leader whose wealth overshadowed his other contributions. Cadoux argues that this view, popularized by historians like Theodor Mommsen, (*a highly influential German historian, jurist, and politician, widely regarded as one of the greatest scholars of Roman history*) is overly simplistic and ignores important facets of Crassus’ career and character. ### Crassus’ Reputation in Roman History Crassus is frequently dismissed as an unremarkable and unattractive figure compared to [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/julius-caesar-the-immortal-figure-of-the-roman-empire/) and [Pompey the Great](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/). Textbooks have traditionally characterized him as a "money-grubber" and a subordinate player in the First Triumvirate, with his political and military aims seen as selfish and unsuccessful. For example, Mommsen describes Crassus as "a merchant" who lacked honor and served only to balance the power between Caesar and Pompey. Similarly, Pelham's (*a British historian and academic who specialized in ancient Roman history*) work reduces him to a vain figure with limited intellect who acted as a willing tool of Caesar. Cadoux contends that such sweeping judgments do not hold up when reexamining the available evidence. ![An artwork named The Banquet of Crassus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/An-artwork-named-The-Banquet-of-Crassus.jpg) An artwork named The Banquet of Crassus. Public domain ### The Personality of Crassus Contrary to popular belief, Crassus was not a dull or disagreeable individual. Both [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) and [Plutarch](https://romanempiretimes.com/plutarch-a-greek-voice-in-the-heart-of-rome/) provide glimpses of his character, describing him as courteous, approachable, and dignified. His speeches were noted for their simplicity and structure, and he was well-versed in history and the philosophy of Aristotle. > “He pleased people also by the kindly and unaffected manner with which he clasped their hands and addressed them. > > For he never met a Roman so obscure and lowly that he did not return his greeting and call him by name. > > It is said also that he was well versed in history, and was something of a philosopher withal, attaching himself to the doctrines of Aristotle, in which he had Alexander​ as a teacher. > > This man gave proof of contentedness and meekness by his intimacy with Crassus; for it is not easy to say whether he was poorer before or after his relations with his pupil. > > At any rate he was the only one of the friends of Crassus who always accompanied him when he went abroad, and then he would receive a cloak for the journey, which would be reclaimed on his return. > > But this was later on.” Plutarch, [*The Parallel Lives*](https://amzn.to/42kLhGU?ref=romanempiretimes.com) While it is true that Crassus amassed vast wealth, his methods were no more questionable than those employed by other [elites](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/) of his time, including Pompey, who was nearly as wealthy. Importantly, Crassus used his wealth as a tool for political power rather than hoarding it out of greed. For example, he lent large sums to his friends, including the financially insolvent [Julius Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/untold-tales-of-julius-caesar-his-secrets-and-passions/), without charging interest. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Marcus-Licinius-Crassus-Marble-Bust.jpg) ## This generosity underscores that his ambitions were primarily political rather than material. **Marcus Licinius Crassus Marble Bust. Credits: Affegass, Upscaling by Roman Empire Times* > "However, Crassus was generous with strangers, for his house was open to all; and he used to lend money to his friends without interest, but he would demand it back from the borrower relentlessly when the time had expired, and so the gratuity of the loan was more burdensome than heavy interest. > > When he entertained at table, his invited guests were for the most part plebeians and men of the people, and the simplicity of the repast was combined with a neatness and good cheer which gave more pleasure than lavish expenditure." Plutarch, *The Parallel Lives* ### Crassus as a Soldier Crassus is often remembered for his disastrous campaign against the Parthians, but Cadoux suggests this singular failure unfairly overshadows his earlier military successes. As a young man, Crassus demonstrated exceptional bravery and leadership in the civil war of 83–82 BCE, playing a critical role in Sulla’s victory at the Colline Gate. Later, as a praetor, Crassus successfully suppressed [Spartacus’ slave revolt](https://romanempiretimes.com/spartacus-the-gladiator-who-defied-rome/) when other commanders had failed, defeating the insurgents decisively in battle. Plutarch notes that Crassus fought "*as a good general should*," exposing himself to personal risk during the final confrontation with Spartacus. Despite Pompey’s attempt to claim credit for ending the revolt, public recognition of Crassus’ achievement made him a rival to Pompey in the political arena. ![Marcus Licinius Crassus, the richest man in the history of Rome, while looting the temple of Jerusalem, a painting by Giambattista Pittoni](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Marcus-Licinius-Crassus--the-richest-man-in-the-history-of-Rome--while-looting-the-temple-of-Jerusalem--a-painting-by-Giambattista-Pittoni.jpg) Marcus Licinius Crassus, the richest man in the history of Rome, while looting the temple of Jerusalem, a painting by Giambattista Pittoni. Credits: Gallerie dell'Accademia, Public domain ### Crassus as a Politician Crassus’ political career reveals him as a shrewd operator who pursued power with **relentless determination**. While self-advancement was his primary motive, this ambition was not unique among Roman nobles of the late Republic. Crassus’ methods were innovative for his time, as he relied heavily on his wealth to build a network of clients and subordinates. Unlike his peers, he did not align with either the reformers, or the conservative faction in the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/). Instead, he positioned himself as a power broker, leveraging his financial resources to influence others holding imperium. From 67–62 BCE, Crassus worked tirelessly to counter Pompey’s growing influence. He supported various figures and initiatives, such as [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/was-divide-and-conquer-a-julius-caesar-invention-or-not/), Piso, and Catiline, to build a coalition capable of challenging Pompey. While some of his schemes were thwarted by Cicero’s diligence, Crassus remained a persistent and resourceful strategist. His eventual partnership with Caesar and Pompey in the First Triumvirate marked the culmination of these efforts. Contrary to the traditional view that Crassus was merely a "makeweight" in this alliance, Cadoux argues that he was initially the leading partner, using his wealth and influence to secure the cooperation of Caesar and neutralize Pompey. ### Crassus and Caesar Cadoux challenges the notion that [Caesar](https://romanempiretimes.com/caesarion-was-the-last-pharaoh-the-son-of-julius-caesar/) dominated the First Triumvirate from the outset. At the time of the Triumvirate’s formation in 60 BCE, Caesar was still a relatively junior figure compared to Crassus, who had already held the consulship and censorship. While Caesar’s eventual success in Gaul transformed the power dynamics, it was Crassus who initially supported Caesar’s rise, providing financial backing and political alliances. This relationship allowed Crassus to maintain influence over Caesar, at least until the latter’s military victories made him an independent force. ![A possible representation of Marcus Licinius Crassus (left) and Julius Caesar (right), discussing about politics](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-possible-representation-of-Marcus-Licinius-Crassus--left--and-Julius-Caesar--right---discussing-about-politics.jpg) A possible representation of Marcus Licinius Crassus (left) and Julius Caesar (right), discussing about politics. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### The Parthian Campaign Crassus’ decision to lead a military campaign in Parthia in 53 BCE marked a turning point in his career. Plutarch suggests that Crassus sought military glory to rival Caesar’s achievements in Gaul, but Cadoux points out that this ambition was not unusual for Roman nobles. Unfortunately, Crassus’ campaign was marked by strategic errors and bad luck. He underestimated the Parthians, relied on poor advisors, and ultimately met his death in a treacherous encounter under a flag of truce. While this failure has come to define Crassus’ legacy, Cadoux urges readers to consider his earlier accomplishments and the broader context of his career. Marcus Licinius Crassus was more than just Rome’s richest man. He was a complex figure whose political ambition, military service, and personal character merit a more balanced assessment. Though his Parthian campaign ended in disaster, his contributions to Roman politics and military history were significant. Crassus was a man of considerable influence and ambition, embodying both the strengths and flaws of the Roman nobility in the late Republic. Cadoux’s revaluation offers a more nuanced understanding of a figure who has often been overshadowed by his more famous contemporaries. ![The famous painting of Lancelot Blondeel, depicting the death of Marcus Licinius Crassus and the Parthians pouring molten gold in his mouth](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/The-famous-painting-of-Lancelot-Blondeel--depicting-the-death-of-Marcus-Licinius-Crassus-and-the-Parthians-pouring-molten-gold-in-his-mouth.jpg) The famous painting of Lancelot Blondeel, depicting the death of Marcus Licinius Crassus and the Parthians pouring molten gold in his mouth. Credits: Vassil, Public domain ## Wealth, Power, and the Struggle for Supremacy in Ancient Rome Summarising the above, Marcus Licinius Crassus, often remembered as one of the wealthiest individuals in Roman history and a key member of the First Triumvirate, has a legacy shrouded in complexities. His political maneuvering, military ambitions, and immense fortune made him a central figure in the late Republic. Despite his significant influence, gaps in historical records and his premature death during the Parthian campaign have left many aspects of his life open to interpretation. His early life was marked by tragedy. The purges of Marius and Cinna claimed the lives of his father and brother, shaping his pursuit of power and survival. Forced into hiding in Spain for fear of political retribution, he eventually emerged as a staunch ally of Sulla, aligning himself with the dictator during the latter’s return to Italy. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-gravure-dubbed-Porta-Collina--or-The-Colline-Gate.jpg) ## This alliance allowed Crassus to play a pivotal role in military campaigns, notably at the Battle of the Colline Gate, where his contributions were instrumental to Sulla’s victory. **A gravure dubbed Porta Collina, or The Colline Gate. Credits: The British Library, Public domain* Crassus’s legendary wealth became one of his most defining characteristics. He accumulated his fortune through a combination of strategic real estate acquisitions, investments, and exploitation of the proscriptions under Sulla, which redistributed wealth from political opponents to loyalists. Despite his wealth and influence, Crassus’s political and military career was not without its challenges. His rivalry with Pompey began during the campaigns against Spartacus’s slave revolt. Although Crassus was the commander who decisively ended the rebellion, Pompey’s arrival at the final stages allowed him to claim partial credit, overshadowing Crassus’s achievements. This rivalry persisted into their joint consulship in 70 BCE, where disagreements over policy highlighted their competing ambitions. Crassus’s role in the First Triumvirate alongside Caesar and Pompey was crucial but often understated. While the alliance allowed him to achieve key political objectives, such as the renegotiation of tax contracts favorable to the equites (*Roman knight*s), it was fraught with tension, particularly between Crassus and Pompey. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Part-of-a-print-dubbed-Gaul-Surrenders-to-Caesar.jpg) ## Caesar’s growing military successes in Gaul further complicated the balance of power within the triumvirate, prompting Crassus to seek a command of his own. **Part of a print dubbed Gaul Surrenders to Caesar. Credits: Sicko Atze van Dijk, CC BY 2.0* Determined to restore his military reputation and assert his dominance, Crassus undertook a campaign against the Parthians. This decision, as aforementioned proved disastrous. His forces suffered a crushing defeat at the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BCE, where Crassus himself was killed. This failure not only marked the end of his life but also the unraveling of the First Triumvirate, as the fragile alliance could not withstand the absence of its wealthiest member. His legacy and modern depiction in films like [*Stanley Kubrick‘s Spartacus*](https://amzn.to/42ila3l?ref=romanempiretimes.com), has often been overshadowed by his wealth and his association with more prominent figures like Caesar and Pompey. Historical accounts frequently emphasize his greed, ambition, and military missteps, but a closer examination reveals a more nuanced figure. Crassus was a skilled politician who understood the power of financial leverage and the importance of alliances in a volatile political landscape. His ability to navigate the complexities of Roman politics, despite numerous setbacks, highlights his resilience and strategic thinking. In reevaluating Crassus, it becomes clear that he was more than a wealthy opportunist. He was a pivotal player in the transition from Republic to Empire, using his wealth and influence to shape the course of Roman history. His failures, particularly in Parthia, have perhaps unfairly overshadowed his successes. Crassus’s story is one of ambition, adaptability, and the relentless pursuit of power in an era defined by political upheaval and shifting allegiances. (*Marcus Licinius Crassus, by Kathleen Toohey*) ![Laurence Olivier as Crassus in Stanley Kubrick’s Spartacus, Jean Simmons on the right](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Laurence-Olivier-as-Crassus-in-Stanley-Kubrick-s-Spartacus--Jean-Simmons-on-the-right.jpg) Laurence Olivier as Crassus in Stanley Kubrick’s Spartacus, Jean Simmons on the right. Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures ## The Tycoon Who Dreamed of Conquest The first tycoon of ancient Rome was also one of its most infamous failures. Had Marcus Licinius Crassus died in 54 BCE, he might have been remembered quietly as Rome’s wealthiest man, a pioneer in modern finance and political maneuvering, the ruthless victor over Spartacus’s slave rebellion, and a key figure in Julispartac enduring image of Laurence Olivier’s portrayal in Stanley Kubrick’s [*Spartacus*](https://amzn.to/4amm7tb?ref=romanempiretimes.com). Instead, Crassus embarked on the ill-fated military campaign against Parthia, venturing into the arid borderlands of modern-day Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. The campaign culminated in the catastrophic Battle of Carrhae, where he suffered his crushing defeat, losing not only his army but also the [sacred eagle standards](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-has-the-eagle-become-the-roman-symbol/) of his legions. His death became the stuff of dark legend: storytellers claimed his severed head was used as a stage prop in a Greek tragedy in a city deemed too uncivilized by Roman standards for such art, and his mouth was said to be stuffed with gold—a grim metaphor for his unquenchable greed. Crassus’s defeat left an indelible mark on the Roman psyche. Decades later, the emperor [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) considered the [recovery of Crassus’s lost eagle standards](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-pax-romana-was-rome-ever-a-peaceful-empire/) one of his most significant achievements, commemorated by [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s greatest [poets](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-are-the-most-famous-roman-poets/) and sculptors. Crassus’s life, a unique combination of exceptional success and dramatic failure, continues to raise enduring questions about the complex relationship between wealth, ambition, and power. ![A possible representation of Marcus Licinius Crassus, while the Parthians pour molten gold on him](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-possible-representation-of-Marcus-Licinius-Crassus--while-the-Parthians-pour-molten-gold-on-him-1.jpg) A possible representation of Marcus Licinius Crassus, while the Parthians pour molten gold on him. Credits: Roman Empire Times, Midjourney ### Crassus’s Parthian Gamble Delving into the details of what happened with the Parthians, in the summer of 54 BCE, Crassus stood on the cusp of his most ambitious and ultimately tragic endeavor: the eastern campaign against Parthia. At the age of sixty, Crassus, clad in his red cloak, meticulously prepared his army of seven [legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-armor-of-rome-protecting-the-empires-legions/) to cross the Euphrates and extend [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/beauty-in-ancient-rome/)’s dominion into the vast and mysterious East. Known for his shrewdness in financial and political dealings, Crassus approached this military campaign with the same detailed precision that had defined his life’s work. His plans were as grand as they were risky, aiming to bring the riches and renown of the Parthian Empire into Rome’s fold. Crassus’s life had been deeply rooted in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/), both geographically and symbolically. Unlike other Roman aristocrats, he seldom traveled abroad or derived pleasure from his vast Italian estates. Instead, he focused his efforts on amassing wealth and consolidating power within Rome’s three square miles. Through real estate ventures, loans to indebted politicians, and a shrewd understanding of human capital, Crassus became synonymous with wealth and influence. As we mentioned, he financed multiple political campaigns, disrupted traditional power structures, and acted as a behind-the-scenes force in the corridors of Roman authority. The campaign against Parthia, however, was designed to redefine Crassus’s legacy. Having lived much of his life in the shadows of his contemporaries—Pompey, the celebrated general, and Julius Caesar, the rising political and military star—Crassus sought to secure military glory on par with his peers. While he had crushed the Spartacus [slave](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/) revolt in 71 BCE and played a vital role in Sulla’s rise to power decades earlier, these achievements were overshadowed by the grandeur of Pompey’s eastern conquests and Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul. This expedition, stretching Rome’s reach farther east than ever before, was Crassus’s attempt to cement his name in Roman history. Crassus’s preparations underscored his meticulous nature. He ensured his legions were well-equipped and supplied, employing tactics of coercion, bribery, and negotiation to secure local allies and resources. However, his unfamiliarity with the Parthian adversary, King Orodes, and the geographical challenges of the desert frontier revealed the limitations of his strategy. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-Swiss-medal-depicting-the-death-of-Crassus--son-Publius-at-the-hands-of-the-Parthians.jpg) ## Crassus’s reliance on his son Publius, a decorated commander under Caesar in Gaul, highlighted the family’s aspirations for shared glory. **A Swiss medal depicting the death of Crassus' son Publius at the hands of the Parthians. Credits: Mesamong from Getty Images by Canva, LouisAragon CC BY-SA 2.5, Composition by Roman Empire times* Publius’s arrival with Gallic cavalry was eagerly awaited, as these light horsemen were critical for countering the formidable Parthian cavalry. Despite his meticulous planning, Crassus faced significant challenges. His troops were less experienced compared to those of Caesar and Pompey, and doubts lingered about his ability to lead effectively after a two-decade absence from the battlefield. ## Nevertheless, Crassus’s confidence remained **unshaken*. He envisioned himself as a conqueror akin to [Alexander the Great](https://romanempiretimes.com/alexander-the-great-in-roman-thought-hero-rival-and-legend/), with plans to send victory reports to Rome from legendary cities like Babylon and Susa. The prospect of immense wealth and power drove his ambitions, as he aimed to surpass the achievements of his rivals and secure an enduring legacy. Yet, Crassus’ aspirations were not solely driven by personal glory. He sought to elevate his family’s standing, ensuring a prosperous future for his sons and silencing detractors who criticized his avarice and questioned his reputation. His marriage to his brother’s widow, Tertulla, was emblematic of his pragmatic approach to consolidating wealth and influence, though rumors of infidelity and greed often dogged their union. His son Publius, admired for his military prowess and political promise, represented the next generation of Crassus’s ambition. As he prepared to face the Parthians, his campaign symbolized a convergence of Rome’s militaristic ethos, political ambition, and the pursuit of wealth. The expedition was fraught with risks—both logistical and strategic—but his resolve remained steadfast. He sought not only to conquer Parthia but also to redefine his identity, transitioning from Rome’s wealthiest financier to its preeminent leader. This bold gamble for imperial glory would ultimately culminate in one of the most dramatic and tragic episodes of Roman history, as the Battle of Carrhae would reveal the **limits of ambition**, and the **perils of overreach**. ([*Crassus. The First Tycoon*](https://amzn.to/4jiHFeq?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Peter Stothard*) ### What Was the Pax Romana? Was Rome ever a Peaceful Empire? URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-pax-romana-was-rome-ever-a-peaceful-empire/ Last updated: 2025-07-04T14:12:11.000Z The term *Pax Romana* was closely associated with [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/), who declared the "Augustan Peace" as a cornerstone of his rule. Despite his rhetoric of peace, [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-roman-villa-where-emperor-augustus-died/) pursued aggressive territorial expansion, particularly in Spain and Germany. This duality highlights the tension between the ideology of peace and the reality of Roman military campaigns. ## The Expansion of the Roman Empire: Geography, Motives, and Challenges By 31 BCE, the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/) encompassed most of the Mediterranean basin, primarily dominating coastal regions. While areas like Spain and Gaul constituted substantial landmasses, territories such as Italy, Dalmatia, Greece, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Cyrenaica, and parts of North Africa remained concentrated along the coasts. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-detail-from-the-Ara-Pacis-altar-1.jpg) ## The empire, centered on the Mediterranean, relied heavily on maritime communication, as Roman conquests naturally followed the logic of expansion rather than any premeditated imperial design. **A detail from the Ara Pacis altar. Credits: wjarek from Getty Images, by Canva* By the late 2nd century CE, Roman territorial control had nearly doubled. The empire now covered the entire Mediterranean littoral and extended significantly inland. Conquests in Spain and Gaul eradicated independent regions, Britain was occupied up to the Scottish border, and Northern Africa stretched to the Sahara. [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/)'s dominance extended up to the [Danube](https://romanempiretimes.com/trajan-bridge-ancient-world-first-to-surpass-1km-kilometer-2000-years-ago/), including parts of Dacia, and Egypt reached beyond the First Cataract. The only exception to [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/)’s inland expansion was along the Rhine, where a lack of Roman bridgeheads persisted between Koblenz and Nijmegen (*cities in Europe, significant for their historical importance in the Roman Empire as key locations along the Rhine River, which marked the boundary of Roman territory in certain periods*). While these conquests were extensive, they were not driven purely by imperial ambition or economic exploitation. Most expansion aimed to secure natural frontiers and protect vital Roman provinces. For instance, conquests in the Danube region shielded Cisalpine Gaul and Dalmatia, while the reduction of Galatia and Cappadocia safeguarded Cilicia and Bithynia. Similarly, securing Mauretania, Numidia, and Tripolitania ensured the safety of African coastal areas. Other expansions, like the occupation of Arabia, secured key trade routes, and Britain’s annexation curtailed Frisian piracy. Despite this calculated expansion, certain anomalies, such as the unbuffered frontier along the Rhine, left Roman territories vulnerable to barbarian incursions. The shift in Roman opponents—from centralized states like [Carthage](https://romanempiretimes.com/cato-the-elder-and-the-roman-spirit-discipline-duty-and-the-fall-of-carthage/) and Hellenistic kingdoms to scattered barbarian tribes—marked a new phase of military challenges. Unlike the structured battles of earlier campaigns, Roman armies now faced relentless guerrilla warfare, where marshlands and woodlands offered perfect terrain for ambushes. These barbarian tribes, lacking diplomatic protocol and hardened by their rugged environments, proved resilient and defiant. Conquests in these regions were prolonged, logistically demanding, and often punctuated by uprisings, as these tribes resisted Roman authority and resented the loss of liberty and fiscal exploitation that followed Roman occupation. By the end of the 1st century CE, Roman expansion had largely stagnated. [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/)’s Parthian campaign in the early 2nd century was an isolated and ultimately unsuccessful endeavor. Nevertheless, the empire had established natural and artificial defenses that kept the barbarians at bay, granting the Roman world a relative peace lasting for about half a century, particularly from the reign of [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrians-wall-the-roman-empires-enigmatic-frontier/) to [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/10-things-you-did-not-know-about-marcus-aurelius/). This period, marked by strategic conquests and calculated defenses, underscores [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/beauty-in-ancient-rome/)’s transition from aggressive expansion to consolidation. It highlights the empire’s ability to adapt to changing challenges, from centralized states to unyielding tribal adversaries, ensuring its stability and longevity despite the arduous nature of maintaining its vast territories. ([*Pax Romana*](https://amzn.to/42fExdb?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*, by Paul Petit*) ![The Roman Goddess Pax on the Ara Pacis Augustae](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/The-Roman-Goddess-Pax-on-the-Ara-Pacis.jpg) The Roman Goddess Pax on the Ara Pacis Augustae. Credits: wjarek from Getty Images, by Canva ## The Ideology of Rome's "Peaceful" Empire Ali Parchami, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Defense and Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, has presented in his book “[*Hegemonic Peace and Empire*](https://amzn.to/4gWj8tV?ref=romanempiretimes.com)” a different perspective of what Pax Romana was. He begins by saying that the term is used by modern historians to describe the state of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-the-roman-empire-a-brief-history/) during the two and a half centuries following the fall of the Republic. Often portrayed as a "golden age," this period is celebrated for its socio-political stability, economic prosperity, cultural achievements, and administrative efficiency. Edward Gibbon (*an 18th century English rationalist historian and scholar best known as the author of “*[*The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire*](https://amzn.to/4agRO7p?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*” (1776–88)*) famously described it as an era when: > “the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous,” particularly highlighting the Antonine age. According to Gibbon, only minor conflicts occurred at the empire's frontiers while the rest of the realm enjoyed what he called "universal peace," with the Roman name revered even in distant lands. This narrative has been widely accepted, presenting the Pax Romana as a peak of human achievement and a cornerstone of Western civilization. Today, it is often perceived as an age of tranquility, where diverse peoples across the Mediterranean were unified under a single dominion. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-detail-from-the-side-of-the-Ara-Pacis-wall-1.jpg) ## However, little attention is given to its actual characteristics, including the language and ideology underpinning this so-called peace. **Three key questions emerge:* **A detail from the side of the Ara Pacis wall. Credits: tupungato from Getty Images, by Canva* 1. Did it signify peace across the empire or only along troubled frontiers? 2. Was it a real and quantifiable peace, or merely Roman propaganda? 3. What was the Roman conceptualization of peace, and how was it intertwined with notions of military dominance and imperial hegemony? ### The Nature and Ideology of Roman *Pax* From its inception, *pax* was deeply rooted in military and religious traditions. It carried strong hegemonic and militaristic overtones, often intertwined with terms like “pacification,” “victory,” and “conquest.” Under the empire, particularly during the reign of [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/is-mark-zuckerberg-just-a-roman-empire-nerd-or-augustus-octavian-descendant-ancestor/), pax became a cornerstone of imperial propaganda. Augustus’ ideology promoted the twin concepts of Pax Augusta and Pax Romana, which symbolized the end of civil wars and suggested peace across the provinces and security at the empire’s frontiers. Yet, Roman peace was far from the modern concept of peace. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-detail-from-the-Ara-Pacis-wall.jpg) ## It was achieved through war, conquest, and maintained by Roman military dominance and what was framed as "benevolent rule." **A detail from the Ara Pacis wall. Credits: Flory from Getty Images Signature, by Canva* Romans believed in their own cultural superiority and viewed their empire as having a providential destiny and a civilizing mission. This belief was encapsulated in the concept of imperium sine fine—an empire without boundaries. Thus, the Pax Romana was less about harmony and more about enforcing Roman order across its dominion. In a narrow sense, Pax Romana represented hegemonic peace within the framework of Roman imperialism. However, its broader conceptualization encompassed the essence of everything imperial Rome stood for—its social, political, cultural, and military ideology. Domestically, pax was closely linked to terms like *concordia* (harmony and unity) and *salus* (security), which underscored the importance of order and stability within the Roman state. These ideals became tools of political propaganda, first utilized during the late Republic by figures like Sulla and later Augustus to signal the restoration of order after periods of upheaval. ### Personification and Symbolism of Pax The [goddess](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/) Pax served as a powerful symbol of Roman peace. On [coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/) and other representations, she was often depicted as a young woman holding a cornucopia and olive branch or a caduceus. Unlike the Greek goddess Eirene, who represented mutual peace between equals, Pax symbolized Rome’s might. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-coin-from-Trajan-s-reign--depicting-Goddess-Pax-draped--standing-to-left--holding-branch-in-right-hand-and-cornucopiae-in-left--right-foot-treading-down-a-fallen-Dacian.jpg) ## [Trajanic](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/) coins, for example, portrayed her with a foot on the neck of a defeated enemy, reinforcing the militaristic and supremacist nature of Roman peace. **A coin from Trajan’s reign, depicting Goddess Pax draped, standing to left, holding branch in right hand and cornucopiae in left, right foot treading down a fallen Dacian. Credits:* [**CoinArchives*](https://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=2441706&AucID=6064&Lot=76&Val=b65237290e467bbc1da4c0343bf7a81c&ref=romanempiretimes.com)**, Mesamong from Getty Images, Composition by Roman Empire Times* Religion played a crucial role in shaping the Roman understanding of pax. The concept of *pax deorum*—the harmony between mortals and the gods—was central to Roman religious practices. Maintaining this harmony was believed to ensure the success and prosperity of the state, which in turn reinforced the idea that Roman pax was both divinely sanctioned and a reflection of the empire’s supremacy. In essence, the Pax Romana was not merely an absence of war but a carefully curated ideology that justified and perpetuated Roman imperialism. It symbolized the Roman worldview of order, domination, and civilization, achieved through military conquest and sustained by a self-perception of unparalleled cultural and political superiority. ## The Duality of War and Peace The concept of Pax Romana encapsulated a complex interplay of ideas revolving around Roman military power abroad and domestic security and prosperity, all underpinned by state authority and divine favor. However, fully understanding pax requires exploring the terminology, symbolism, and militaristic ethos that defined Roman peace, as well as the Romans’ attitudes toward warfare. As aforementioned, a range of Roman virtues and ideals—*concordia* (harmony), *gloria* (glory), *fides* (loyalty), *imperium* (command), *laus* (praise), *pietas* (piety), *salus* (security), *virtus* (courage), and *victoria* (victory)—highlighted the inseparability of war and peace in Roman thought. We have to note that these terms reflected a society deeply entrenched in militarism, where political, institutional, and cultural frameworks revolved around war. As William Harris (*a prominent historian and scholar of the Roman world, particularly known for his influential work on Roman imperialism, militarism, and the socio-economic aspects of the ancient Mediterranean. One of his most significant contributions is the book "*[*War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327–70 BC*](https://amzn.to/4g1lEOz?ref=romanempiretimes.com)*," where he explores how militarism and imperial expansion shaped Roman society during the Republic*) observed, success in warfare was the pinnacle of achievement for Roman patricians during the mid-Republic, shaping the ambitions of the elite. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-detail-from-the-side-of-the-Ara-Pacis--a-procession-of-members-of-the-Senate-1.jpg) ## [Polybius](https://romanempiretimes.com/polybius-the-greek-true-admirer-of-the-roman-empire-2/) noted that no Roman could hold political office without completing **at least ten military campaigns*, and Sallust attributed Rome’s rapid expansion to its insatiable desire for glory. **A detail from the side of the Ara Pacis, a procession of members of the Senate. Credits: Francesco Cantone from Getty Images Signature, by Canva* This martial culture extended beyond the nobility, permeating all levels of society, as average citizens readily embraced the brutality of war, drawn by the economic and social opportunities it offered. The Romans justified their wars through the doctrine of *iusta causa* (just war), which required divine sanction through the ceremony of the *fetiales*. In theory, wars were fought in self-defense or to protect allies, but in practice, the concept of “protecting allies” served as a pretext for unending expansion. Any independent power was perceived as a potential threat to Rome’s security, necessitating conquest. This relentless pursuit of dominance left little room for the desire for peace that was evident in the Hellenistic world. Instead, Roman literature and culture from the mid-Republic onward celebrated militarism as intrinsic to the Roman state. From its inception, Rome’s institutions, religion, and moral values were suffused with a militaristic ethos. [Livy](https://romanempiretimes.com/titus-livy-the-story-of-the-roman-celebrity-historian/), the historian, captured this duality when he attributed Rome’s success to the combined legacies of [Romulus](https://romanempiretimes.com/romulus-remus-legendary-founders-rome-tragic-sibling-struggle/), the warlike founder, and Numa, the peaceful king. Livy emphasized that war and peace were not opposites but complementary aspects of Roman ideology, with war serving as the foundation for peace. This duality was also reflected in symbolic representations, such as the Temple of Janus. The [temple](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-largest-temple-of-the-roman-world-the-temple-of-jupiter-in-baalbek-2/)’s gates remained open during times of war and were ceremoniously closed only in times of peace. During the Republic, the gates were rarely closed, underscoring the dominance of *victoria* over *pax* in state symbolism. ![A vessel resembling the form of God Janus (Janiform) in the shape of Satyr and menad heads ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-vessel-resembling-the-form-of-God-Janus--Janiform--in-the-shape-of-Satyr-and-menad-heads-.jpg) A vessel resembling the form of God Janus (Janiform) in the shape of Satyr and menad heads. Credits: Roman Empire Times However, the ideology of pax was not undermined by this emphasis on war; rather, it was seen as a condition achieved through military success. In the Empire, under the auspices of Pax Augusta, the emphasis shifted to peace, but the connection between war and peace remained clear to Roman audiences. As [Cicero](https://romanempiretimes.com/cicero-orator-statesman-and-unintended-historian-of-the-roman-republic/) noted, war was often a necessity to secure a peace free from injustice. Claudian, writing centuries later, echoed this sentiment, describing Rome as enjoying the blessings of peace while reaping the advantages of war. The two-faced god Janus symbolized this duality, embodying the intertwined nature of war and peace in Roman ideology. Thus, while victoria dominated the Republic, pax emerged as the defining ideal of the Empire, though always grounded in the reality of Roman military power. ## Ideology, Policy, and the Lasting Peace of the Roman Empire ### The Beginning of Pax Romana: A New Era of Stability In order to properly understand the concpet, it is necessary to take a deep dive into the term Pax Romana, or Roman Peace, that evokes images of an empire united under a banner of stability, prosperity, and order. This era, inaugurated during the reign of Augustus, marked a transformative period in Roman history, one in which the ideals of peace and governance were intertwined with the realities of military strength and imperial ambition. Augustus positioned himself as the architect of this peace, proclaiming the Augustan Peace as a defining achievement of his rule. However, this peace was far from passive; it was built upon a foundation of strategic conquests and ideological assertions of Roman superiority. While Augustus championed the narrative of a Rome dedicated to peace, his policies often contradicted this ideal. Military campaigns in Spain and Germany underscored the empire’s reliance on force to secure its borders and assert its dominance. Despite these contradictions, Augustus’ rhetoric of peace resonated throughout the empire, laying the groundwork for the Pax Romana that would define the first two centuries of the imperial era. ![A front view of the Ara Pacis monument, to many symbolising the Pax Romana](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-front-view-of-the-Ara-Pacis-monument--to-many-symbolising-the-Pax-Romana.jpg) A front view of the Ara Pacis monument, to many symbolising the Pax Romana. Credits: Rabax63, CC BY-SA 4.0 ### Transition from Expansion to Consolidation The transition from Augustus to [Tiberius](https://romanempiretimes.com/villa-jovis-the-secret-lair-for-the-dark-pleasures-of-an-old-emperor/) marked a critical shift in Rome’s imperial strategy. While Augustus pursued territorial expansion, Tiberius emphasized consolidation and defense, signaling a new phase of imperial policy. This approach reflected a growing recognition of the logistical and administrative challenges of maintaining an expansive empire. Defensive strategies, rather than outright conquests, became the hallmark of the first-century emperors, though exceptions, such as campaigns in Armenia and Britain, demonstrated that Rome remained a force to be reckoned with when strategic interests demanded it. This era also saw a decline in the direct militarization of Roman society. The establishment of a professional standing army reduced the reliance on citizen soldiers, contributing to a more stable societal structure. This professional military force not only safeguarded the empire but also underscored Rome’s commitment to maintaining the peace it had so proudly declared. ### The Ideology of Peace and the Justification of War Central to the concept of Pax Romana was the Roman belief in *bellum iustum*, or just war. This ideology provided a moral framework for Roman expansion, portraying military campaigns as both necessary and beneficial to those brought under Roman rule. The narrative of Rome as a civilizing force spread through its territories, reinforcing the empire’s claims of bringing stability and prosperity to its subjects. This rhetoric was particularly significant in the provinces, where the tangible benefits of Roman rule—roads, [aqueducts](https://romanempiretimes.com/marvel-ancient-roman-aqueducts/), and public buildings—served as symbols of imperial benevolence. Despite its ideological foundations, the Pax Romana was not without its contradictions. Peace was often enforced through military dominance and the suppression of dissent. While the ideals of stability and harmony were celebrated, the reality in many parts of the empire was marked by ongoing tensions and localized conflicts. Nevertheless, the Roman administration’s ability to manage these challenges highlighted its sophisticated approach to governance and control. (*Roman Peace: On the Question of Pax Romana, by Vladimir O. Nikishin*) ![An illustration of Pax, the Roman Goddess of Peace](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/An-illustration-of-Pax--the-Roman-Goddess-of-Peace.jpg) An illustration of Pax, the Roman Goddess of Peace. Credits: MET Museum, Issued by Wm. S. Kimball & Co., Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ## Augustus and the Foundations of Pax Romana The establishment of Pax Romana, is often heralded as one of the greatest achievements of Augustus, the first Roman emperor. Ida Östenberg in her paper, "*From Conquest to Pax Romana: The Signa Recepta and the End of the Triumphal Fasti in 19 BC*" delves deeply into the role of Augustus’ diplomatic recovery of the Roman standards from the Parthians in 20–19 BCE as a cornerstone in the transition from the Republic's militaristic ethos to the imperial ideology of peace and stability. Augustus’ efforts were not only a political triumph but also a masterstroke of [propaganda](https://romanempiretimes.com/guarding-the-word-speech-censorship-and-power-in-ancient-rome/) that reshaped Rome’s cultural narrative and imperial identity. ### The Parthian Standards and Diplomatic Victory The Roman standards lost in military defeats—most notably in [Crassus](https://romanempiretimes.com/crassus-the-wealthiest-man-in-history-was-roman/)' catastrophic loss at Carrhae in 53 BCE—had become a symbol of humiliation for Rome. Their recovery by Augustus, without resorting to armed conflict, marked a significant moment in Roman history. Augustus presented this diplomatic success as a triumph equal to a military victory, reinforcing his narrative of ushering in a new era of peace and stability. This peaceful resolution highlighted a shift in Roman values, aligning with Augustus’ vision for a world governed by Roman order rather than perpetual conquest. Unlike the violent triumphs of the Republican era, the recovery of the standards symbolized Roman dominance achieved through diplomacy and negotiation, a hallmark of the imperial ideology under Augustus. By portraying the Parthians as participants in Rome’s peace rather than defeated enemies, Augustus effectively transformed a military embarrassment into a cornerstone of Pax Romana. ![Augustus Prima Porta, the breastplate of the emperor’s statue, depicting the return of the Roman Standards from the Parthians to Augustus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Augustus-Prima-Porta--the-breastplate-of-the-emperor-s-statue--depicting-the-return-of-the-Roman-Standards-from-the-Parthians-to-Augustus.jpg) Augustus Prima Porta, the breastplate of the emperor’s statue, depicting the return of the Roman Standards from the Parthians to Augustus. Credits: onlyfabrizio, by Canva ### The Parthian Arch: A Monument to Peace In recognition of this achievement, the Parthian Arch was erected in the Roman Forum. This monument not only celebrated the return of the standards but also marked the end of the Republic’s triumphal traditions. Inscribed on the arch were the *Fasti Triumphales*, a comprehensive list of Roman triumphs concluding in 19 BCE with the triumph of Cornelius Balbus. By ending the list at this date, Augustus signaled the close of the era of endless Republican wars and the beginning of a new age of peace. The Parthian Arch, strategically placed near other significant monuments in the Forum, symbolized Augustus’ role as the restorer of Roman honor and peace. Its iconography emphasized diplomacy over war and presented Augustus as the mediator of harmony, an image that resonated with his self-styled position as the “Father of the Fatherland” and protector of Roman values. The recovery of the standards and the subsequent celebration were part of a broader cultural shift orchestrated by Augustus. His reign marked a deliberate move away from the Republic’s militaristic ethos and towards a vision of Rome as a stable and prosperous empire. This shift was evident in his refusal to hold a traditional triumph for the standards’ return. Instead, Augustus chose subtle and calculated displays of his achievements, positioning himself as the harbinger of peace rather than the conqueror of enemies. This shift was further solidified through monuments like the Ara Pacis, the Altar of Peace, which symbolized Rome’s prosperity and divine favor under Augustus’ rule. The altar, along with the Parthian Arch, encapsulated the ideological framework of Pax Romana, promoting the emperor as the source of stability and order. ![A 3D model of the Parthian Arch, erected by Augustus in Rome](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-3D-model-of-the-Parthian-Arch--erected-by-Augustus-in-Rome.jpg) A 3D model of the Parthian Arch, erected by Augustus in Rome. Credits: digitales-forum-romanum ### Augustus as the Founder of Pax Romana Augustus’ ability to integrate his diplomatic successes into a broader narrative of peace was a cornerstone of his reign. The Parthian standards’ recovery allowed him to pivot from the chaos of the late Republic to a new imperial order. By emphasizing diplomacy, Augustus crafted an image of Rome as a civilized and benevolent power, contrasting it with the turmoil of the preceding civil wars. > "I restored liberty to the republic, which had been oppressed by the tyranny of a faction ... \[and\] when I had extinguished the flames of civil war ... I transferred the republic from my own control to the will of the senate and the Roman people." Augustus, [*Res Gestae*](https://amzn.to/40zfhNG?ref=romanempiretimes.com) *I and XXXIV* The Pax Romana, as embodied by Augustus’ policies and propaganda, was not merely the absence of war but a deliberate reimagining of Rome’s role in the world. It was a peace predicated on Roman supremacy and control, legitimized through Augustus’ careful cultivation of his image as a just and prudent ruler. ### A New Narrative of Imperial Power Ida Östenberg’s analysis reveals how the recovery of the Parthian standards became a symbol of the transition from conquest to consolidation. The use of monuments and cultural messaging transformed the narrative of Roman imperialism. Augustus’ reign was depicted as a golden age where diplomacy and governance replaced the need for constant warfare. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-statue-of-Roman-emperor-Augustus.jpg) ## This narrative, immortalized in monuments, literature, and art, established Augustus as the architect of a new world order, one where Rome’s dominance was unquestioned and its peace eternal. **A statue of Roman Emperor Augustus. Credits: FooTToo from Getty Images, by Canva* The recovery of the Parthian standards and the subsequent celebrations were far more than political or military victories—they were the foundation upon which Augustus built his vision of Pax Romana. The Parthian Arch and the *Ara Pacis* symbolized a profound transformation in Roman culture and governance, one that would define the empire for generations. By weaving diplomacy, symbolism, and propaganda into a cohesive narrative, Augustus laid the groundwork for an imperial ideology that celebrated peace as the ultimate expression of Roman power. This reinterpretation of Roman supremacy, as Östenberg shows, was a defining moment in the history of the empire and the enduring legacy of Augustus’ reign. ### The Quiet Power of Antoninus Pius: Stability and Prosperity URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/the-quiet-power-of-antoninus-pius-stability-and-prosperity-2/ Last updated: 2025-01-14T23:53:21.000Z Antoninus Pius’ reign, from 138 to 161 CE, is often overshadowed by the military exploits of his predecessor [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-four-journeys-of-hadrian-the-globetrotter-emperor-of-the-roman-empire/) and the philosophical legacy of his successor [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/10-things-you-did-not-know-about-marcus-aurelius/). Yet, Antoninus’ quiet governance, marked by stability, administrative excellence, and a commitment to justice, defined one of the most prosperous and peaceful periods in the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/). How did an emperor who neither led armies nor sought the limelight leave such an enduring mark on [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/all-roads-lead-to-rome-how-did-romans-build-their-roads/)? Was it his keen legal mind, his careful financial stewardship, or the harmonious relationships he maintained with the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/)? ### From Hadrian’s Heir to Rome’s Steadfast Guardian The transition of power in ancient [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/beauty-in-ancient-rome/) was rarely straightforward, and the succession following [Emperor Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrians-arch-of-triumph-in-ancient-jerash-a-gateway-to-the-past/)’s reign was no exception. With [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/antinous-and-hadrian-love-devotion-or-divine-ambition/)’s health failing and political tensions brewing, the empire faced a precarious moment. After the untimely death of [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrian-gate-in-downtown-athens-below-acropolis-a-gateway-to-history/)’s chosen successor, Lucius Ceionius Commodus (Aelius Caesar), the responsibility of safeguarding [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/)’s stability fell to a man of remarkable character and capability: Antoninus Pius. His elevation to emperor in AD 138 marked the beginning of a reign defined not by conquest or scandal but by stability, justice, and quiet resilience. Yet, the story of Antoninus Pius is also one of adept political navigation, as he inherited a legacy shaped by Hadrian’s ambitions, controversies, and the complex interplay of senatorial rivalries. ![Statue of Emperor Antoninus Pius at Agora in Athens, Greece](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Statue-of-Emperor-Antoninus-Pius-at-Agora-in-Athens--Greece.jpg) Statue of Emperor Antoninus Pius at Agora in Athens, Greece. Credits: Zzvet from Getty Images, by Canva ### Hadrian’s Legacy and the Search for an Heir Hadrian, a visionary emperor and master of monumental architecture, left a mixed legacy. His grand mausoleum, now known as Castel Sant’Angelo, symbolized his aspiration for dynastic immortality, yet his succession planning was fraught with uncertainty. Initially bypassing close relatives like Lucius Julius Ursus Servianus, Hadrian chose Aelius Caesar, a man known for his aristocratic lineage but plagued by poor health. This decision puzzled contemporaries, given Aelius’ obvious physical frailties. When Aelius unexpectedly died in January AD 138, Hadrian’s already tenuous health and the absence of a clear successor left the empire vulnerable to political intrigue and potential instability. Amidst this uncertainty, Hadrian turned to Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus, a senator with an impeccable reputation for loyalty and competence. Despite his relatively low profile compared to other contenders, Antoninus’ marriage to Faustina the Elder, a woman of illustrious lineage, and his connection to the Annius Verus family gave him the necessary social and political standing. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Marble-bust--portrait-of-the-Roman-Emperor-Antoninus-Pius.jpg) ## Hadrian’s decision to adopt Antoninus came with a condition: he was to adopt two young men as his heirs, Marcus Aurelius and [Lucius Verus](https://romanempiretimes.com/beyond-marcus-aurelius-lucius-verus-the-shadowed-emperor-of-romes-golden-age/), ensuring the continuation of the imperial line. **Marble bust, portrait of the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius. Credits: MET Museum, Public domain* Antoninus Pius’ early political career exemplified his aptitude for governance. As a member of Hadrian’s *consilium* (advisory council), he often advocated for mercy, earning him respect among senators disillusioned with Hadrian’s autocratic tendencies. Upon becoming emperor, he distanced himself from the oppressive practices of his predecessor. His reign was characterized by fiscal responsibility, legal reform, and an enduring peace that contrasted sharply with the turmoil of Hadrian’s final years. Unlike his predecessor, whose rule oscillated between benevolence and paranoia, Antoninus established himself as a paragon of steady and restrained leadership. His reign has been described as a “golden age” of the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-roman-empires-presence-in-the-orient-here-is-what-we-found/). His ability to maintain stability without engaging in military campaigns or provoking political discord demonstrated that strength could be achieved through governance rather than conquest. Historians, including the biographer of the Historia Augusta, have praised him for his guilelessness and his commitment to justice, describing him as: _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Spartacus: The Gladiator Who Defied Rome URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/spartacus-the-gladiator-who-defied-rome/ Last updated: 2025-01-12T23:04:41.000Z In the heart of the Roman Republic, where [gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/macrinus-true-story-gladiator-2-power-player-rome-brief-emperor/) bled for spectacle and slaves toiled for the empire’s grandeur, one man dared to defy the might of Rome. Spartacus, a Thracian warrior turned slave, rose from the obscurity of a [gladiator](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/) school to become the leader of one of the most audacious rebellions in history. His name, once whispered in fear by Roman patricians, has echoed through the centuries as a symbol of resistance against oppression. ## Who was Spartacus? Spartacus, whose early life remains shrouded in mystery, is believed to have been born in Thrace (present-day Bulgaria or a neighboring region) around 111–109 BCE. Historians speculate that he may have once served as a soldier in the Roman army before being captured and [enslaved](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-chains-of-the-empire-slavery-in-roman-society-2/). His training as a [gladiator](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-legends-about-gladiator-sweat-heres-what-we-found/) in Capua, one of the most notorious gladiatorial schools in Italy, set the stage for what would become one of the most significant uprisings against the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/). The details of Spartacus's early life remain largely unknown, a situation that's not unexpected considering his status as a slave in Roman society. Nonetheless, historical accounts of the Third Servile War do offer some insights, though they often present conflicting information. For example, Plutarch identifies Spartacus as originating from [Thracian origins](https://romanempiretimes.com/maximinus-thrax-how-did-a-towering-barbarian-giant-soldier-become-roman-emperor/), specifically from Nomadic or possibly Maedic backgrounds — a Thracian tribe — depending on the manuscript interpretation. Despite this, Plutarch acknowledges Spartacus as wise and brave, attributing to him qualities and a temperament more akin to a Greek (Hellene) than to a Thracian: > "The rising of the gladiators and their devastation of Italy, which is generally known as the war of Spartacus, began as follows. > > A man called Lentulus Batiatus had an establishment for gladiators at Capua. Most of them were Gauls and Thracians. They had done nothing wrong, but, simply because of the cruelty of their owner, were kept in close confinement until the time came for them to engage in combat. > > Two hundred of them planned to escape, but their plan was betrayed and only seventy-eight, who realized this, managed to act in time and get away, armed with choppers and spits which they seized from some cookhouse. > > On the road they came across some wagons which were carrying arms for gladiators to another city, and they took these arms for their own use. > > They then occupied a strong position and elected three leaders. The first of these was Spartacus. > > He was a Thracian from the nomadic tribes and not only had a great spirit and great physical strength, but was, much more than one would expect from his condition, most intelligent and cultured, being more like a Greek than a Thracian." Plutarch, [*Life of Crassus*](https://amzn.to/405x4KU?ref=romanempiretimes.com) ![A portrait of Spartacus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/04/DALL-E-2024-04-06-20.13.09---Create-a-detailed--photorealistic-portrait-of-a-man-embodying-the-characteristics-often-associated-with-Spartacus--the-historical-Thracian-gladiator.-.webp) A possible portrait of Spartacus: Illustration: DALL-E Similarly, the historian Florus gives a similar version of the story: > "Spartacus, Crixus and Oenomaus, breaking out of the gladiatorial school of Lentulus with thirty or rather more men of the same occupation, escaped from Capua. > > When, by summoning the slaves to their standard, they had quickly collected more than 10,000 adherents, these men, who had been originally content merely to have escaped, soon began to wish to take their revenge also. > > The first position which attracted them (a suitable one for such ravening monsters) was Mt. Vesuvius. > > Being besieged here by Clodius Glabrus, they slid by means of ropes made of vine-twigs through a passage in the hollow of the mountain down into its very depths, and issuing forth by a hidden exit, seized the camp of he general by a sudden attack which he never expected." Publius Annius Florus, [*Epitome*](https://amzn.to/42aagwc?ref=romanempiretimes.com) In ancient times, the Thracians occupied extensive areas of Eastern and Southeastern Europe, predominantly across the Balkan region and parts of Asia Minor. Positioned outside the conventional boundaries of the [Greco-Roman world](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/), they were typically perceived as formidable fighters, yet were regarded as uncivilized from a cultural standpoint. ![A gravure depicting Spartacus versus Hermann in the Arena](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-gravure-depicting-Spartacus-versus-Hermann-in-the-Arena.jpg) A gravure depicting Spartacus versus Hermann in the Arena. Credits: Photos.com, by Canva ### Living the Life of a Gladiator Gladiators were iconic figures of Roman entertainment, captivating audiences with their battles to the death from the Republic era until the early Christian empire's 5th-century ban on the games. While their exact origins are debated, with many historians suggesting they began in Campania, the widespread presence of amphitheaters throughout the empire serves as evidence of the gladiatorial games' widespread appeal. The initial categories of gladiators were designated based on the adversaries of the early Roman state, including the Samnite, Gaul (which was later changed to *murmillo*), and Thracian fighters. [Gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/we-researched-the-legends-about-gladiator-sweat-heres-what-we-found/) were men specifically trained to fight with swords (*gladii*) and other weapons, often battling to wound or kill each other for the entertainment of spectators. Alongside them were other armed performers, such as beast fighters (*bestiarii*) and hunters (*venatores*), who were trained to hunt wild animals like leopards and bears for the amusement of large crowds. Gladiatorial games became a hallmark of Roman culture as it evolved during the third and second centuries B.C., reaching their most intense development in the Campania region, south of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-most-famous-women-the-empire-feminine-side/). This area, particularly the affluent city of Capua, served as a hub for gladiatorial schools and training facilities. Evidence of this culture is well-preserved in Pompeii, located about forty-five miles from Capua, where notices for gladiatorial performances have been found. ![Detail of Gladiator mosaic, a Thraex (left) fighting a Murmillo (right), Römerhalle, Bad Kreuznach, Germany.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/04/Detail_of_Gladiator_mosaic-_a_Thraex_-left-_fighting_a_Murmillo_-right--_R-merhalle-_Bad_Kreuznach-_Germany_-8196070427-.jpg) Detail of Gladiator mosaic, a Thraex (left) fighting a Murmillo (right), Römerhalle, Bad Kreuznach, Germany. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED [Gladiators](https://romanempiretimes.com/things-about-roman-gladiators-you-might-not-know/) were often forced into their violent profession, with many being condemned criminals or enslaved individuals who had little say in their fate. Trained to expertly wield weapons and inflict harm, they were both highly skilled and potentially dangerous, necessitating strict supervision. Some of them, resisted their grim destinies, going so far as to take their own lives rather than face the arena. Others, however, were exploited beyond the arena, serving as enforcers or assassins for powerful Romans seeking to further their agendas. In times of political turmoil or civil unrest, gladiators posed a unique and constant threat to the stability of the Roman state. ("Spartacus And The Slave Wars A Brief History With Documents" by Brent Shaw) Regardless of his precise background, Spartacus is recorded to have been captured by Roman forces. Subsequently enslaved, he was turned into a gladiator, receiving his training at a *ludus* located near Capua, a facility owned by Lentulus Batiatus. Presently, this city is noted for the remnants of its amphitheater, which is second in size only to [Rome's Colosseum](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-did-romans-flood-the-colosseum-for-naval-battles-in-the-arena/). Notably, the details of Spartacus's background seemed of minimal importance, as the Thracian was trained as a *murmillo*, indicating a level of flexibility in the roles assigned within the gladiatorial system. ![A murmillo faces a Thracian in this scene from the Zliten mosaic](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-murmillo-faces-a-Thracian-in-this-scene-from-the-Zliten-mosaic.jpg) A murmillo faces a Thracian in this scene from the Zliten mosaic. Upscaling by Roman Empire Times ### The Spark of Rebellion The conspiracy led by Spartacus and his fellow gladiators took shape in 73 BCE at Capua, involving approximately 70 slaves. They managed to break free from the *ludus,* overcoming several pursuing [soldiers,](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-army-veterans-life-after-service-in-ancient-rome/) swiftly gathering supplies, and amassing additional supporters (it is estimated that there were 90,000 to 100,000 men in all) from the surrounding region. Seeking a strategic advantage, they retreated to a defensible position on the slopes of [Mount Vesuvius,](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompeii-the-day-vesuvius-erupted-from-prosperity-to-ashes/) where Spartacus was unanimously chosen as their commander. This marked the onset of the **Third Servile War**. ### The Fight for Freedom Under Spartacus's leadership, the rebel army won multiple engagements against Roman forces. They even managed to defeat two consular armies, showcasing the seriousness of their challenge to Roman authority. Spartacus's ultimate goal, however, remains a subject of debate among historians. Some suggest he aimed to march on [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/rome/) itself, while others believe he sought to disperse his followers to their homes or to safer lands. In the latter part of 73 BCE, the Roman government sent Praetor Gaius Claudius Glaber to quell the rebellion led by Spartacus. Commanding a hastily gathered force of about 3,000, Glaber attempted to encircle the rebels on Mount Vesuvius. ![A possible representation of Praetor Gaius Claudius Glaber’s army dispatched to counter Spartacus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-possible-representation-of-Praetor-Gaius-Claudius-Glaber-s-army-dispatched-to-counter-Spartacus.jpg) A possible representation of Praetor Gaius Claudius Glaber’s army dispatched to counter Spartacus. Illustration: Midjourney However, he underestimated the resourcefulness of Spartacus and his followers, who managed to descend the mountain using ropes to surprise and defeat the Roman troops. This victory significantly boosted the morale of Spartacus's forces. Shortly afterward, they overcame a second Roman detachment under Praetor Publius Varinius, prompting an influx of new recruits to their cause. The situation reached a critical point for Rome in 72 BCE when the [Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/), disturbed by the consecutive defeats, dispatched two consular armies led by Lucius Gellius and Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus. Initially, these forces seemed to turn the tide by killing 30,000 rebels, including Spartacus's deputy, Crixus, near Mount Garganus. However, historical accounts from Appian and Plutarch diverge at this juncture, with Appian providing a more dramatic account. According to him, Spartacus avenged Crixus's death by executing 300 Roman prisoners after defeating Lentulus's troops. Spartacus then faced the consular armies again in the Battle of Picenum, securing another significant victory for the rebels. ![A possible representation of Spartacus, signalling victory to his comrades by raising his sword, after the Battle of Picenum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-possible-representation-of-Spartacus--signalling-victory-to-his-comrades-by-raising-his-sword--after-the-Battle-of-Picenum.jpg) A possible representation of Spartacus, signalling victory to his comrades by raising his sword, after the Battle of Picenum. Illustration: Midjourney ### The Fall of the Rebellion In 71 BCE, as Spartacus and his army headed south, their actions significantly alarmed the Roman Senate, prompting a more severe reaction. [Marcus Licinius Crassus](https://romanempiretimes.com/tag/marcus-licinius-crassus/), known for his role in the Civil Wars on the side of Sulla, was tasked with quelling the Third Servile War. Awarded a praetorship and command of six legions, along with the forces previously led by Gellius and Lentulus, Crassus assembled a formidable force of approximately 40,000 soldiers to confront the slave uprising. From their initial encounter near Samnium, as recounted by Appian, it was evident that Spartacus's forces were at a disadvantage, suffering a heavy loss of about 6,000 men. Subsequent battles consistently favored Crassus, progressively pushing the rebels further south. A desperate attempt by Spartacus to escape to Sicily with the aid of Cilician pirates fell through due to betrayal, exacerbating the rebels' dire situation. The situation for Spartacus and his forces grew even more precarious with the return of [Pompey the Great](https://romanempiretimes.com/pompey-the-great-the-partner-and-rival-of-julius-caesar-2/) to Italy. Pompey, renowned for his victories on behalf of Sulla's faction, had just successfully suppressed a revolt in Hispania led by Quintus Sertorius. With Pompey's arrival imminent, Crassus was under pressure to conclude the conflict swiftly to secure the triumph over Spartacus for himself, rather than share or lose the accolade to Pompey. ![A portrait of Marcus Licinius Crassus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2024/04/DALL-E-2024-04-06-20.26.52---Create-a-detailed--photorealistic-portrait-of-Marcus-Licinius-Crassus--one-of-Rome-s-wealthiest-men-and-a-key-figure-in-the-late-Roman-Republic.-Crass.webp) A possible portrait of Marcus Licinius Crassus. Illustration: DALL-E After Crassus rejected their attempts at negotiation, Spartacus and his followers were forced into a decisive confrontation at the Silarius River in 71 BCE. This final battle proved too overwhelming for the rebels, resulting in their defeat by Crassus's forces. Spartacus met his end alongside thousands of his troops in the conflict at the Silarius River, with his remains never identified among the casualties. Numerous survivors attempted to escape the site of their defeat, yet Crassus's forces relentlessly pursued them. The conclusive, grim chapter of the uprising unfolded along the Via Appia, where Crassus displayed a ruthless symbol of deterrence; approximately 6,000 captives taken by his legions were crucified and displayed along the roadside. This chilling spectacle served as a stark warning against defying Roman power. ![A gravure depicting the death of Spartacus, by Hermann Vogel](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-gravure-depicting-the-death-of-Spartacus--by-Hermann-Vogel.jpg) A gravure depicting the death of Spartacus, by Hermann Vogel. Public domain ### Spartacus and the Last Great Slave War: Resistance and Legend As already mentioned above what initially started in the summer of 73 B.C. as a violent slave uprising in Italy, eventually marked the beginning of a brutal two-year conflict. According to accounts, the rebellion began when seventy gladiator slaves escaped from the training school in the affluent city of Capua, located approximately 125 miles south of Rome. This initial act of defiance rapidly escalated into a large-scale revolt, with tens of thousands of [slaves](https://romanempiretimes.com/did-slaves-whisper-memento-mori-to-roman-generals-during-their-triumph/) joining forces to resist their masters and fight for their freedom from the oppressive conditions of servitude. While the brutality of this war is often compared to the savagery of the civil wars that [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-daily-bread-of-rome-the-apple-of-discord-between-romans-and-the-bakers/) endured in the preceding decade, its impact was uniquely profound. The battles, ambushes, and skirmishes waged by the rebellious slaves have secured this conflict's place as one of history’s most significant wars of resistance against slavery and as the most famous slave war in the ancient world. This rebellion, led by Spartacus and other enslaved leaders **was not the first to happen**, but the last in a series of three major slave wars that Rome faced between the 130s and 70s B.C. The two earlier revolts occurred on the island of Sicily, Rome's first overseas province. The first Sicilian slave war (135–132 B.C.) and the second (104–100 B.C.) were both led by charismatic figures—Eunus and Kleon in the first, and Athenion and Salvias in the second. ![A gravure depicting the death of Spartacus, by Nicola Sanesi](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-gravure-depicting-the-death-of-Spartacus--by-Nicola-Sanesi.jpg) A gravure depicting the death of Spartacus, by Nicola Sanesi. Public domain The final war, centered in southern Italy, began in 73 B.C. Spartacus emerged as the most prominent leader of this rebellion, but he was only one of many enslaved individuals involved in the initial revolt. Today, Spartacus has become a symbol of defiance against oppression, immortalized in Howard Fast's 1951 novel [*Spartacus*](https://amzn.to/4adlToe?ref=romanempiretimes.com) and the 1960 [*film adaptation*](https://amzn.to/4gQ4MeO?ref=romanempiretimes.com). However, the iconic status he enjoys today raises complex questions about the actual events of the slave wars, the myths that have surrounded him over time, and the reliability of the historical sources that document his story. (*Spartacus And The Slave Wars A Brief History With Documents, by Brent Shaw*) ## The Man, the Myth, the Symbol ### The Ancient Perspective: A Rebel of His Time From the earliest accounts of Spartacus, ancient historians like Appian and Plutarch framed him as an extraordinary figure. While Appian emphasized the military genius of the rebel leader, capable of challenging the [Roman legions](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-mystery-of-the-lost-roman-legion-the-ninths-final-march/), Plutarch presented him as a man of noble character who rose above his station. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Spartacus-ballet-performance--at-Bolshoi-in-Moskow-October-2013--Michail-Lobukhin--Anna-Nikulina--1-1.jpg) ## These accounts, however, were not mere historical records. They were shaped by the political and social concerns of their time, using Spartacus as an **exemplum*—a moral or political example to warn against or inspire action. **Spartacus ballet performance, at Bolshoi in Moskow October 2013 (Michail Lobukhin, Anna Nikulina). Credits: Bengt Nyman, CC BY 2.0* In Roman discourse, Spartacus symbolized both the threat of rebellion and the resilience of Roman authority. His victories against Roman forces were portrayed as a cautionary tale of what could happen if Rome's societal order were undermined. Yet, his defeat also underscored the ultimate supremacy of the state. For Romans, Spartacus was not just a historical figure but a rhetorical tool, a way to illustrate both the dangers of disobedience and the strength of Roman governance. ### A Modern Revolution: Spartacus Reimagined Centuries later, Spartacus emerged not just as a historical rebel but as a symbol of resistance against oppression. The modern era, particularly the 19th and 20th centuries, saw a wave of reinterpretations that infused Spartacus with revolutionary ideals. Writers like Karl Marx and later socialist thinkers adopted Spartacus as a symbol of the proletariat rising against oppressive elites. His struggle was no longer merely about escaping slavery; it became a metaphor for systemic resistance against economic and social inequalities. Howard Fast’s 1951 novel Spartacus and Stanley Kubrick’s [1960 film](https://amzn.to/4gQ4MeO?ref=romanempiretimes.com) epitomized this shift. In these works, Spartacus transcends his historical context to become a universal emblem of freedom and human dignity: - Fast’s novel explicitly connects Spartacus’s struggle with the broader fight against tyranny, positioning him as a figure of timeless relevance. - Kubrick’s film amplified this theme, turning him into a cinematic icon of rebellion whose cry for liberty resonated with audiences during the Cold War and civil rights movements. ![Kirk Douglas as Spartacus in the Stanley Kubrick movie](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Kirk-Douglas-as-Spartacus-in-the-Stanley-Kubrick-movie.jpg) Kirk Douglas as Spartacus in the Stanley Kubrick movie. Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures ### A Tool for Ideologies The figure of Spartacus has been invoked repeatedly in political discourse. During the French Revolution, François-Noël Babeuf, who called himself "[Gracchus Babeuf](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-gracchi-brothers-visionaries-or-socialist-revolutionaries/)," adopted Spartacus as a symbol of his revolutionary ideology, advocating for the abolition of private property and equality for all—a vision he himself likely never held. In Ireland, he became a symbol of resistance against British imperialism, reflecting the adaptability of his narrative to different cultural and historical contexts. Historian Saskia T. Roselaar **cautions against over-romanticizing** him as a proto-socialist revolutionary. She writes: > “Modern Marxist websites... present Tiberius \[Gracchus\] as a popular champion in the same vein as later Marxist or communist activists, although scholarship does not support this interpretation.” The same could be said of Spartacus. While he undeniably stood against oppression, his primary aim was personal freedom and the survival of his followers, not the restructuring of society. ![The Oath of Spartacus, a statue by Barrias, depicting young Spartacus assisting an older slave](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/The-Oath-of-Spartacus--a-statue-by-Barrias--depicting-young-Spartacus-assisting-an-older-slave.jpg) The Oath of Spartacus, a statue by Barrias, depicting young Spartacus assisting an older slave. Credits: sedmak from Getty Images, by Canva ### An Eternal Symbol of Resistance What makes Spartacus so enduring is his ability to transcend time and place. As Benjamin Howland argues, the Thracian gladiator has become an "empty signifier," a figure whose meaning shifts based on the needs of those invoking him. Whether as a fearsome enemy of Rome, a champion of the oppressed, or a cinematic hero, Spartacus remains a powerful symbol of resistance. His story, although firmly rooted in antiquity, continues to inspire and provoke. The tale of a man who dared to defy the greatest empire of his age resonates with universal themes of freedom, dignity, and the human spirit's resilience. For ancient Romans, he was a reminder of the fragile balance of their social order. For modern audiences, he is a beacon of hope, proof that even the most unlikely individuals can rise to challenge the forces of oppression. (*The Exemplary Spartacus: Reception, Adaptation, and Reconstruction, by Benjamin Franklin Howland*) ### The Rebel Who Shook Rome The Spartacus Rebellion remains one of the most captivating and studied events in Roman history. From its beginnings as a gladiatorial escape to its evolution into a widespread uprising, the rebellion has drawn the attention of thinkers like Karl Marx, scholars, and even young students fascinated by its dramatic narrative. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-statue-of-Spartacus-by-Denis-Foyatier--in-the-Louvre-1.jpg) ## Yet, one of the most significant misconceptions about this revolt is the idea that it was solely a slave uprising aimed at abolishing slavery. **A statue of Spartacus by Denis Foyatier, in the Louvre. Credits: Gautier Poupeau, CC BY 2.0* While Spartacus' escape from gladiatorial slavery created an inspiring narrative, the rebellion’s true uniqueness lies in the participation of free men alongside enslaved and freed individuals. Ancient records, particularly those from Appian, explicitly mention that: > “fugitive slaves and even some free men from the surrounding countryside...” ...joined Spartacus’ forces at Mount Vesuvius. This mix of classes not only amplified the threat posed by the rebellion but also revealed the underlying social and economic discontent of the Roman lower classes. To fully appreciate the Spartacus Rebellion, we must examine it as a revolt that transcended the boundaries of slavery and included free men seeking their own forms of change. Unlike earlier slave uprisings, such as those in Sicily, Spartacus’ revolt posed an unprecedented threat. Ancient historians noted that the rebellion’s strength lay not just in its size but also in its ability to defeat Roman legions in open battle. This feat could not have been achieved by untrained rural slaves alone. As Appian recorded, the Italians: > “had sided with the gladiator Spartacus against the Romans, even though he was a wholly disreputable person.” Many of these Italians were likely veterans of the Social War, bringing with them military expertise and a desire for political and social change rather than mere survival. The motivations of these free men were complex. Disillusioned by Rome’s unyielding oligarchy and their exclusion from meaningful political participation, many Italian veterans found themselves struggling economically, unable to compete with wealthy landowners. When the Spartacus Rebellion arose, it offered not just a chance to resist oppression but also an opportunity to challenge the Roman elite and their control over the Republic. This fear of social upheaval, more than the physical proximity of Spartacus’ forces to Rome, is what terrified the [Roman aristocracy](https://romanempiretimes.com/born-in-the-purple-imperial-color-roman-empire/). As Plutarch observed, the Senate was: > “moved by fear and the danger...” ...of the revolt and responded with exceptional force, dispatching both [consuls ](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-consuls-in-ancient-rome-a-pillar-of-republican-governance/)and eventually Crassus and Pompey to suppress it. ![A possible portrait of Spartacus, right after a battle, exhausted and mourning about his dead friend Crixus](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-possible-portrait-of-Spartacus--right-after-a-battle--exhausted-and-mourning-about-his-dead-friend-Crixus.jpg) A possible portrait of Spartacus, right after a battle, exhausted and mourning about his dead friend Crixus. Illustration: Midjourney Despite its revolutionary elements, the Spartacus Rebellion was not a Marxist-style proletarian uprising. Marxist historians have often imbued Spartacus with ideals of class struggle, but as Roselaar (*a prominent scholar specializing in Roman economic history*) explains, “works by Marxist ancient historians indeed sometimes take this line,” although “scholarship does not support this interpretation.” Instead, the rebellion was a coalition of diverse agendas: Spartacus sought to return to Thrace, while his followers—free men, ex-soldiers, and displaced peasants—had their own ambitions for status, power, and economic security. The Spartacus Rebellion was a unique historical phenomenon, blending elements of a slave revolt with the political aspirations of free men. It highlighted the growing divisions within Roman society and foreshadowed the civil unrest that would eventually lead to the Republic’s collapse. Though **not the Marxist hero** he is sometimes portrayed to be, Spartacus remains an enduring symbol of resistance against oppression and a figure whose rebellion forever altered Rome’s history. (*The Spartacus Rebellion, More Than a Slave Revolt The Spartacus Rebellion, More Than a Slave Revolt, by Gavin J. Maziarz. Gettysburg College*) 📜 For those who are eager to learn more about Spartacus, we hope you’ll enjoy [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l1NyR6UvxU&ref=romanempiretimes.com): ### Shaping a Legend: The Evolution of Trajan’s Reputation URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/shaping-a-legend-the-evolution-of-roman-emperor-trajan-reputation/ Last updated: 2026-05-21T09:43:21.000Z Ascending to power in 98 CE, [Trajan](https://romanempiretimes.com/trajan-bridge-ancient-world-first-to-surpass-1km-kilometer-2000-years-ago/) ushered in a period of unprecedented prosperity and expansion, marked by his military triumphs, most notably the conquest of Dacia, and his ambitious civic projects, including the awe-inspiring [Trajan’s Column](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-spiraling-legacy-of-trajans-column-art-propaganda-and-power/). Renowned for his fairness and humility, he earned the title *optimus princeps*—the best ruler—reflecting the profound respect he commanded both during his reign and in the records of history. His legacy extends beyond his battlefield victories and monumental achievements; it lies in the vision of an emperor who balanced strength with compassion, leaving an indelible mark on the [Roman Empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-was-the-roman-empire-so-amazing/). ![Marble bust of Roman Emperor Trajan, found in Salona, Croatia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Marble-bust-of-Roman-Emperor-Trajan--found-in-Salona--Croatia.jpg) Marble bust of Roman Emperor Trajan, found in Salona, Croatia. Credits: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0 ### The Making of a Model Emperor In his panegyric for Honorius’ fourth consulship (398 CE), [the poet Claudian ](https://romanempiretimes.com/claudian-the-last-great-poet-of-the-western-roman-court/)prominently positioned him as a role model for the young emperor. This notion is introduced early in the poem: > “Not unworthy of reverence nor only just acquainted with war is the family of Trajan and that Spanish house which has showered diadems upon the world.” The theme reaches its peak in an imagined speech by Theodosius advising his son Honorius: > “The fame of Trajan will never die, not so much because thanks to his victories on the Tigris conquered Parthia became a Roman province, not because he broke the might of Dacia and let their chiefs in triumph up the slope of the Capitol, but because he was kindly to his country. > > Fail not to make someone like him your example, my son.” Trajan’s reputation as a model emperor is encapsulated in Eutropius’ famed phrase: > “More fortunate than Augustus, better than Trajan.” Eutropius elaborates further, noting, > “To such an extent has the reputation of his goodness lasted that it provides those who either (wish to) flatter or to praise him sincerely with the opportunity to use him as the most outstanding model.” It was common for authors like Claudian and Eutropius to compare contemporary rulers to past emperors, as Roman society valued exemplarity highly. Certain emperors became benchmarks for ideal conduct, against which future rulers were evaluated; always bearing in mind to avoid the [worst examples](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/). By the fourth century, he had firmly joined this elite group of model leaders. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Bronze-statue-of-Roman-Emperor-Trajan.jpg) ## However, modern scholarship often assumes that Trajan’s virtues were already the standard for evaluating second- and third-century emperors. **Bronze statue of Roman Emperor Trajan. Credits: Crisfotolux from Getty Images, by Canva* This view is challenged here, suggesting instead that his elevation as a model ruler was a late-antique literary construct. His status evolved over time, reaching prominence in the late fourth and early fifth centuries. This development was influenced by the ideological needs of the late fourth century and the availability of historical materials on Trajan. This argument is supported by tracing references to him in both literary and material sources. Explicit literary references, such as panegyrics and histories, attempted to solidify his image as a model emperor, though this was only fully realized in the fourth century. Material sources, such as [inscriptions](https://romanempiretimes.com/whispers-on-the-walls-graffiti-as-a-voice-of-ancient-rome/), [coins](https://romanempiretimes.com/roman-coins-and-the-monetary-system-of-the-roman-empire/), portraits, and monuments, offer more implicit evidence of his legacy. These, too, indicate that his inclusion among exemplary leaders became significant during Constantine’s reign and was further solidified under Theodosius. Trajan’s enduring reputation as an exemplary ruler was thus not an immediate phenomenon but a **constructed legacy**, shaped by the changing needs and ideologies of later Roman society. ![A painting of Noël Coypel, depicting Emperor Trajan receiving the requests of the Roman people](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-painting-of-No-l-Coypel--depicting--Emperor-Trajan-receiving-the-requests-of-the-Roman-people-1.jpg) A painting of Noël Coypel, depicting Emperor Trajan receiving the requests of the Roman people. Photo courtesy of the Louvre ### The Evolution of Trajan’s Reputation The concept of Trajan as a role model for future emperors was introduced during his lifetime. [Pliny the Younger](https://romanempiretimes.com/pliny-the-younger-the-247-letters-that-helped-shape-our-view-of-the-roman-empire/), in his *Panegyricus to Trajan* on September 1, 100 C.E., made this explicit: > “Good rulers to recognize what they have done and bad ones learn what they ought to do.” In one of his letters, Pliny further remarked that his goal was: > “to encourage our emperor in his virtues through sincere praise,” while also: > “to advise future emperors by means of example.” Despite Pliny’s efforts, Trajan’s image as an exemplary ruler did not take immediate hold. In the century following his death, historiographical accounts offered mixed evaluations of his reign. For example, Fronto, (*Roman orator, rhetorician, and statesman of the 2nd century CE, who lived during the reigns of emperors Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius*) writing around 165 C.E., noted that: > “\[his\] own glory was likely to have been more important to him than the blood of his soldiers” and added that, in terms of justice and clemency: > “Trajan was not equally cleared in the eyes of all.” Similarly, [Tacitus,](https://romanempiretimes.com/tacitus-the-chronicler-of-rome-moral-decline/) [Cassius Dio](https://romanempiretimes.com/cassius-dios-roman-history-a-greek-perspective-on-the-empire/), and Herodian offered ambivalent depictions. Tacitus implied criticism of Trajan’s rule, and Herodian barely mentioned him, favoring [Augustus](https://romanempiretimes.com/from-octavian-to-augustus-the-making-of-romes-first-emperor/) and [Marcus Aurelius](https://romanempiretimes.com/10-things-you-did-not-know-about-marcus-aurelius/) as positive exemplars. Dio acknowledged his generosity and respect for the elite, but also highlighted his affinity for [wine](https://romanempiretimes.com/falernian-wine-roman-empire-favorite/) and boys. It was only fter the fourth century, as a new senatorial elite emerged, that Pliny’s praise of Trajan gained renewed appreciation. Explicit mentions of him appeared in speeches such as Themistius’s 364 C.E. address to Jovian, where he highlighted Trajan’s promotion of philosophy: > “The great Trajan, Dio the Golden-Tongued... By adopting philosophy in the sight of all, you \[Jovian\] follow in these men’s footsteps.” Similarly, Ausonius in 379 C.E. and Pacatus in 389 C.E. invoked his civil and military achievements in comparison to Julian, Gratian, and Theodosius. By the late fourth and early fifth centuries, his reputation solidified, particularly in military contexts. Claudian urged Honorius to emulate Trajan’s victories over the Parthians and Dacians. Sidonius Apollinaris, in praising Avitus, depicted the goddess Roma lamenting her fallen glory, stating: > “I know not if anyone can match Trajan – unless perchance you, Gaul, should once more send forth a man who should even surpass him.” Ultimately, the trajectory of his legacy was gradual. Initially one among many exemplary rulers, he only emerged as the model emperor in the late fourth and early fifth centuries. This nuanced evolution highlights how historical contexts and literary traditions shaped the perception of Trajan’s idealized emperorship. Material evidence, such as coins and monuments, aligns with this late development, further reinforcing his stature as an exemplary ruler of antiquity. (*The Fame of Trajan: A Late Antique Invention, by Olivier Hekster, Sven Betjes, Sam Heijnen, Ketty Iannantuono, Dennis Jussen, Erika Manders, Daniel Syrbe*) ![A gravure depicting Trajan crowned by Victory, by Marcantonio Raimondi](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-gravure-depicting-Trajan-crowned-by-Victory--by-Marcantonio-Raimondi.jpg) A gravure depicting Trajan crowned by Victory, by Marcantonio Raimondi. Credits: Rawpixel, CC0 1.0 ### From Roman Justice to Medieval Legend In “[*Trajan Optimus Princeps: A Life and Times*](https://amzn.to/3C6vkcy?ref=romanempiretimes.com)”, Julian Bennett explores the enduring legacy of Emperor Trajan, whose reputation has transcended centuries. During his lifetime, he was affectionately known as Optimus Princeps, or the "perfect prince." After his death, his popularity endured, with later generations deeming no other emperor his equal. Bennett highlights that, by the mid-fourth century, Trajan was celebrated for his "utmost integrity and virtue in affairs of state" and "total fortitude in matters of arms." She also notes that the [Roman Senate](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-pillars-of-rome-unveiling-the-power-and-intrigue-of-the-roman-senate/) reportedly greeted each new emperor with the hope that they might "*surpass the felicity of Augustus and the excellence of Trajan.*" His [architectural achievements](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-market-of-trajan-the-first-ever-shopping-mall-was-built-in-ancient-rome/) further solidified his legacy. Emperor Constantius II, visiting Trajan’s Forum in Rome, remarked it was: > “the most exquisite structure under the canopy of heaven, admired even by the gods themselves.” Centuries later, Cassiodorus echoed this admiration, writing: > “The Forum of Trajan, no matter how often we see it, is always wonderful.” The Middle Ages embraced his memory with fervent affection, weaving his legacy into both history and legend. A twelfth-century chronicler praised him for his contributions to public works, likening his deeds to acts of sanctity, much like the construction of charitable structures by Muslims. This admiration birthed a widely recounted medieval tale of Trajan’s justice. According to the story, Pope Gregory the Great heard of an incident in which Trajan, poised to march with his army, paused to ensure justice for a grieving widow who demanded retribution for her son’s murder. When she questioned whether another’s actions could redeem his failure to act, Trajan dismounted and declared: > "Justice calls me, pity binds me here." ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-possible-representation-of-Pope-Gregory-the-Great--praying-for-the-salvation-of-Trajan-s-soul.jpg) ## Moved by this tale, Gregory prayed for his salvation, reportedly prompting God to pardon the emperor—***a rare act for a pagan** *.* **A possible representation of Pope Gregory the Great, praying for the salvation of Trajan’s soul. Illustration: Midjourney* This account, though controversial for its theological implications, inspired art, literature, and moral discourse throughout the Middle Ages. Dante placed Trajan among the Just and Temperate Rulers in Heaven in his Divine Comedy, noting that his redemption must have been predestined by [God](https://romanempiretimes.com/which-gods-did-the-romans-worship-the-pantheon-of-ancient-rome/). The legend became a popular subject in art, appearing in works like Jacopo Avanzi’s altar piece, which depicts Gregory’s intercession, and Michael Pacher’s triptych, which shows Trajan emerging from Hell in response to Gregory’s prayers. Trajan’s legacy persisted into the Enlightenment and beyond. Edward Gibbon described his reign as the start of Rome’s Golden Age, and his memory inspired operas and monumental art. In the 1930s, Italian sculptors chose him to represent justice in a bas-relief for the U.S. Supreme Court. While some aspects of his legend, such as the story recounted to Gregory, may trace their origins to [Hadrian](https://romanempiretimes.com/hadrians-wall-the-roman-empires-enigmatic-frontier/) or be derived from Trajan’s monuments, what endures is the admiration and respect Trajan inspired, which Bennett’s work seeks to unravel. ![Altarpiece of the Church Fathers by Michael Pacher, third is seen Pope Gregory the Great, who is delivering Emperor Trajan from Purgatory](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Altarpiece-of-the-Church-Fathers-by-Michael-Pacher--third-is-seen-Pope-Gregory-the-Great--who-is-delivering-Emperor-Trajan-from-Purgatory.jpg) Altarpiece of the Church Fathers by Michael Pacher, third is seen Pope Gregory the Great, who is delivering Emperor Trajan from Purgatory. Public domain ### The Roots of Optimus Princeps The historian Cassius Dio, himself of provincial origin, expressed skepticism about Emperor Trajan's heritage, noting with disdain that he was: > "an Iberian, and neither an Italian nor even an Italiot." However, historical evidence suggests that Trajan’s paternal family, the gens Ulpia, likely originated from Tuder (modern Todi) in Umbria. His formal name, *Marcus Ulpius Traianus*, supports this connection, as both his *gentilicium,* Ulpius, derived from the Latin *lupus* (wolf), and his cognomen, Traianus, were linked to names and linguistic traditions of the Osco-Umbrian region. Despite this potential Italian origin, the gens Ulpia was not particularly distinguished in [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-food-culture-of-ancient-rome-what-did-the-different-social-classes-eat-2/). His father, also named Traianus, was the first in the family to achieve consular rank, likely due to imperial favor rather than senatorial election. By the time of his birth, the family had settled in *Italica* (modern Santiponce) in southern Spain, a prosperous town founded by [Scipio Africanus](https://romanempiretimes.com/who-was-the-best-roman-warrior-scipio-africanus-a-man-who-never-lost-a-battle/) in 206 BCE. Italica, strategically located near fertile plains and the River Baetis, thrived as a hub for agriculture and trade, becoming a key part of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/women-in-ancient-rome-lives-shaped-by-society-and-law/)’s lucrative Baetican [olive oil](https://romanempiretimes.com/olive-oil-in-the-roman-empire-how-the-romans-discovered-the-liquid-gold/) industry. ![The view from the Roman amphitheater of Italica, near Santiponce, Sevilla, Spain](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/The-view-from-the-Roman-amphitheater-of-Italica--near-Santiponce--Sevilla--Spain.jpg) The view from the Roman amphitheater of Italica, near Santiponce, Sevilla, Spain. Credits: Jl FilpoC, CC BY-SA 4.0 Baetica’s wealth was evident by the late first century CE, with extensive municipal and private building projects, including the expansion of Italica. The town’s new district, developed during Trajan’s youth, reflected its importance as a center of commerce and culture. Italica’s agricultural success, particularly in olive oil production, was instrumental in the region’s prosperity. Baetican olive oil was highly valued, [transported across the empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/felicitas-lulia-olisipo-lisbon-in-the-roman-times/) in distinctive amphorae, and heavily exported to Rome, where discarded amphorae eventually formed the [Monte Testaccio](https://romanempiretimes.com/monte-testaccio-the-roman-hill-composed-of-53-million-amphorae-fragments-2/). Trajan’s rise was rooted in these advantageous circumstances. His family's wealth, possibly accrued through the olive oil trade and strategic [marriages](https://romanempiretimes.com/marriage-and-separation-in-the-roman-empire-a-historical-perspective-on-divorce/), provided the means for social advancement. By the late first century BCE, Italica's elevation to municipal status under Augustus further enabled families like the Ulpii to enter the equestrian and senatorial orders. His own father’s ascent to the senatorial rank likely reflected this social mobility, marking the beginning of the family’s rise to prominence in Rome. Trajan’s provincial heritage and the wealth of Baetica highlight the interconnectedness of Rome’s provinces with its imperial power. His lineage, though initially viewed as unremarkable, laid the foundation for a ruler who would become celebrated as Optimus Princeps, embodying Rome’s ideals and accomplishments. ![A gravure attributed to Marco Dente, showcasing Trajan fighting the Dacians, from Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-gravure-attributed-to-Marco-Dente--showcasing-Trajan-fighting-the-Dacians--from-Speculum-Romanae-Magnificentiae.jpg) A gravure attributed to Marco Dente, showcasing Trajan fighting the Dacians, from Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae. Credits: The MET, Public domain ### The Making of Optimus Princeps The early life and career of Emperor Trajan, before his historical emergence in 89 CE, are pieced together from limited sources and anecdotes. Raised in a noble family, he likely received a traditional Roman education, heavily influenced by Quintilian’s rhetoric and the classics. Though not known for exceptional academic brilliance, he demonstrated a functional command of [Greek](https://romanempiretimes.com/how-romans-viewed-the-greeks-from-conquest-to-cultural-fusion/) and composed lucid correspondence, such as the [*letters*](https://amzn.to/3Pwqaty?ref=romanempiretimes.com) to Pliny the Younger, which reflect Caesar-like terseness. His military career began with his appointment as *tribunus laticlavius* at a young age, likely serving in legions stationed in Syria under his father’s governance and later on the Rhine. His lengthy service, unusually spanning multiple postings, provided him with critical military and administrative experience. Pliny's [*Panegyricus*](https://amzn.to/3Pwqaty?ref=romanempiretimes.com) praised Trajan's dedication and adaptability, though some claims, like his "*ten years of service*," appear rhetorical rather than factual. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/A-possible-representation-of-Trajan-walking-the-streets-of-Ancient-Rome-as-a-praetor.jpg) ## In 86 CE, Trajan became praetor, marking his entry into higher public service. **A possible representation of Trajan walking the streets of Ancient Rome as a praetor. Illustration: Midjourney* Unlike most patricians, he accepted a legionary command of Legio VII Gemina in Spain, a post far from major conflicts. This command, though modest, positioned him for crucial roles during [Domitian](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-domitian-tyrant-or-reformer/)’s reign, including aiding the emperor during Saturninus’ rebellion. Trajan's loyalty and competence set him on a trajectory that ultimately culminated in his adoption by Nerva and succession to the imperial throne. Trajan’s rise illustrates the interplay of personal ambition, strategic appointments, and fortuitous circumstances, paving the way for his eventual acclaim as *Optimus Princeps*. His early life and service, though marked by routine senatorial duties and military postings, were pivotal in shaping his leadership and securing his legacy. ### The Ethics of Power: Pliny’s Eulogy of Trajan Pliny’s [*Panegyricus*](https://amzn.to/3C8t1Wn?ref=romanempiretimes.com), a significant piece of imperial rhetoric, exemplifies the art of praising Trajan through paradoxical antitheses that highlight his exceptional character. As Pliny proclaims early in the speech: > “Nowhere should we flatter him as a divinity and a god; we are talking of a fellow-citizen, not a tyrant, one who is our father, not our over-lord”. This balance of divine-like qualities and human accessibility defines Trajan’s unique portrayal in Roman panegyric. Pliny employs stylistic techniques, such as juxtaposing opposites, to emphasize Trajan's paradoxical virtues: his *securitas* (confidence) contrasts with *pudor* (modesty), his role as *commilito* (comrade-in-arms) balances with his authority as *imperator* (commander), and his status as *princeps* (emperor) juxtaposes with his humility as *privatus* (citizen). For instance, Pliny marvels at how Trajan combined the responsibilities of an emperor with the modesty of a private citizen: > “You are princeps with the discernment of a privatus”. Trajan’s divine qualities are subtly incorporated without overstating them, a deliberate effort by Pliny to avoid the hubris associated with predecessors like Domitian. He is often likened to a “swift-moving star” who intervenes in human affairs with divine efficiency, but Pliny avoids outright deification, highlighting his humility and his refusal to seek divine honors. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2025/01/Egyptian-relief-panel-from-Dendera--depicting-Emperor-Trajan-in-Egyptian-guise-making-offerings-to-Hathor-1.jpg) ## Eventually, Trajan is described as “most like the gods” but praised primarily for his **humanitas* (humanity). **Relief panel from Dendera, depicting Emperor Trajan in Egyptian guise making offerings to Hathor. Credits: Aidan McRae Thomson, CC BY-SA 2.0* Through paradoxical depictions, Pliny creates a multi-dimensional portrait of Trajan that celebrates his unprecedented ability to embody contradictory virtues harmoniously. This innovative rhetorical style underscores the transformation of imperial ethics, positioning Trajan as an emperor unlike any before him—a model of leadership, morality, and humanity. (*To be and not to be: Pliny's Paradoxical Trajan, by Roger Rees*) _Truncated after 5 MiB. Use `/sitemap.xml` for the complete archive of public content._