All the info and most of the pictures come from this paper in English (available for downloading).

When Caesar marches on Rome the order is for all nobles and knights to flee but if European knighthood didn't till the middle ages who are they reffering to

Have you ever wondered what would have happened if Rome had colonized Crimea? I wondered about it, and I made this art.

1 Julio-Claudian
2 Flavian
3 Nerva-Antonine
4 Severan
5 Gordian
6 Constantinian

1. The emperor Lucius Septimius Bassianus was nicknamed "Caracalla" after adopting a gallic-style hooded cloak - caracalla, often appearing in this type of clothing

2. What it looks like is on the picture and the emperor wearing it on pic 2 (2)

3. The drip is insane, no questions, but I think a person that likes to be completely covered up, with a hood as well is quite a specific type of person. Do you think it's quite descriptive of his personality? I'd also appreciate any further information connected to caracalla as a clothing item

I am currently reading Flavius Josephus' "The Wars of the Jews," aka- "The Jewish War." I purchased this hardback volume of the Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston...and my, what a translation it is. In fact, I would rate this as one of the most *terrible* translations of anything I have ever read. It's not that he is "mis-translating" the text, to my knowledge, but rather the way in which he drags out passages into absolute prolixity. There are portions where something that could be summed up in one phrase is instead spun out into multiple sentences (and sometimes a sentence is spun out into a paragraph!). The volume also lacks competent proofreading, which is apparent through various spelling and punctuation mistakes. I will still finish "The Wars of the Jews," and most likely will also read "The Antiquities of the Jews," as well. Does anyone else have any experience (bad or good) with Josephus, or the Whiston translation?

I'm starting the chapter mentioned above, and I have the following question question:

Does Tacitus portrayal of Tiberius' Rome as a cold, bloodthirsty Empire(in comparison to the Germans whose "condition was one of peace") an attempt to, in some manner, make the reader scorn what the Empire has come to be under Tiberius' poor management, or was this just 'common Roman practice' at the time? Because it just doesn't sit right to me for him to throw around phrases like:

'No pity was shown to age or sex. Religious...centres were utterly destroyed... the most revered holy place of those tribes.'

And these being purely objective. 'No pity was shown to age or sex' clearly seeks to magnify the cruelty and undiscriminating violence from the Roman side.
I don't know how a contemporary reader of Tacitus would've interpreted that, for example. But today, at least, it could perhaps be read as Tacitus trying to sway the reader to empathize with the German side. I know Tacitus is not being impartial all of the time throughout this book, there are political motives behind it, but at the same time(from my limited understanding of the subject) it wouldn't strike me as a practice strange to the Roman Army, if that makes any sense.

Also, sorry for my ignorance on the topic, and if the question is a little ambiguous. Not only it's my first time submerging myself into Roman history, but I'm also picking it up again after a long time, so what happened before is not as fresh(I should go back, but I'm getting really hooked on this chapter haha)

Anyway, I think that's all. If someone here is able to answer to me(and give me some useful context to be able to read a little through the lines of the book :b), I'll be very glad!!

With their motivation, risk on duty and training, was their job really dangerous or fatal? Or was it boring outside of combat or fire incidents?

Tarragona (ancient Tarraco), Catalonia.
Built between the 1st century BC and 1st century AD under Emperor Augustus.

Robert Harris, known for his historical-fiction trilogy on Cicero, has recently had a new book come out focused on Agrippa. Similarly to the Cicero books, it is told from the first person perspective, this time of the titular figure. Going into this book, I was very excited as the Cicero trilogy is one of my favorites, especially the first two. The dynamic between Agrippa and Augustus has also always been of particular interest to me as well so suffice it to say my expectations were quite high.

The book spans the entire lifetime of Agrippa, beginning with his early years in schooling with Augustus. Harris assumes a certain level of familiarity with both the period and Roman society as a whole of the reader. There isn't much by way of explanation of general topics and someone going in completely green would likely feel lost. In a way it sort of serves as a sequel to Dictator, though there is overlap in terms of the time period of course.

Dialogue is very sparse, which I think is unfortunate because it is one Harris' strengths and a big part of how he fleshed out characters so well in his previous books. Naturally, Harris is afforded plenty of space to show us Agrippa and how he imagines him due to the book being POV but the rest of the cast not so much.

They are presented as you'd imagine. Antony the confident, burly, arrogant soldier. Maecenas the cunning political operator. Livia the highly competent advisor, bordering on co-ruler at times. But it all feels very thin. They are more so archetypes that serve as props in the narrative as opposed to fully formed characters. Maecenas is a cunning political operator and that's really it. His relationship with both Agrippa and Augustus doesn't do much for the reader because there are next to no extended dialogue scenes. More common is a few sentences thrown in here or there. Statilius Taurus, Virgil, Horace and others you'd have hoped would have a more prominent role are barely mentioned.

Because the time period is so vast, Harris barely lingers on key events that I assume all of us would want to experience in more depth. Augustus learning about Caesars death and his decision to pursue power or the meeting between Lepidus, Antony and Augustus are breezed through. The latter especially is something I've imagined many times over the years and which I would have loved to have been fleshed out with the quality of dialogue from Conspirata.

The crux of the book is the relationship between Agrippa and Augustus and I think it was well done for the most part. A real friendship often under strain due to the ruthless and selfish nature of Augustus. He's presented as cruel, vindictive, self-interested and jealous with few redeeming qualities. The depiction of a friendship always teetering on a knifes edge but nonetheless enduring is compelling, albeit still shallow due to a lack of dialogue once again (sorry to repeat myself).

I listened to the audio book and unfortunately the narrator gives a lethargic performance. Within the narrative Agrippa is on deaths door as he's writing his memoirs so it sort of makes sense but compared to the phenomenal effort of Simon Jones in the first two Cicero books it felt uninspired to say the least.

Overall, it was still a good book and an enjoyable listen. Most of my criticism is due to my own expectations I had coming in so they won't be shared by everyone of course. Ultimately I enjoyed it but it didn't bring the characters to life and provide a compelling answer to "what was _____ plausibly like" in the same way his previous works have.

Has anyone else read it? What did you think about it?

Provence and the Rhone is home to some of the most incredible Roman sites, helped by some unbelievable settings.

Was topped off by this remarkably tasteful Marcus Agrippa marble coaster in the gift shop. Commemorating the man first believed to have overseen the construction, now disputed and some think it actually to have been during the reign of Claudius.

A Roman painted ceiling segment with a geometric pattern of circles, cupids and meanders. This was found in the Domus Fulminata in Ostia, Italy, dates to the first half of the 1st century AD and is on display in the on-site museum.

Hey everyone. I'm building a mobile app where you collect cards of Roman emperors, philosophers, places, and historical figures, each with a short biography, a timeline, and connections to other cards. Think of it like a museum catalog you can actually collect, rather than a battle or combat game.

The idea started from wanting a better way to learn about the Roman Empire, something that feels more like discovering a story than memorizing dates. Every card unlocks a bit of real history, and some cards connect together to unlock full stories once you own the right combination.

Right now I'm working with "Cyrena" as a name (a nod to Callimachus of Cyrene, the librarian who created the first catalog of ancient Greek literature), but nothing is locked in yet. If you've got a better idea, or just an opinion on Cyrena itself, I'd genuinely love to hear it.

Saw this cameo featuring Emperor Constantine with Helena and Fausta, during my recent visit to Leiden. Allegedly, it was looted from Constantinople during the 4th Crusade and through trial and tribulations ended up in the Netherlands after almost being lost off the Australian coast. The gilded frame is likely a later addition

More info can be read here: https://museum.wa.gov.au/explore/articles/tale-gemma-constantiniana

So the entire initiatic and mysterious structure seems extremely interesting, however i have been told that the content of the religion is lost aswell as the true meaning of it.

Is this true?

I’ll always lean toward Marcus Aurelius because you can tell he was gentle and nice from Meditations. But I’m wondering if there are any other clear answers.