Ancient Rome - The Kingdom, Republic & Empire

New policy per user request. Sorry to be a fun killer but this subreddit does better with more substantive content. /r/RoughRomanMemes is a great place for multi-track meming.

I was reading a medieval work commissioned in 1252 by Alfonso X of Castile called “Estoria de España”. In a section about the founding of Seville there is a story about Pompey and Caesar, the statue of Alexander and a strange dream. Idk I found it funny and wanted to share it.

“…and he (Hercules) put there six great pillars of stone and he placed on top of them a very great slab of marble upon which were written large letters which said: “The great city will be founded here”. And on top of this he put a stone stone figure, and it had one hand towards the east, and on the palm of the hand was written: “Hercules reached this point”, and the other hand faced downwards, pointing to the letters on the marble with one finger. And so it was that, in the time of the Romans when they were the lords of the world, there was a great disagreement between Julius Caesar and Pompey, who were father-in-law and son-in-law, and both emperors. In Rome, it was decided to send Pompey to the east, and Julius Caesar to the west, to conquer all the lands which did not yet obey Rome, and they were told to return to Rome in five years, and if either of them did not do this, they would not be received as emperor any more. In those five years, Pompey conquered all of the lands of the east, but Julius Caesar, in the space of five years, conquered only as far as Lerida, which is a city in Spain, in the land known as Catalonia. And as Lucan, who wrote this story, tells us, when these five years had passed, the Romans ordered him to return, and if he did not, he would not be received as emperor. Caesar, in contempt, did not wish to do this, but said that since he was an emperor he would take another five years to finish what he had started. And so, in the other five years that he took, he conquered the whole of Spain. And when he reached that place where the city of Talica was first founded, it seemed to him that it was not in a good place, and he went to find another place to rebuild it. And when he came to the place where were to be found the pillars on which Hercules had put the statue, he looked at the great slab of marble which was scattered broken in pieces on the ground. And when he saw the letters, he ordered the pieces to be put together and he read that this was where the great city was to be built. So he ordered it to be moved from where it was and rebuilt there where it is to this day, and he gave it the name Ispalis, just as it had first been called when it was built on stakes of wood in a place called Almedina, which is near Cadiz. And according to Lucan, after he had rebuilt the city he went to Cadiz, where there was a great city. There he found a temple which the people of that place had made in honour of Hercules, and amongst the images in the temple he found one of king Alexander, and everyone said that this statue was Alexander’s likeness in size and looks. And when Caesar saw it, he spent a long time looking at it and thinking. And then he said that if Alexander had been so small of body and so ugly, and yet had done so many good and great deeds, he, who was so large and handsome would surely do as great, or even better deeds. And while he was thinking this, he went to his house and he dreamed that night that he impregnated his mother. On the next day, he called for a fine seer who he always had with him, and he told him what he had thought and dreamed. 15 The seer explained his dream, and told him that his mother was the land, and just as he put her beneath him and dominated her, so he would conquer that land and be lord of everything. So he went from there and went to Rome, and afterwards he was lord of the world, just as his history relates. But now we return to speak of Hercules, to tell of his deeds in Spain.”

So I was thinking, in Italia and the western portion of the Roman Empire, they used the Roman monetary standard of dupondii, sestertii and denarii, but the eastern provinces such as Roman Syria and Roman Egypt used the original Greek monetary standard of drachmae. Wouldn’t it be easier for Rome to establish their own monetary standard on these eastern provinces, both as a way to show dominance over the peoples living there as well as Romanizing them. Also, it would greatly benefit the convenience of trade between Rome and the Eastern Provinces as Roman traders didn’t have to convert their denarii into drachmae to be used in the eastern provinces.

I've heard from somewhere that the Romans produced so many artifacts that every other civilization until the 18th century or so pales in comparison; according to Clair Cameron Patterson, "At its proposed peak around the mid-2nd century AD, Roman stock is estimated at 10 000 tonnes, five to ten times larger than the combined silver mass tonnage of the entirety of Europe and the Caliphate around 800 AD." Now, I'm not interested in comparing with post-Roman Europe as I am with other civilizations such as the medieval Chinese, which was also thought of having another proto-industrial revolution, and the medieval Arabs which was at their golden age at their time.

I know that the Romans were pretty impressive, but I'd like to know if the numbers were as true as claimed. It's something that I can't stop thinking about.

He absolutely did commit (or allow) war crimes (AVARICUM). But not what we would define as 'genocide' (as per the UN or Lempkin definitions) - the intention to destroy a group of people in part or in whole.

For a start, there's the issue of numbers. It was the later historian Plutarch, not Caesar, who gave the 'killed 1 million, enslaved 1 million out of a population of 3 million' number. This number, as with all ancient writers, should be taken with a heavy grain of salt due to the immense size and is most likely an exaggeration. Modern archaeological evidence instead seems to suggest that the pre-conquest population was in the 8-10 million range instead.

Most of the Gallic population, it seems, survived the war considering the fact that later Roman villas have been mostly found on the site of old Gallic farms. This indicates a continuity of elites in Gaul which followed a Roman model. As we now understand it, Roman 'colonisation' was not colonisation in the same sense that we think of today with the European colonial empires of the early modern period. It was a conquest, not a colonisation. The native population was not inhibited from social mobility within the new social order and the land wasn't made poor for the benefit of the metropole. Gaul was integrated into the Roman state, not destroyed, and Celtic culture continued to exist as late as the 4th century AD.

So, on a national level, Caesar didn't commit genocide. His motives for conquest were based on gaining personal prestige and glory, not a desire to ethnically cleanse or destroy a block of peoples to then completely repopulate the land with his own. The fact that he was willing to work with other tribes during the conquest and had no problems ruling over the Gauls in the already Roman provinces of Cisalpine Gaul in northern Italy doesn't point to him having any issues with the Gauls on a racial basis.

But what about on a localised level, where individual tribes apparently were destroyed? This is something which, again, doesn't seem to fit the term genocide. Most of the major recorded casualties of the conquest occured after the various battles, when the retreating men were pursued and cut down by the Romans. This was fairly standard practice for armies in the day (and can be seen in other examples like the Second Punic War with Hannibal) and was about stopping the enemy from regrouping, not destroying their ethnic character.

And in numerous other examples, the families of the combatants in battles were pursued by the Romans not to exterminate, but to enslave (ancient Romans saw war prisoners and their relatives automatically as slaves). Horrible? Yes. Genocide? No, the intent was financial, not racial/ethnic. The Gallic war was filled with mass killings (as would be the better word to use in these circumstances) but not mass genocide.

It baffles me how, when addressing this topic, someone can go on something like r/askhistorians and find about three posts responding to Gallic genocide question where the response is a resounding, informative 'no'. But whenever discussion of the topic crops up in the Romaboo subreddits or other online spaces it's taken and discussed as an undisputed fact that 'yes, genocide was committed during the Gallic Wars'.

Edit: Seeing as there's been a bit of pushback here and there, I think it's worth linking posts from r/askhistorians responding to this topic:

• https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1t4eke/can_the_gallic_war_of_caesar_be_considered_as/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7ionw9/how_accurate_is_dan_carlins_characterization_of/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dhr0xy/did_caesar_commit_genocide_in_gaul/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/iu3b9d/during_the_gallic_wars_around_13_of_the_gauls/

Edit 2: Actually, the top comment mentioning the Eburones as an example of genocidal action during the Gallic wars is completely right. Even if it's believed that Caesar didn't completely wipe them out, there was still an intent to do so regardless of how much he embellished what happened. I will remove my comment responding to it and apologise for misunderstanding and looking over that example, especially when looking over the fourth link I posted the genocidal intent there isn't properly pushed back against. Sorry about that.

I’m looking for pointers as to where to start with learning about Ancient Rome as somebody who knows very little about the subject

Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated!

Looking for any recommendations for Websites that show any and all kinds of information on past present and future Roman archaeology news and info.

Edit: like for example, stuff on Pompeii- items , paintings etc

I'm writing a fantasy/alternate world novel. For some of the cultures in that world I have drawn inspiration from Ancient Rome. But they don't speak Latin or anything similar to that. Upper class women wear a garment that's basically a stola. Is there another word for that garment in English? Or is that Latin word what English uses, too. My question is because I'm wondering if that's the word I should use even though they don't speak Latin.

[Image]

Constantine would soon lay siege to Byzantium, as both emperors fought for control of the narrow waters separating Thrace and Asia Minor. His son Crispus pulled off a naval victory over Licinius much larger fleet at the Battle of Hellespont, as Constantine crossed into Bithynia and defeared Licinius at Chrysopolis, that would see the end of Tetrarchy. He became the first man to be master of entire Roman world since Maximian was elevated as co-emperor by Diocletian in 286.

This is a random and minor thing, not a huge deal at all, but it has me curious how even on Wikipedia now most pages reiterate many times how sources A, B, and C are biased and may not be entirely accurate. Like...no shit? We've always known sources have biases to various degrees, human nature and all of that. Of course there are going to be biases we have to control for, be it Caesar's Gallic writings or Tacitus or whoever. It seems now it's a requirement to state this as part of any post. I bet not a single person on this sub was unaware of bias being a thing yet it bears repeating to infinity and beyond.

It has become so over-emphasized to the point that many people simply spin their wheels about how nothing in the sources can be trusted and everything can be questioned to such a degree that they end up saying nothing at all. This doesn't make you sound enlightened. It makes you a milksop. The most important part of historiography is acknowledging biases exist but still being able to wade through said bias and form a rational opinion about the truth of what happened.

This post was inspired by a pro-Caligula post that argued he was actually a decent guy all his life and was just the victim of a PR-smear campaign by writers with evil, unforgivable bias. The horror!

Trans.: "Captured is the city which once held the whole world captive"

What was the typical ancient Roman diet? What evidence do we have (if any)?

We all know about Caesar, Augustus, and Cicero, but Roman history is full of fascinating characters who don't get as much attention. I'm curious about the lesser-known Romans you find intriguing?

Maybe it's a minor historical figure who played a pivotal role, an overlooked writer or artist, or just someone with an unusual story.

Who's your favorite obscure Roman, and what makes them interesting to you?

I was wondering if anyone knewhow to get a hold of the unabridged versions of the audiobooks by Colleen Mcullough?

I started reading them a few years back but don’t really have much time to sit down and read books these days.

I can only seem to find the abridged versions on audible etc.

Hope it’s not the wrong place to ask.

Hey,

I'm very curious about Nero currently and I am wondering if there is any good book I can grav that has a comparably good story telling and is understandable.

I have heard of Tacitus annales, but that is not just about Nero and also seems not so much ... Specific? Or rather it has a strange writing style, at least the translation I grabbed.

I would love if someone has a good recommendation in English or preferably German hehe.

Thank you

Help me with my D&D game. I like to draw from real world historical and mythical sources, and right now what I’m theory crafting in my head is that the players are part of a “Scandinavian” clan and will get sent on a Viking expedition to pilfer some kind of artifact that has been hidden away in a fort. The idea is that the place the players are going is basically Britannia, and my version of “Rome” are kind of just barely clinging to power there as these invasions begin to happen. Sorry for all of the context, now we get to my question: what is the artifact that is being protected? It should have religious significance(note the “Romans” in this setting aren’t Christian yet, time is a weird soup) and be powerful. An interesting idea that I have is that it might even be dangerous, and might be locked away for the good of the people as opposed to being something valuable.

This can be an actual mythological thing or something you came up with, I’m just looking for good ideas and thought I’d ask the experts.

The relationship between the emperors after Constantine and the Imperial Church is something that I am interested in but haven’t been able to find much information about. I know, for example, that emperor were able to call councils (Like Nicaea) but I have a hard time believing that the holders of the office of Emperor of Rome (Western or Eastern) would be okay ceding all religious authority to the church. How involved were the emperors in church affairs, and was there a difference between east and west in that regard?

Further reading recommendations on this topic and late antiquity in general are always welcome.