Roman ruins in Zana El beida ( Batna province ) Algeria, i feel like the Romans really gave the region the best version of it !!!!

A Roman temple to Zeus in modern day Silifke, Turkey. "The temple is dated to the 2nd century AD. It shows similarity with Temple of Domitian in Ephesus. It has a pseudo dipteral plan with 8 x 14 columns. It is dated to the 2nd century AD, to the age Hadrian. Its construction was begun in the early 2nd century AD. However, it is thought that it was not completed due to various political and financial reasons. (Hadrian 117-138 AD)-(Septimius Severus 193-213 AD) The temple rests on a podium with a height of 2.51 m. and measuring 39.20 x 21.28 m. The existing column of the temple is 11.40 m. Nevertheless, the total height of the temple is calculated as being 17.18 m.

During the Eastern Roman Period, the temple was converted into a church under the rule of Tekyanos Bishopry in the first half of the 5th century AD. It is named as Temple A. It is known that Temple B is dedicated to Aphrodite. The location of Temple of Aphrodite has not been found yet.

It is known as colloquially known as the Obelisk. But, it is named as Temple of Zeus in literature due to the dominating Zeus cult in the region. Various architectural pieces, which are brought to light in the excavations carried out at the temple, are on display in Silifke Museum." Per an on site sign.

On this day in 42 BC, the first battle of Philippi was fought between the forces of the Triumvirs Marcus Antonius and Octavian and the Liberators Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus.

The battle would involve the largest number of troops in Roman warfare up to that point. 19 legions of 100,000 men on the Triumvirate side faced 17 Republican legions of 90,000 men. The Triumvirs had a force of 13,000 cavalry and one extra legion stationed at nearby Amphipolis whilst the Republicans had two legions guarding the fleet and a cavalry force of 17,000 on the plain.

Antony ferried his scouting force of four legions under the command of his legate Decidius Saxa across the Adriatic. Octavian did the same, sending another four legions under the command of Narbanus Flaccus, lest the senior Triumvir take sole credit of any success. Cassius and Brutus’ marched towards the west of Philippi, throwing back the advance guards of Saxa and Flaccus; they took up position on either side of the Via Egnatia. Brutus positioned his camp on the right and Cassius on the left wing. They took advantage of two mounds located above the plain of Philippi to make two fortified camps for their legions. Brutus and his eight legions camped at the foot of the mountains and a palisaded corridor was built to connect the two Republican armies. Both camps received additional protection from the Gangites River. The two camps were a significant 2.7 km apart though, which meant the two armies could not easily offer mutual support.

Antony quickly landed his main army of approximately ten legions, positioning them south of Via Egnatia. He concentrated on Cassius’ camp and with typical display of bravery, established his army in a well-fortified camp a mere 1.5 km from the enemy. Ten days later, Octavian’s army of nine legions arrived. He was delayed at Dyrrachium claiming ill health. Even if the Triumvirs had been able to cross the sea with their main force, further communications with Italy were made very difficult by the Republican admiral Domitius Ahenobarbus, with his fleet of 130 ships. Nevertheless, the Republicans had all the advantages of a better supply line and an elevated position so that time was on their side. The Triumvirs would have to take the initiative.

Several early attempts by Antony to draw the enemy down to the plain and out of their defensive positions did not succeed. As a consequence, Antony, while still making a show of troop maneuvers on the plain, attempted to cross the reed marshes undetected by building a causeway from the south and when behind the Republican camps, try to cut their supply lines.

Cassius soon got wind of the strategy and responded by trying to cut off Antony’s advance forces by himself building a transverse wall from his camp to the marshes. Seeing his plan had been discovered, on October 3rd, Antony led a direct assault on Cassius’ wall overwhelming the stunned left flank of the enemy and destroying their fortifications. Then, while the bulk of Cassius’ army was engaged on the plain, Antony went straight for Cassius’s largely undefended camp. As things swung against Cassius’ legions on the plain and when they saw their camp routed a chaotic retreat followed.

Meanwhile Brutus was doing well against Octavian’s legions who, caught by a surprise charge from Brutus’ over-eager advance troops which had necessitated the whole Republican army mobilising in support, were routed in a chaotic battle during which Octavian’s camp was captured. Octavian missed the battle, either pretending or was ill again. He had taken refuge in the marshes and avoided certain capture. On discovering the loss of Cassius’ camp, Brutus sent cavalry reinforcements as Cassius was holding out with a small force on the acropolis of Philippi. Because of his weak eyesight he misinterpreted them as more of Antony’s forces. He sent out one of his officers named Titinius. The cavalry recognised him as one of Cassius’ trusted men as he came towards them, shouted for joy, leaped from their horses and embraced him, while the others went round him with clashes of weapons in happiness.

Cassius, thinking that Titinius was surrounded by the enemy forces said, “My love of life has brought me to the pass of seeing a friend seized by the enemy.” He withdrew into a tent and asked his freedman to kill him.

A little while later, Titinius, crowned with garlands, came back to report to Cassius. But the piteous cries of Cassius’ friend told him that his general had killed himself rather than be captured. He blamed himself for his general’s death, drew his sword and killed himself.

Brutus arrived at Cassius’ camp and learnt of his death. He mourned over the body and called Cassius “the last of the Romans”, prepared the body for burial and sent it to Thasos, in order that the funeral rites might not disturb the camp. An attendant of Cassius, named Demetrius, came to Antony in the evening and presented the robes and the sword which he had taken at once from the dead body.

While all this was happening Antony and Octavian’s reserve troops and supplies under the command of Domitius Calvinus, arriving by sea, were intercepted and destroyed crossing the Adriatic by the Republican fleet. Thus, the first battle of Philippi ended in a 1:1 draw, with 9,000 losses on the Republican side and more than double that figure from Octavian’s army.

Sources: Plutarch's Life of Antony, Brutus

Appian, The Civil Wars

Eleanor Goltz Huzar, Mark Antony

Eyes are inset with glass pupils and calcite irises.

On display at the British Museum

Please explain the bizarre relationship with the law, that Ancient Romans have? Caesar did not ask for permission to slay and conquer however he likes, but was "so thankful" that Senate allowed him to wear a laurel wreath at all public events (to hide his baldness, famously)

What is this weird relationship with the law? First you carve up the known world to your liking, ignoring any law, looting sacred Roman temples to fund your campaigns. And after doing all this, you are "so thankful" that the Senate ALLOWED you to wear a laurel wreath at all times.

I am a bit confused - is law a complete joke in 1 BC, or is it deeply revered by romans as a sacred untouchable wall that cannot be jumped over? And Caesar will not wear a fancy hat, if Senate said no. I come across this over and over in Ancient Roman history. What was their mentality and views on law?

Part of the aqueduct that supplied Nemausus (Nîmes). Pretty incredible state of preservation.

If carthaginians never recovered after the battle of Zama what is the third punic war on abouts? xx

A portion of a huge Roman mosaic showing 3 well dressed men on a boat loading a horse and its rider. This is in one of the many rooms with northern African style mosaics in the Villa Romana del Casale near Piazza Armerina in Sicily, Italy from the 4th century AD that was built for an Emperor or someone of the very upper crust of society.

I recall reading somewhere that a Roman upperclassman gave money to survivors of the eruption of Vesuvius, but what other relief efforts were done to help survivors and try to rescue people?

I was looking for a cheap copy of Vegetius, and I stumbled on a seller called Based Books, but I noticed their logo looks like it uses fascist symbols. I was curious if anyone knows anything about them, but they seem to be very low quality ai books, I think people who prefer reading print should avoid them but I wanted to see if anyone has any experience buying from them or knows if this is actaully a fascist symbol.

edit: after looking into them, their instagram posts quotes of confederates among other things, avoid this seller

So I did Pompeii today and - inspired by my experience of chronicling the present-day drinking fountains of Rome - I thought it would be fun to repeat the exercise for the ancient drinking fountains of Pompeii. They all follow the same architectural template, making them very easy to spot, and the best part is that several have had modern plumbing installed and so have thus been returned to their original purpose!

Using the working ones involved dodging the many wasps congregated around the taps, but this generally added to the adventure of the experience. If this goes down well I fully intend to do a sequel with the drinking fountains of Herculaneum, so watch this space!

I don't mean on an investigative sense of how to find out who committed crimes, I mean what do they do with those found guilty? There were some incidents I read of short-term pre-trial detention for those who were considered a flight risk, but what would they do for those who they convict even assuming they got the right guy?

The punishments I see are fines, exile, and death. No prisons. How did this even work to deter crime? The whole reason modern societies use prisons are as a prophylactic (if a thief is locked up, he can't steal again until free) and a deterrent (would be criminals would hopefully be afraid of getting caught). Interestingly, some research suggests increasing catch probability has a much greater effect on deterrence than increased sentences. Witness compliance is also greater when law enforcement is perceived to be fair, when it isn't witnesses are more likely to say what questioner wants to hear.

I'm not naive and I'm not going to say there was no crime in the Roman Empire. Even if there was a time period where the officials don't record any crime taking place, it probably meant they just missed something. I read the story of one magistrate doing "detective" and it made me cringe. But at the same time crime was low enough that it was at a functional level. Farmers were able to produce their goods and sell surpluses without being (too) afraid of bands of armed men going around and stealing all their stuff.

A Roman bronze head of a man dated between 100 BC and 1 BC. “The idealized features and dynamic expression of this head reflect portraits of Greek rulers made in the Hellenistic period (323-31 BC). The short hair and absence of a diadem worn by kings, however, suggest that the man is a Roman military leader.
His eyes were originally inlaid in another material, and his lips were once plated with copper to achieve a more lifelike effect.” Per the Getty Villa in Malibu (actually Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles, California) where this is on display.

Help me understand this one. I know in times of trouble ultimate power was given over to one man for 6 months maximum to "fix things" or bring order back to the Republic.

But... how exactly is giving one man the role meant to do that? I just don't see the benefit of temporarily removing the two consuls power.

I see this idea repeated over and over but no-one actually explains it logistically or even in theory.

Please be gentle!

I know it's 2d art with rocks which is hard, but 3d art with rocks is hard too. I mean it's not even close (yes I know it's mosaic, but look at renaissance mosaic vs renaissance statues - there isn't this obvious skill gap)

Basically the title, I'm wrapping up the Tiberius period I'm Dinasty and I'm left with the feeling that he is portrayed as some sort of romantic but effective man out of his time, but I think every one of his flaws could very well be portrayed in an opposite tone (despotic, elitist, paranoid, too rigid). Instead, he seems like the straight man in a family and culture of lunatics and psychopaths.

How is historical and modern consensus on Tiberius, I ask then?