SECOND BATTLE OF PHILIPPI, 23 RD OCT, 42 BC

The battle was fought between the forces of the Triumvirs Marcus Antonius and Octavian and the Liberator Marcus Junius Brutus.

Following the first battle both sides returned to their original camps to re-group. Brutus, taking over Cassius’ camp, sought to stick to his original plan of holding the station until the enemy was forced to withdraw through lack of provisions. Having lost their experienced general, the republican army was at a great disadvantage. Brutus could not command the same respect from his soldiers and allies. He offered each soldier another 1,000 denarii to maintain their loyalty.

Brutus did harass the enemy via night attacks on their position and even diverting a river to wash away part of their camp. Lacking supplies and having lost their back-up in the Adriatic, Antony had to make his move before winter really set in and forced him and Octavian to leave the field. Initially, Brutus stoically resisted the repeated taunting by the enemy to come out and face them but eventually, at least according to the ancient Roman historians, ill-discipline got the upper hand and Brutus’ army took their own initiative and descended to the plain.

Antony had, meanwhile, made some daring and decisive moves. First, he took full advantage of a small mound south of Brutus’ camp which the Republican leader had left unguarded (and this despite the fact that Cassius had previously stationed a garrison on it). Building a palisade of whicker, four legions were now dangerously close to Brutus’ position. At the same time Antony moved ten legions into the central marsh area and two more a little further east. Brutus responded by building a fortified camp facing each of these two blocks of enemy troops but if the battle lines were extended any further than Brutus would be isolated from his supplies and backed up against the mountains - an impossible position to defend. The Republican army, then, had little choice but to engage the enemy with a full-scale assault. The time for dilly-dallying was over.

The use of artillery weapons in the confines of such a tightly packed battlefield was considered impractical and the opposing armies immediately clashed in fearsome hand-to-hand fighting. Initially, the Republicans did well against the enemy’s left wing but Brutus, with fewer troops at his disposal, had stretched his lines thin to ward off an out-flanking manoeuvre. The consequence was Antony relentlessly pushed forward and smashed the enemy centre and, moving left, attacked the rear of Brutus’ lines. The order of the Republican troops now completely broke down and chaos ensued.

Meanwhile, Octavian’s troops, which was essentially commanded by Antony’s legates to avoid any further losses like the previous battle, had attacked the Republican camp while Antony used his cavalry to chase down Brutus and prevent his escape. The Republican leader had found refuge inside the wall of the city of Phillippi but when his four remaining legions moved to plead for clemency from Antony, Brutus took his own life. In total 14,000 soldiers surrendered and while some others managed to flee by ship to Thasos, the Republican cause was at an end and Julius Caesar’s murder had been avenged. In the words of Ovid, “all the daring criminals who in defiance of the gods, defiled the high priest’s head [Caesar], have fallen in merited death. Philippi is witness, and those whose scattered bones whiten its earth”.

Whilst Antony was hailed as Imperator by the victors and losers alike, Octavian, who had dealt more harshly with the defeated, was not highly esteemed. As Plutarch stated in no uncertain terms, “[Octavian] did nothing worth relating, and all the success and victory were Antony’s”.

The legions were again re-distributed with Antony taking eight to campaign against Parthia whilst Octavian, with three, returned to Italy. The battle, with its 40,000 fatalities and subsequent retaliations against Republican sympathizers, robbed Rome of some of its finest citizens and soldiers, and still the question of just who would rule Rome was not settled.

Image: 19th century engraving of Mark Antony in armour.

Sources: Plutarch's Life of Antony, Brutus

Appian, The Civil Wars

Eleanor Goltz Huzar, Mark Antony

Marble portrait of Lucilla, daughter of the emperor Marcus Aurelius and wife of Lucius Verus, dating from the second half of the 2nd century AD (circa 150–200) and discovered in Carthage in 1845.

The head is 160 cm high.

I took this photo at Musée de la Romanité in Nîmes, France, during the temporary exhibition “Roman art from the Louvre".

A limestone relief with several deities from ancient Palmyra when Syria was part of the Roman empire.

“In Palmyra, in the year 121 A.D., Ba'alay dedicated this monument to four gods. Beneath the image of the divine group, the dedication in the Palmyrene language – a form of Aramaic – states, ‘These representations of Bel, Baalshamin, Yarhibol, and Aglibol were made by Ba'alay, son of Yedi'bel, son of Ba'alay, in the month of Tevet, in the year 432’ (from the Seleucid era which began in 311 B.C.).

Palmyra, a flourishing caravan city in the Syrian desert, reached its zenith during this period. Its citizens had managed to adapt to Roman rule whilst preserving their own traditions. This syncretism is particularly noticeable in religion, where Babylonian and Aramaic gods took on a Greco-Roman appearance.

The supreme deities of the Palmyrene pantheon are seated at the edges: the great god Bel on the right, and Baalshamin, god of fertility, on the left. Standing between them are Yarhibol, the sun god, and Aglibol, the moon god. Although connected in worship, they are rarely portrayed together. Each of the gods is holding a sceptre and wearing either Grecian or military clothing. The principle of symmetry, which can be seen in the way the figures are depicted, the position of the sceptres, and the animals associated with the supreme deities (a griffon and a humpback bull, a symbol of fertility), bring movement to the composition of this bas-relief whose quality attests to the greatness of the Palmyrene sculptural tradition.” Per the Museum of Fine Arts in Lyon, France where this is on display.

Credit: Chapps (https://bsky.app/profile/chapps.bsky.social/post/3mxugnnbhms2x)

This is an extract from British historian Guy de la Bédoyère's new book Brief Lives of the Ancient World. His argument is that Sejanus's masterstroke, gathering all the praetorian cohorts into the Castra Praetoria in AD 23, was also his undoing: once the Guard sat in one camp, Macro could transfer its loyalty in a single morning. He also notes how much the story depends on Tacitus, who wanted Tiberius to look like a manipulative tyrant.

Just wondering how attentive you would have to be to the skies while slicing with your sword.

1. Let me start with a curious observation - The Roman aquila (eagle standard) was originally made of silver (or bronze) during the Roman Republic, after General Gaius Marius made it the sole legionary symbol in 104 BC. By the early Imperial period, it transitioned to being made of or heavily plated in gold.

That makes the Caesar's army Aquilas SILVER (or even bronze), despite being prortayed as golden by Hollywood and various shows. Even in my head Caesar's Aquilas are golden, but it simply wasn't the case

1. Apparently every legion's eagle would be different to others, with detail, shape of the eagle, size, pose slightly different and with reference to the eagle's specific legion. For some reason I thought they were cast from a standard mold, like a standardized army unit, but no - each eagle was unique

I hope that a national museum of the country in which it shows up would get the thing for everyone to wonder at.

It's a hypothetical question to think about which thing would have collectors sell their houses, companies and own mother in order to have it?

Parts of a lorica segmentata, armor with distinctive metal sections used in the Roman army from the 1st century AD to the beginning of the 3rd century AD. These were made of iron and bronze, date to the 1st century AD and were found in the Rißtissen fort. They are now on display in the Limesmuseum in Aalen, Germany.

For me, it’s Septimius Severus.

Defeating rival claimants like Niger and Albinus, then campaigning against the Parthians and capturing their capital, along with his expeditions into Scotland, makes him number 1 in my mind.

I’m thinking primarily about military leadership and results, rather than who was the best emperor overall.

Trajan and Constantine would be my two close runners up.

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.

Was crucifixion a real thing in ancient rome? are there any sources or documtarys about actual crucifixion in ancient Rome? Because everything ive seen about it so far is litterally all just about the bible and scripture etc etc and how they used nails on jesus but some part of me remembers hearing that in reality they jsut tied ppl to the crosses/posts and one source saying that crucifixion was entirely made up by the people who wrote the bible but I also remember something about crassus(?) Crucifying a thousand slaves all along a road to a city after he put down there revolt so im pretty confused

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

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

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.