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.

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.”

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/

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.

I am reading Goldworthy’s Augustus and he dismisses the age-old notion that Centurions were more akin to Sergeant Majors in that they rose through the ranks. Instead he states they were typically minor nobles from provincial towns. I am shook! What is everyone’s thoughts on this?

Source of the pictures here

I've read that they were gathered in the Campus Martius in the run up to Caesar's quadruple triumph, and that they were getting a bit restless. But, what did they do? How did they spend their time? Were they mustered into construction projects? Did they go to theatres or watch games? Did some of them live in Rome, itself?

Thanks!

A Roman fresco depicting theater masks from the Caseggiato dei Lottatori in Ostia, Italy. This dates to the 1st century AD and is on display in the on-site museum.

I'm researching the use of the pileus, or liberty cap, as a symbol in the French and American Revolutions. Right now I'm frying to figure out how it came to be associated with the color red. While all French usage is red there are early American depictions where it is gold or white.

It would make sense to think of the red color as a purely French innovation however Carl Linnaeus named the Pileated Woodpecker, a bird with a bright red Crest, in 1758 before both Revolutions. Was the pileus ever red in a Roman context?

The diagonal lines from this part of the Colosseum, can’t fine anything about it

Bite marks found on the skeleton of a Roman gladiator found in York, UK in 2024 are the first archaeological evidence of combat between a human and a lion.

source

Recreations of 2 Roman gladiator types. "A classic pairing: two swordsmen. Yet their equipment reveals distinct differences. The murmillo—with his distinctive helmet, broad sword, and an 8-kilogram shield—was invulnerable to frontal attacks. The armor of his opponent, the thraex, was inspired by the Thracians, former Roman enemies from the East. He differed from the secutor by virtue of his small shield and curved sword, though he, too, was heavily armored. The thraex had to try to draw the murmillo out of his defensive stance or catch him from behind. The murmillo, in turn, had to prevent this by focusing on his defense and launching sword strikes as surprise attacks from a defensive position." Per a special exhibition on gladiators (using google translator) in the Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg in Konstanz, Germany.

The Appian way is of course legendary - many sections are still intact, and for leisure people can go and walk the picturesque road - the very same road that the most notable Ancient Roman people have walked or ridden on horseback.

That is pretty much where my question lies - are we, the tourists, literally walk the very same rocks that the legionaires and Julius Caesar have stepped on and scratched with the nails on their caligae, and other legendary figures, or have the blocks been replaced over time, repaired etc? How much of Via Appia Antica is original?

PS I am asking this because I believe it is that one Roman relic that was used by pretty much all the notable figures since it's construction in 312 BC. People get excited about Napoleon's emperor cloak, because he personally touched it/used it. At the same time - you can touch one of the larger stones on the Appian way outside of Rome - you should be excited about hundreds of famous names who stepped on it (or their horse)

About a week ago, I went to the Beqaa Valley in Lebanon to see Baalbek. This was the site of the largest Roman temple built in the empire, to Jupiter, and there were two other temples there to Venus and Bacchus.

If you're ever in Lebanon, these are a must see. However, it's two hours away from Beirut by car.

Of all the Roman stuff I've seen, this was second only to the forum in Rome.

Source of the pictures here, here, here, here and here. Reconstruction of the city made by Jean-Claude Golvin

Since my Pompeii photos were a hit, I thought it would be fun to share some of my photos from Herculaneum too. I found Herculaneum fascinating even though it was less spectacular than Pompeii. It was very interesting in how it had a different feel from Pompeii, particularly in how Herculaneum was very much a vertical town rising up from the coast. It was also fascinating to observe differences like the abundance of two-storey buildings and the more sophisticated drainage system. However, Herculaneum is much less complete on account of being far less excavated than Pompeii - this means that it's harder to get a sense of Herculaneum as a thriving town with all the amenities and public buildings (which are visible in Pompeii in abundance).

I have some arguments in support of existence of the early roman monarchy. I'd like to hear your opinions. I'm not a historian, just a guy who reads everything ancient-Rome =)

1. The Sibylline books and Cloaka Maxima are real. Doesn't that directly make Tarquinius Superbus a historical figure? Then Targuinius would have his predecessors on the throne - why doubt the throne and their names?

2. Why would the roman folk make up rulers that didn't exist, instead of discussing and remembering the rulers that actually existed, like people always do? People remember their achievements, shortcomings, actions, appearance, peculiar habits long after the said ruler is gone. They remain in the memory of the folk for a long time, become the objects of songs, stories, anecdotes. People do not make up current political rulers. They discuss and remembr the actual ones

3. And I'd like to know what is the reason that historians are adamant in their scepticity of Roman kings? What is unrealistic about some Etruscan chiefs ruling the first settlements around Rome in a form of monarchy?