A French painting by Jean Paul Laurens (1838-1921) from 1880 called The Late Empire: Honorius

"Flavius Honorius (A.D. 384-423) was barely eleven years old when, with his brother Arcadius, he inherited the imperial throne of the crumbling Roman Empire. His inept reign of the western half of the empire was marked by Barbarian invasions and culminated in the sack of Rome in 410. Laurens had a penchant for the more obscure and often macabre subjects from ancient history. In this historical portrait of the child emperor, he presents the boy as a ludicrous figurehead. Honorius wears a vacant expression, his small frame is overwhelmed by lavish imperial garb, his feet dangle over the edge of the gilded throne, and he is barely able to hold up the heavy globe and scepter. Adding to the mockery of the scene is his dramatic and formal frontal presentation, which Laurens likely borrowed from an early Byzantine portrait of the emperor carved in ivory." Per the Chrysler Museum in Norfolk, Virginia, USA where this is on display.

I wanna hear all the unpopular opinions you have on the end of the 2nd and 3rd war.
Let’s have a worthy discussion.

Samuel Hughes reviews Kyle Harper’s From Shame to Sin, which tests the popular story of tolerant pagan Rome crushed by repressive Christianity. Hughes argues it is partly right but misleading. Roman norms were permissive for free men but strict for women, and for men seen as passive, as the lost Lex Scantinia suggests. Christianity restricted sex more broadly and held a darker view of desire, but extended some protection to people with few rights: a law of 428 banned forcing women into prostitution. Hughes stresses that this concern was inconsistent and ancient practice often persisted. How well does the sources’ picture of elite male sexual freedom hold for ordinary Romans, and how much did late antique law change in practice?

Source: Works in Progress

Some pictures I took in Uthina.
I still can't believe I live 20 minutes from here.
The further building has some interesting mosaics, as well as an amazing view, I did not have enough time to take pictures inside as they were closing.

As, everyone knows, Rome's institutions mainly its self-rule institutions and republican tribunals worked for a city-state only and acted so chaotic, that it can only get sustained by constant warfare externally.

After, Carthage was destroyed, Romans have turned on themselves, spending a long century of civil wars.

What, fascinates me, is why, Romans couldn't have just said, "our system sucks so hard we can only keep it working with a monarch"?

They should have left Caesar run things as dictator for life instead of assassinating him especially given his extraordinary benevolence. They should have made a system of succession. They should have abandoned their institutions earlier.

Instead they kept trying to safeguard their institutions.

It's actually insane they have even bothered to save their bloody institutions once let alone countless times despite many times facing chaos before an emperor restoring order again.

Why such obstinacy?

The softened portrait on my Caesar denarius comes from a worn die, still being used to strike silver as preparations for his next campaign gathered pace. Following Bernhard Woytek’s interpretation, this issue helped finance the planned expedition against Parthia. The continued use of that die may reflect the pressure to have the money ready for his departure.

According to Appian, Caesar was due to leave Rome on 18 March, 44 BC. He was assassinated on the 15th, just three days before his intended departure.

What if he had made it? Could Caesar have defeated the Parthians and held what he conquered? And what sort of Rome would have awaited his return?

A Roman portrait head of an unknown man that dates to about 50 BC, which if the dating is correct is right before Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and marched on Rome which took place in January 49 BC. The artist who made it plus the man depicted (if he was still alive) must have seen a lot in their lives. This is in a private collection and no provenance was mentioned in the temporary exhibition when I photographed it last year.

Following the Vandal sack of Rome in 455 AD, the Gallo-Roman magister militum Avitus was proclaimed Emperor with the support of his Visigothic allies. He travelled to Rome, but found that neither the devastated locals nor the Senate acknowledged his rule. He fled back to Gaul, gathered support, then marched on Italy.

On October 18, 456, Avitus attacked the Senate's much larger force led by Ricimer at Placentia. Avitus' army was massacred and he was deposed. Ricimer spared his life, temporarily giving Avitus the rare distinction of Former Roman Emperor. Instead, Ricimer appointed Avitus Bishop of Placentia, the very city of his defeat.

Avitus' imperial retirement did not last long. According to Gregory of Tours, the Senate condemned Avitus several months later. Avitus again tried to flee to Gaul, but died on the journey.

In the ruins of ancient Troy: "Before you is the Roman Odeion, a small theater where lectures, and other events took place, beyond it you see the fortification wall of Troia Vi and the single column surviving from the large Pillar-House of the same period. Behind you stand the partially excavated remains of baths from Roman Imperial times. The baths, the Odeion, and the nearby Bouleuterion (council chamber) all lay on the fringes of the agora (marketplace), the central stage of public life. The semicircular orchestra of the Odeion was tied to a skene (stage building) that included an over lifesize representation of the emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138). Facing the stage rose tiers of seats fashioned from limestone blocks and accessed by radial aisles. The seating capacity was somewhere between 1700 and 2100 spectators. The Odeion may have been erected in honor of Hadrian's visit to Troy in AD 124, when the nearby tomb of Ajax was also rebuilt. The Odeion was probably roofed even though no exterior supporting walls have been recovered." Per an on site sign in the ruins near modern day Çanakkale, Turkey.

I recently finished painting this 54mm white metal diorama depicting Late Roman legionnaires in the aftermath of a battle.

I wanted to capture a quieter moment in Roman military history not the fighting itself, but the exhausted soldiers standing together after the battle.

The Late Roman army is a fascinating period to explore, especially with the changes in equipment, uniforms, and military organization compared to the earlier Imperial legions.

This artifact belongs to a style known as a Vessberg Type 12 lamp, likely crafted in Italy or Cyprus

Held at the MET Museum, not on view

Hey all!

Apologies if this is against the community guidelines, delete it so obvs!

Sadly can no longer go to this event but noticed that the stalls are nearly sold out. Don’t want these to go to waste as they’re pretty great tickets. It’s Row F, Seats 16 & 17 (might be able to check the view on A view from my seat or something). They were £114, willing to listen to offers. Gutted I can’t go, will be insanely jealous of the person that does go but if anyone is interested, let me know ☺️

“Mummy mask. Egypt, Roman Period, 2nd century A.D. Gilded plaster.
This mask would have covered the upper part of a bandaged mummy. A young woman is represented wearing elaborate jewelry including a ring, earrings, a necklace, and a pair of snake bracelets. A similar ring and earrings are exhibited nearby. Lent by Paul Tripp” Per the description in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, Massachusetts, USA where this object was on a temporary loan from a private collection when I photographed it.

Unlike the Celts, the Romans cannot claim to have conquered the Germanic peoples on anything like the scale of Caesar's conquest of Gaul. They never managed to permanently subjugate most of Germania east of the Rhine, and their most substantial attempt to consolidate control over the region ended in disaster at Teutoburg Forest.

Sure, Germanicus subsequently defeated the coalitions led by Arminius, but these were notoriously unstable alliances between competing tribes. People sometimes act as though Germanicus's victories prove that Rome could have easily conquered Germania, when defeating individual coalitions is not the same as permanently subjugating an entire region. Had Germanicus attempted to push further into Germania and establish permanent Roman control, he could easily have provoked another rebellion on the scale of Teutoburg. The idea that further conquest would have been an easy victory, as some popular historical discussions seem to suggest, is highly questionable.

Modern archaeology has shown, in my view, that Germanic societies were considerably more sophisticated than Roman stereotypes often gave them credit for. In the popular imagination, it's almost as if they went from a prehistoric level of development to fielding heavy cavalry in the 3rd century

I mean, do we really think the sophisticated societies of Anglo-Saxon England and the Carolingian Empire just sprang up out of nowhere after the fall of Rome? The late Roman Empire had already become increasingly reliant on soldiers and commanders of Germanic origin, many of whom served in prominent positions within the Roman military. These peoples already possessed established military traditions, political structures and sophisticated craftsmanship long before the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

It was far more complicated than barbarians swarming the Roman Imperium.

Firsthand Rome was more of a hegemony with many non-Romans incorporated than a unified cultural empire as most even amongst elites have rejected Romanisation.

Secondhand Germanics haven't done much to destroy the Roman Hegemony as Romans have done that themselves since they couldn't have bothered with finding an commercial system without chattel-based or land-bound serfdom alongside plundering for their empire which has led to their bankruptcy.

In Rome's final days, oligarchic elites often avoided taxation and have shifted almost all burden on common and serf workers.

Many cities and towns have welcomed their Germanic barbarian invaders as liberators and have opened the gates including Rome's serfs itself.

• To quote a Roman writer:

• De Gubernatione Dei by Salvian of Marseilles (On the Governance of God, written around 440 AD).

• Online-Source: https://sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu/source/salvian1.asp

In what respects can our customs be preferred to those of the Goths and Vandals, or even compared with them? And first, to speak of affection and mutual charity (which, our Lord teaches, is the chief virtue, saying, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another "), almost all barbarians, at least those who are of one race and kin, love each other, while the Romans persecute each other. For what citizen does not envy his fellow citizen ? What citizen shows to his neighbor full charity?

[The Romans oppress each other with exactions] nay, not each other : it would be quite tolerable, if each suffered what he inflicted. It is worse than that ; for the many are oppressed by the few, who regard public exactions as their own peculiar right, who carry on private traffic under tile guise of collecting the taxes. And this is done not only by nobles, but by men of lowest rank; not by judges only, but by judges' subordinates. For where is the city ­ even the town or village ­ which has not as many tyrants as it has curials ? . . . What place is there, therefore, as I have said, where the substance of widows and orphans, nay even of the saints, is not devoured by the chief citizens? . . .

None but the great is secure from the devastations of these plundering brigands, except those who arw themselves robbers.

[Nay, the state has fallen upon such evil days that a man cannot be safe unless he is wicked] Even those in a position to protest against the iniquity which they see about them dare not speak lest they make matters worse than before. So the poor are despoiled, the widows sigh, the orphans are oppressed, until many of them, born of families not obscure, and liberally educated, flee to our enemies that they may no longer suffer the oppression of public persecution. They doubtless seek Roman humanity among the barbarians, because they cannot bear barbarian inhumanity among the Romans. And although they differ from the people to Whom they flee in manner and in language; although they are unlike as regards the fetid odor of the barbarians' bodies and garments, yet they would rather endure a foreign civilization among the barbarians than cruel injustice among the Romans.

So they migrate to the Goths, or to the Bagaudes, or to some other tribe of the barbarians who are ruling everywhere, and do not regret their exile. For they would rather live free under an appearance of slavery than live as captives tinder an appearance of liberty. The name of Roman citi'en, once so highly esteemed and so dearly bought, is now a thing that men repudiate and flee from. . . .

It is urged that if we Romans are wicked and corrupt, that the barbarians commit the same sins, and are not so miserable as we. There is, however, this difference, that the barbarians commit the same crimes as we, yet we more grievously. . . . All the barbarians, as we have already said, are pagans or heretics. The Saxon race is cruel, the Franks are faithless, the Gepidae are inhuman, the Huns are unchaste, ­ in short, there is vice in the life of all the barbarian peoples. But are their offenses as serious as ours? Is the unchastity of the Hun so criminal as ours? Is the faithlessness of the Frank so blameworthy as ours? Is the intemperance of the Alemanni so base as the intemperance of the Christians? Does the greed of the Alani so merit condemnation as the greed of the Christians? If Hun or the Gepid cheat, what is there to wonder at, since he does not know that cheating is a crime? If a Frank perjures himself, does he do anything strange, he who regards perjury as a way of speaking, not as a crime?

Fell down a rabbit hole learning about the post-476 Roman lands in North Africa. Roman North Africa fragmented into a series of Romano-Berber petty kingdoms, mixing Roman and African cultures.

The Kings called themselves “Imperator” or “Rex”, followed Christianity, maintained Roman laws, but spoke Berber/Amazigh and for the most part, were ethnically African.

The kingdoms were eventually all conquered by the Caliphate, though not without some admirable resistance (like from Warrior-Queen Dihya, who herself is deeply fascinating), and a lot of the Roman culture was lost to history.

Interestingly, some remnants of Roman culture (or at least the legacy/memory) survived the centuries.

When the French colonized North Africa, they actually found some communities claiming descent from the Romano-Berbers.

“In his 1903 work L'Algerie dans l’antiquité, French archaeologist Stephane Gsell alleged that Berber peasants in some areas of the and Aires and Greater Kabyle regions claimed to be descendants of the Romans. In 1904 and 1905, other reports was published alleging that the Zkara tribe in Morocco claimed to be Christians and "descendants of the Romans.”

This is the only image of Uppåkra In Sweden I can find online from the 6th century+. This site was transformed around 200 A.D. and grew into this from from there. More interesting are the site's origins from around 200 A.D.

It looks like a standard "Germanic" village right? But what If I told you that hall was modelled on a basilica within the principia of a castellum. Next to the Basilica is the Sacellum, a shrine to gods, sacred items, the standards and imperial family. The equivalent is the germanic sacred place that is the tall building in the image next to the hall.

In a camp we would see the via principalis cut through the site as we see the main street in the image. Archaeology suggests an earlier orthogonal street cut across it, but it looks like its not visible in the later site.

The site also has some very interesting environmental archaeology. Uppåkra also displays the first evidence of Roman ingredients found in Scandinavia. They found seeds of dill, parsley, cress, parsnips, turnips cabbage and mustard. These ingredients are found most intensely nearer 200 A.D. and diminish with time. All are common plants found in Roman gardens.

What archeologists think happened is unemployed Auxilia from after the marcomannic wars went up to Scandinavia to settle. They of course continued what they learnt in the Roman Army and brought their culinary tastes and soldiering ways with them.

I find it fascinating that the idea of a germanic warriors who stayed in large halls might have its origins in Auxilia reimagining their time being entertained in a basilica by their roman commander. Even the gifting has roman parallels. Roman commanders and emperors gave donatives to their followers. Often Armillae, torques, phalerae(Armillae are arm rings) as rewards to the brave. In the poem Beowulf, attested are the lords as 'ring givers', both earmbeag (arm ring) and healsbeag (neckring) are attested as gifts just like the dona militaria.

MET collection

Posted about my WIP a while back. Got the first test print off the printer today.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ancientrome/comments/1wxjygg/roast_my_wip_attempt_to_create_a_3d_printable/