The Roman Illyrici Rulers: Strong Soldiers to Stronger Emperors

When asked to picture Roman emperors, many may think of men dressed in glistening togas, perhaps those famous figures to which we owe the months July and August. Others may think of tyrannical figures like the emperor Nero, or the Stoic Marcus Aurelius. What these emperors have in common is the time in which they exist, all residing in a time of general prosperity for the Roman empire from roughly 27BC-180 AD. However, many often don’t hear of the figures and people in the between classical antiquity and the early Middle Ages, roughly 235-700 AD. There is a very rich history here. A history that laid the groundworks for medieval Europe. A history filled with migrations of highly impactful populations. A history where a seemingly invincible empire was changed to its very foundations. In a time of widespread chaos, known as the ‘crisis of the third century’, the Roman Empire was shaken to its core. Emperors were proclaimed left right and center (an astounding 26 recognized rulers in a 50-year period), and those left in charge were constantly in a battle to maintain control. The military remained the strongest institution in this time, and what continued to emerge were powerful generals taking the throne. Many of them called the Balkans their home, known as ‘Illyricum’, and would later be referred to as the ‘barracks emperors’, or the ‘Genius Illyrici’.

Dylan Cross explains.

A medallion of Diocletian. Source: CNG, available here.

Diocletian

After a long twenty-one-year reign, Diocletian retired to his palace in Split, Croatia, in 305 AD. He stabilized the frontiers, reformed the administration system and brought in a new era for the Roman Empire. He was the first emperor to voluntarily retire his position; one of the few to die peacefully. He had set up a system known as the Tetrarchy (rule of four), in which the empire was divided between four emperors of equal position to ensure there was a base of power in all corners of Europe. Diocletian had ruled over the eastern portion of the state. Turkey, Egypt and Syria, conveniently the richest provinces in the pot. This begs the question, why retire to the coast of Croatia rather than the rich eastern empire he had governed for so long? We know he was born here, in the ancient town of Solin (now a suburb of Split). The sources claim he was of a lowborn position, perhaps even a freed slave (Eutropius. 9.19). The town must have held importance to him, enough for him to build an extraordinary palace (although more a fortress in retrospect) and remain here until the end of his life after abdicating. Famously, when asked by his old comrades to return to the throne, he is claimed to have said:

 “If you could see at Salonae the cabbages raised by our hands, you surely would never judge that a temptation”. - Epitome de Caesaribus. 39.5

Illyria as a region was certainly held with pride by those from it. The empire was vast, and soldiers came from every corner of its territory. But Illyria is perhaps one of the most significant in the time of the third century crisis and beyond it, and many emperors owed their power to the growing power the military could grant, and the significance that hailing from Illyria could bring them.

What was the crisis of the third century?

Let’s go back in time. It’s the middle of the third century, and the frontiers of Illyria held one of the highest concentrations of soldiers. There is an estimate of seventeen legions (Southern, 2016, p.431) attested under the reign of Gallienus (253-268 AD), who reigned during one of the most troubling times of the empire. It’s important to see what the troubles were at this time and what made it a crisis. During the third century, there was intense internal conflict in Rome. Many emperors were assassinated, revolts were commonplace, and usurpations were a constant threat. Another large pressure was coming from external threats. Large numbers of tribes were pressing inwards onto the frontiers, most notably the Rhine and the Danube frontiers which encompassed the largest stretch of what the Romans had to defend. These troubles reached a critical stage between 250-270 AD, when there were 2 break-away empires, the Gallic and Palmyrene Empire.

What did this mean for the army?

This had significant consequences for the army and demonstrated that power remained with the soldiers. It was famously said by the emperor Septimius Severus on his deathbed:

“Enrich the soldiers, scorn everyone else”- 211 AD - Cassius Dio. Roman History. 77.15.2

Without the army’s support, the emperor couldn’t maintain control, which was the reason for such political insecurity and so many usurpers. Therefore, the army of the third century had to evolve. Evidently, there was a shift to recognize the talents of capable generals rather than promoting prestigious names and wealthy citizens. The senatorial order had traditionally held the role of controlling high level magistracies and military posts. For example, a Senatorial Legatus(magistrate) had traditionally commanded the legion, but this was increasingly replaced by an equestrian prefect (Goldsworthy, 2003, p.201). Emperor Gallienus (253-268 AD) had further propelled the soldiers onto the career ladder. He continued the movement to remove the power of the Senate from the military (Aurelius Victor. De Caesaribus. 33), instead granting more roles to gentry classes known as the ‘Equites’. This would make it far more accessible for capable generals to attain military positions, replacing the old elite structure with those from a less elite stock. As well as this, Gallienus began recruiting soldiers for his personal entourage, known as the ‘Protectores’. This had existed before his time, but with the increased military demand due to the many threats of the century, it was advanced to new levels. Gallienus began recruiting soldiers from Illyria into his Protectores (Stoev, 2020), in turn making them a significant part of the military and their prestige. Stoev presents a detailed description of how ‘barbaric’ elements of the population of Illyria were becoming integrated with the more Romanized soldiers of the region. Therefore, Illyrian soldiers were afforded more opportunities to gain prestigious positions in the army by their experience.

How did this influence the emperorship?

In an intense time of crisis, the army of the third century often proclaimed who they thought would rule better, or more realistically, who could pay them the best. We may find some origins of the rise of the Illyrici in the reign of emperor Decius (249-251 AD). Decius was born in the province of Illyricum (Serbia), he was a senator and military commander who was appointed to crush a rebellion in the Danube. In Roman fashion, Decius’ soldiers demanded that he take the throne, and after defeating the emperor Philip, he was made emperor. His significance in this story may seem insignificant. A wealthy Senator promoted in a usurpation does not seem a candidate for a great soldier emperor. However, what shines through is reign is the official promotion of the Danube the soldiers, the ‘Genius Illyrici’. The ‘spirit of the Illyrians’ was recognized on official coinage during his reign. This holds great significance for what it meant to be a soldier from these provinces and marks the significance Illyria had for the future of becoming an emperor. Decius himself had clearly been appeasing the large body of troops stationed in the Danube; however, its recognition becomes clear when you look later into the emperors of the third century.

Claudius Gothicus

After the death of Gallienus in 268 AD, a general named Claudius Gothicus took the throne. He was likely born in the Danube and became a successful general under Gallienus (Historia Augusta. Gallieni 7) through the promotion of non-elite classes into the military. Claudius earned the title ‘Gothicus’ after defeating a large army of Goths in the Balkans. He is often associated with the term ‘barracks emperors’, the collection of emperors who rose from military backgrounds rather than from wealthy elite families. Early emperors often were contained in a lineage and part of a wealthy household, such as the Julio-Claudian dynasty, or the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty. However, in the third century there was often not a fluid succession of the throne.

Despite the lack of a peaceful transition of the throne, the Illyrian soldier emperors of the late third century often were easily picked for the throne due to their popularity and promotion by the previous emperor. Some sources suggest that Claudius played a part in the murder of Gallienus (Zosimus. New History 1.40-41), and others suggest he was not involved and was given the throne by Gallienus (Historia Augusta. Gallieni. 14, Aurelius Victor. 34). He was made emperor for being ‘a friend to his native land’, and one anecdote states that the valor of the Dalmatian (region in Illyria) horsemen was especially great, because this was Claudius’ homeland (Historia Augusta. Claudius 11.9), further claiming he had control of a significant force of Illyrian soldiers during the reign of Gallienus.

Claudius advanced the role of soldiers significantly during his reign. There are numerous dedications to generals with the name ‘Marcus Aurelius’, meaning these men were made citizens by the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD, which made all free born people in the provinces Roman citizens. This represents a change in the social structure of government, the old elites were being replaced by strong soldiers only recently granted equal legal rights. One of these men, Julius Placidianus, was put in charge of defending the Italian peninsula, however not necessarily from the Danube (Potter, 2014 p.261). Holding power and respect among the influential troops was certainly significant in holding onto the throne, evident in the promotion of them into these powerful positions. This practice applies to the soldiers of Illyria, where the future emperors Aurelian and Probus would gain such dedications (Historia Augusta, Probus. 6.1; Aurelian, 16.1). One could argue that a domino effect was in place where the powerful soldier emperors promoted from recognized talent, continuing for many reigns in this century.

Aurelian ‘Restorer of the world’

Despite Claudius’ quick and powerful accession, he had only ruled for two years and succumbed to the plague in 270AD (Zosimus. 1.46). The next to take the throne is perhaps one of the most famous Roman emperors. Aurelian (270-275 AD) is often attributed to saving the Roman world. He had restored power from the two break-away empires in Gaul and the east, built the famous walls around Rome, and attempted to stabilize the frontiers by withdrawing from provinces like Dacia. His prestige, like Claudius, originates from the promotion of soldiers from unlikely backgrounds, once again Illyrian heritage is prominent. The sources acknowledge his humble background, from near the Danube River, and he rose to military command under Gallienus (Zosimus. 1.40). During Claudius’ reign, Aurelian was promoted to commander of the cavalry, which was made possible by his popularity with the army (Watson, 1999). He is enlarged in his merits by some sources, and his popularity with the army is presented as savior-like even under emperor Gallienus:

“Both we ourselves and the whole commonwealth as well are so in his debt that scarcely any rewards are worthy of him”- Historia Augusta. Aurelian. 9.3

However boastful this is, it is certain that Aurelian was popular among the army and the ruling powers. Having been a popular soldier of high esteem, would have earned him the position of Commander of the Cavalry forces later on. He had been present with Gallienus while suppressing a rival, further noted for his popularity and prestige (Aurelius Victor. 33). Internal promotion based on prestige was therefore highly prevalent, and more often than not many generals have their origin in Illyria and the promotion of the ‘Genius Illyrici’.

There is further evidence under the emperor Probus, born in Sirmium, and advanced at the same time as Claudius and Aurelian, being recognized as worthy by Aurelian (Historia Aug. Probus. 6.6). He was hailed emperor by the Danube legions (Aurelius Victor. 37). Perhaps the most interesting note in the life of Probus is that he:

“Trained most illustrious generals, Carus, Diocletian, Constantius”- Historia Augusta. Probus 22

Diocletian and the Illyrian Tetrarchy

The last two names ring significant for the course of later Roman history. As we have seen, Diocletian was born in Illyria, and from a low-born background. He had advanced to become commander of the emperor’s bodyguard (Protectores) under the reign of Carus (282-282 AD). By this time, being a member of the Protectores was significant in allowing greater prestige previously difficult (Williams, 1985). After the death of the emperor Carus, Diocletian was hailed emperor. He had to move to suppress Carus’ son Carinus, which Diocletian completed at the battle of the River Margus in 285 AD. It can be argued that the advancement and prestige of Illyrian soldiers played a large part in Diocletian’ success and stable government. Before the battle of the Margus River, a general named Flavius Constantius joined Diocletian in his conquest for sole power. Some suggest he had changed sides, originally supporting Carinus. Constantius had been the governor of Dalmatia, an Illyrian by birth, and likely served with Aurelian on his extensive campaigns.

Diocletian had created the Tetrarchy in order to increase stability. If he was to do this, he needed capable leaders he could trust. The first, and most important, was to be Maximian. Maximian is regarded as an Illyrian, unfortunately regarded as ‘uncultured’ by some sources that reflect xenophobic attitudes (Aurelius Victor. 39). The final member to complete the band was Galerius. However, the prestige of the four Tetrarchs was immense. In fact, all four members have their origins in Illyria and were propelled by the awards of the previous emperors. Ancient historians imply their prestige:

“They had been sufficiently schooled by the hardships of the countryside and of military service to be the best men for the state”- Aurelius Victor. 39

Soldier emperors became the norm for imperial governing during this period. Maximian in fact was the first soldier emperor to be mentioned in a Panegyric (a text proclaiming the greatness of the emperor), which notes the ‘Services of Maximian’s native land (Pannonia) to the state’ (Pan. Lat. 10.2.2-4).

In the aftermath of the Tetrarchy, having essentially collapsed after Diocletian abdicated to a life of cabbage farming, the veneration of Illyrian heritage and strong military figures continued to be significant. Claudius Gothicus became associated as the ancestor of Constantine the Great (Historia Augusta. Claudius. 10.7). This was likely a fabrication to associate his house with a legitimate dynasty after a troubling accession, Constantine had fought with Maximian (his father-in-Law) in the fallout of the Tetrarchy and needed a new dynasty to hold his claim. The panegyric linking the two figures says that Claudius was the first to restore discipline to the Empire (Pan. Lat. 6(7).2), which allows Constantine to claim inheritance to the prestige of his supposed Illyrian soldier ancestry. Constantine himself was born in Illyria like his father Constantius and was hard pressed on the region throughout his reign. He crossed the Danube River several times and claimed control over previously lost territory north of the river (Thompson, 1956; Eusebius. Life of Constantine. 1.8), the sources paint him as subduing ‘all of Scythia’ (a nonsensical claim that demonstrates Roman ignorance to culture and populations). Having to fight numerous campaigns against the native Goths across the frontier made his association with the very emperor with the title ‘Conqueror of the Goths’ that much sweeter to Constantine when hearing this panegyric. And so, this fabricated lineage, while being mostly political in nature, upholds the prestige of the soldier emperors and the Genius Illyrici.

Conclusion

The Illyrian trend didn’t die with the collapse of the Tetrarchy. It proved to be a staging ground for many to take the throne. The problems of the third century gave rise to a new order, where military changes meet cultural backgrounds. It is no coincidence that successful generals were made emperor, they owed their power to the recognition of the ‘Genius Illyrici’. Perhaps Diocletian, when picking his partners, felt more comfortable choosing men of similar backgrounds to his own heritage, old comrades (Williams, 1985, p.37). Emperors continued to be born in Illyria. Valentinian I (364-375 AD) continued the spirit of his Illyrian soldier heritage in lengthy campaigns to maintain order in a shifting world. His father had been an Illyrian soldier, (Ammianus Marcellinus. Res Gestae. 30.7), and this continued into a dynasty that would rule to near the end of the Western empire with the death of Valentinian III in 455 AD. Therefore, the rise of the Illyrici, that began as a desperate need for capable generals, generated a host of capable emperors that brought the Genius Illyrici from a necessity to a desired attribute.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Sources

Aurelius Victor. De Caesaribus. Translation: H. W. Bird (1994) Liverpool University Press [archiveorg aurelius-victor-h.-w.-bird-de-caesaribus-1994-liverpool width=560 height=384 frameborder=0 webkitallowfullscreen=true mozallowfullscreen=true]

Ammianus Marcellinus. Res Gestae. Translation: J. C. Rolfe (1950) Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press https://www.loebclassics.com/view/amminanus_marcellinus-history/1939/pb_LCL300.3.xml?rskey=MNu6x8&result=1

Cassius Dio. Roman History. Translation: Earnest Cary (1914) Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press

Eusebius. The Life of Constantine. Trans. Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall. (1999). http://archive.eclass.uth.gr/eclass/modules/document/file.php/SEAD260/%CE%95%CF%85%CF%83%CE%AD%CE%B2%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82%2C%20Life%20of%20Constantine%20(trans.%20Averil%20Cameron%20-%20Stuart%20Hall).pdf

Eutropius. Short History. Livius.org https://www.livius.org/sources/content/eutropius-short-history/

Pseudo-Aurelius Victor. Epitome De Caesaribus. Translation: Thomas M. Banchich (2009) https://topostext.org/work/745

Trebellius Pollio. Historia Augusta. Translation: David Maggie (2022) Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press

Zosimus. New History. Translation: Ronald T. Ridley (1982). Australian Association for Byzantine Studies https://www.scribd.com/doc/300818235/Zosimus-HISTORY-1982

Panegyric 10. Translation R.A.B Mynors / C.E.V Mynors and Barbara Saylor Rodgers. In ‘In praise of later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini’ (1994) University of California Press. Oxford

Panegyric 6. Translation Nixon/Rodgers (1994). In ‘Contested Monarchy: integrating the Roman Empire in the fourth century AD’ (2015) Oxford University Press. New York

Goldsworthy, Adrian. 2013. The Complete Roman Army. London. Thames & Hudson Ltd

Potter, D. S., 2014. The Roman Empire at bay, AD 180-395. Abingdon. Routledge

Southern, P., 2016. The Roman Army: A history 753 BC - AD 476. Stroud: Amberley Publishing

Stoev, K., 2020. Protectores on the Balkans, 3rd Century. [Online] Available at: https://labalkans.org/en/labedia/history/political-history/protectores

Thompson, E., 1956. Constantine, Constantius II, and the lower Danube frontier. Hermes, 84(3), pp. 372-381.

Watson, Alaric, 1999. Aurelian and the third century. London. Routledge

Williams, S., 1985. Diocletian and the Roman Recovery. London: B T Batsford Ltd

The Battle of the Allia and the Sacking of Rome

The Battle of the Allia and the subsequent sacking of Rome in 390 BCE (or 387 BCE, according to some sources) remain among the most traumatic events in early Roman history. Rome's humiliating defeat at the hands of the Gallic Senones, led by Brennus, exposed its military weaknesses and left a lasting psychological and strategic imprint on the Republic. The aftermath forced Rome to reassess its military doctrines and city defenses, setting in motion changes that would ultimately contribute to its rise as a dominant power in the Mediterranean world.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Battle of the Allia by Gustave Surand.

The road to battle

In the early 4th century BCE, Rome was a rising power in central Italy, exerting influence over neighboring Latin and Etruscan states. However, the peninsula was not isolated from broader European movements. Around this time, waves of Celtic tribes, collectively referred to as Gauls, began moving southward, seeking fertile lands and opportunities for plunder.

The Senones, a Gallic tribe from modern-day France, moved into northern Italy and established themselves in the Po Valley. Their leader, Brennus, led them further south, eventually arriving at Clusium, an Etruscan city that sought Roman assistance against the invaders. Rome's intervention, however, escalated the situation. Roman envoys, instead of merely negotiating, participated in a skirmish against the Gauls, violating diplomatic protocols. Enraged, Brennus redirected his forces toward Rome itself, seeing it as a direct challenge.

The Battle of the Allia

The Romans, alarmed by the swift approach of the Gauls, hastily assembled a force to meet them at the River Allia, approximately 18 kilometers north of Rome. Though the exact size of the Roman force is unclear, contemporary accounts suggest it was poorly organized and inadequately prepared for the encounter. The Gallic army, on the other hand, was highly mobile, aggressive, and battle-hardened from their campaigns in northern regions.

The battle was a disaster for Rome. The Roman army, composed largely of levied citizen-soldiers, was unfamiliar with the Gauls' style of warfare. When the Gallic warriors charged, their sheer ferocity overwhelmed the Roman lines. The Roman left flank, where inexperienced troops were positioned, collapsed almost immediately. Panic spread through the ranks, leading to a chaotic retreat. Some Romans fled to Veii, while others scattered across the countryside. Those who sought refuge in Rome had little time to organize a meaningful defense before Brennus and his warriors arrived at the city's gates.

The sacking of Rome

With no standing army to oppose them, the Gauls entered Rome unchallenged. Most of the population had already fled, while the Senate and a small garrison took refuge atop the Capitoline Hill. The Gauls looted the city, slaughtering those who remained. Fire and destruction followed as buildings were razed and sacred sites desecrated.

For months, the defenders on the Capitoline resisted the siege. According to legend, the sacred geese of Juno warned them of a surprise Gaulic attack, allowing them to repel an attempted night assault. However, the Romans were in dire straits, suffering from starvation and dwindling morale. Eventually, a ransom was negotiated: Rome would be spared in exchange for 1,000 pounds of gold. When Romans protested the unfair weight of the scales used in the transaction, Brennus is said to have thrown his sword onto the scales, uttering the infamous words, "Vae victis"—"Woe to the vanquished."

The aftermath and long-term consequences

Though Rome survived the catastrophe, the scars of the sack lingered for generations, the event left several enduring impacts. The vulnerability of Rome during the Gallic invasion underscored the need for better defenses. This led to the construction of the Servian Wall, a massive fortification that protected the city from future incursions.

Rome learned hard lessons from the battle. The traditional levy-based military system proved inadequate against highly mobile and aggressive foes. Over time, Rome restructured its legions, improving discipline, training, and organization, changes that would eventually make it one of the most formidable military powers in history.

Roman psychology and national identity

The humiliation of the sacking became ingrained in Roman consciousness. It fostered a deep-seated fear and hatred of the Gauls, influencing Rome's later military campaigns against Celtic tribes. This trauma also strengthened Roman unity and determination, reinforcing the idea that Rome must never again allow itself to be so vulnerable.

Expansionist policies

Some historians argue that the sack of Rome instilled a more aggressive expansionist mindset in Roman leadership. Over the following centuries, Rome sought to secure its borders and assert dominance over the region and beyond, ensuring that it would never again be subjected to foreign invasion.

The aggressive expansionist policy transformed Rome into a dominant power and eventually into the undisputed master of the Mediterranean world. This period saw Rome engage in a series of wars that systematically dismantled its rivals and expanded its territorial control across Europe, North Africa, and the Near East. The expansion was driven by a combination of strategic necessity, economic interests, military ambition, and the Roman Republic's political structure, which incentivized conquest through personal and national prestige, especially as Rome began to recover from the sacking of Rome.

One of the key aspects of this expansionist period was the series of wars against major Hellenistic kingdoms. The Second Macedonian War (200–197 BCE) marked Rome's direct intervention in Greek affairs, ending with the defeat of Philip V of Macedon at the Battle of Cynoscephalae.

Rome then positioned itself as the liberator of Greece, but this claim was soon undermined when it fought and defeated the Seleucid Empire in the Roman–Seleucid War (192–188 BCE), forcing King Antiochus III to withdraw from Asia Minor. Further wars followed, culminating in the destruction of Macedonian independence after the Third (171–168 BCE) and Fourth Macedonian Wars (150–148 BCE), and the eventual annexation of Greece following the sack of Corinth in 146 BCE.

Simultaneously, Rome expanded westward through its conflicts with Carthage. The Third Punic War (149–146 BCE) ended with the destruction of Carthage, securing Roman dominance in North Africa. In Spain, Rome waged prolonged campaigns against the Celtiberians, culminating in the conquest of Numantia in 133 BCE.

This relentless push for expansion continued in the late Republic with the annexation of Gaul under Julius Caesar (58–50 BCE) and further incursions into the eastern Mediterranean, including the absorption of Ptolemaic Egypt following Cleopatra's defeat in 31 BCE. By the time Augustus established the Principate, Rome had transformed from a republic controlling what is now Italy into a vast empire stretching from Britain to Mesopotamia, an expansion largely fueled by military prowess and a relentless pursuit of hegemony, in addition to fear of the defeat at the battle of Allia

A cautionary tale for the Ancient World

The sack of Rome was not just a Roman tragedy; it sent ripples throughout the known world. Other states and city-states took note of Rome's recovery, and as Rome grew stronger, it eventually turned the tables on those who had once threatened it. When Julius Caesar later campaigned against the Gauls in the 1st century BCE, he did so with an understanding of Rome's historical grievances.

In conclusion, the Battle of the Allia and the subsequent sack of Rome were among the darkest moments in early Roman history, yet they played a crucial role in shaping the Republic's destiny. Rather than breaking Rome, the trauma reinforced its resilience, prompting military, political, and psychological transformations that laid the foundation for its future supremacy. The lessons Rome learned from this defeat would ultimately propel it toward becoming one of the ancient world's greatest empires, ensuring that never again would the phrase "Vae victis" apply to the Eternal City.

The Battle of the Allia and the subsequent sack of Rome marked a profound turning point in the city's early history. What initially appeared to be a devastating and humiliating defeat ultimately became a catalyst for Rome's transformation into a formidable power. The shock of the Gallic invasion instilled in Rome a lasting fear of foreign incursions, driving fundamental changes in military organization, urban defense, and political strategy. The construction of the Servian Wall, the restructuring of Rome's military, and the psychological scars left by the sacking all contributed to a more disciplined and expansionist Republic.

Far from being a fatal blow, the Gallic sack reinforced the Roman ethos of perseverance and adaptability. The Republic's relentless drive to secure its borders and extend its influence stemmed in part from the trauma of 390 BCE, ensuring that Rome would never again be so vulnerable. Over the next centuries, this expansionist policy led Rome to dominate first the peninsula and then much of the Mediterranean world, systematically eliminating rival powers.

In retrospect, the sack of Rome was not just a crisis but a defining moment that shaped the Republic's destiny. It forged a national memory that inspired future generations of Romans, fueling their ambitions for conquest and solidifying their belief in Rome's manifest destiny. The phrase "Vae victis" may have once been a bitter reminder of defeat, but Rome's ultimate triumph ensured that it would never again be uttered at its expense. Instead, Rome would rise from the ashes of its sacking to build an empire that would stand as one of history's most enduring civilizations.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes:

The Senones

The Senones were one of the prominent Celtic tribes in ancient Gaul, inhabiting the region that roughly corresponds to modern-day northeastern France, particularly around the area of the Champagne and Burgundy regions. Their name, Senones, was used by the Romans, who encountered them during their expansion into Gaul. The Senones were part of a larger group of tribes known as the Gallic Senones and were renowned for their participation in major historical events, most notably their invasion of what is now known as Italy in the 4th century BCE.

In the early stages of their history, the Senones were a powerful and well-organized tribe, known for their martial prowess and distinct cultural practices. They were a part of the broader Celtic tradition, sharing similar customs and beliefs with other Gallic tribes. Their society was structured around a warrior elite, with chieftains and leaders who commanded respect through both martial skill and tribal allegiance. The Senones also maintained strong relationships with other Gallic tribes, particularly those in central Gaul, and participated in various alliances and conflicts.

The Senones' most notable historical moment came in 390 BCE, when they, along with other Gaulish tribes, famously sacked the city of Rome, as indicated in the main text. This event is often referred to as the Gallic Sack of Rome, during which the Senones, led by their chieftain Brennus, invaded the Peninsula and laid siege to Rome. The event marked a significant moment in Roman history, and while it did not result in long-term Gaulish dominance over Rome, it left an indelible mark on the Roman psyche, which would influence their later military strategies.

In terms of material culture, the Senones were skilled metalworkers, known for their intricately crafted weapons, armor, and jewelry. Archaeological evidence suggests that they lived in fortified hilltop settlements, known as oppida, which were typical of many Celtic tribes of the time. These settlements offered defense against both external enemies and internal conflicts. The Senones' religious practices involved a pantheon of Celtic gods and a strong reverence for the natural world, with sacred groves and ritual sites playing a central role in their spiritual life. Despite the eventual conquest of Gaul by the Romans, the cultural imprint of the Senones and their role in Gallic history remain an important part of ancient Celtic heritage.

Julius Caesar: The Life and Legacy of Rome's Greatest Leader

Julius Caesar, born in 100 BCE, remains one of history's most celebrated and controversial figures. A military genius, a shrewd politician, and a man of undeniable ambition, Caesar reshaped the Roman Republic and laid the foundation for the Roman Empire. His life, filled with dramatic conquests and political maneuvering, ended in tragedy but left an indelible mark on the ancient world.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Death of Caesar by Jean-Léon Gérôme.

Early life and rise to power

Born into the patrician gens Julia, a family claiming descent from Venus, Caesar's youth was marked by political instability. His family was influential but not wealthy, and Rome was rife with power struggles. Caesar aligned himself with populist causes, earning the favor of Rome's lower classes. His early political career included service as a quaestor, aedile, and praetor, during which he gained popularity through public games and displays of generosity.

Caesar's charm, intelligence, and oratory skills made him a rising star and his strategic marriage alliance strengthened his position. His partnership with Crassus, Rome's wealthiest man, and Pompey, its most powerful general, formed the First Triumvirate in 60 BCE. This unofficial alliance enabled Caesar to secure the consulship in 59 BCE and set the stage for his unprecedented rise.

Military campaigns and triumphs

Caesar's military career began in earnest when he was assigned governorship over Gaul. From 58–50 BCE, he conducted the Gallic Wars, expanding Roman territory to the Rhine and the English Channel. His conquest of Gaul is considered one of history's most brilliant military achievements, chronicled in his work, Commentarii de Bello Gallico.

Caesar's key victories include:

·       Battle of Alesia (52 BCE): A masterstroke of siege warfare, Caesar defeated a vast Gallic army led by Vercingetorix, ensuring Roman dominance over Gaul.

·       Crossing the Rhine (55 BCE): Caesar became the first Roman general to bridge and cross the Rhine River, showcasing Rome's engineering prowess and his daring leadership.

·       Invasions of Britain took place in 55 BCE and 54 BCE. Although not a complete conquest, Caesar's expeditions to Britain demonstrated Rome's capacity for far-reaching campaigns.

These victories earned him immense wealth, the loyalty of his legions, and a reputation as one of Rome's greatest generals. However, his successes also bred envy and fear among the Senate.

Political ambitions

Caesar's military triumphs bolstered his political ambitions. Upon returning from Gaul, he faced resistance from the Senate, led by Pompey, now his rival. Refusing to disband his army, Caesar crossed the Rubicon River in 49 BCE, famously declaring, Alea iacta est, (the die is cast). This act of defiance ignited a civil war.

Caesar's campaigns during the Civil War showcased his strategic brilliance:

·       Battle of Pharsalus (48 BCE): Outnumbered, Caesar defeated Pompey's forces in Greece, forcing his rival to flee to Egypt, where Pompey was assassinated.

·       Battle of Thapsus (46 BCE): Caesar crushed the remaining opposition in North Africa, consolidating his hold over the Republic.

·       Battle of Munda (45 BCE): His final victory over the sons of Pompey in Spain marked the end of the civil war.

In 44 BCE, Caesar declared himself dictator perpetuo (dictator for life). While his reforms, including the Julian calendar and debt relief measures, were popular with the masses, his consolidation of power alienated the Senate and traditional republican elites.

Strengths and weaknesses

Caesar's greatest strength was his ability to inspire loyalty. His soldiers admired him for sharing their hardships and leading from the front. His charisma and oratory won over allies and citizens alike. Strategically, Caesar was unparalleled, blending boldness with calculated risk-taking.

However, his ambition was also his Achilles' heel. His drive for power and disregard for republican norms alienated many, fostering deep resentment among Rome's elite. His rapid accumulation of titles and honors, such as the right to wear a laurel wreath and purple robe, was perceived as monarchic.

Assassination and legacy

On the 15th of March, 44 BCE, (the Ides of March), Caesar was assassinated by a group of senators led by Brutus and Cassius. They claimed to restore the Republic, but their act plunged Rome into further civil wars, ultimately leading to the rise of the Roman Empire under Augustus, Caesar's adopted heir.

Caesar's legacy is profound. His reforms reshaped Rome's governance and society. His military campaigns expanded Rome's borders and demonstrated the capabilities of Roman arms. His assassination symbolized the end of the Republic and the dawn of imperial rule.

In life, Julius Caesar was a man of contradictions: a populist aristocrat, a conqueror with a vision for unity, and a leader whose ambition both built and unraveled his world. His name endures, synonymous with power and legacy, a testament to his extraordinary life.

In conclusion, Julius Caesar's life exemplifies the complex interplay of ambition, leadership, and fate. Rising from modest beginnings within the Roman elite, he redefined the trajectory of Rome through military brilliance, political acumen, and an unrelenting drive for power. Caesar's reforms laid the groundwork for a more centralized and structured governance system, while his conquests expanded the Roman world to unprecedented dimensions.

However, his journey also illustrates the perils of unchecked ambition and the fragility of power. Caesar's consolidation of authority, while transformative, disrupted the delicate balance of the Republic and ignited fears of tyranny among his contemporaries. His assassination, meant to restore the republican ideal, instead catalyzed the final collapse of the Republic and ushered in the era of the Roman Empire under Augustus.

Caesar's enduring legacy is not merely in the monuments, texts, and reforms he left behind, but in the larger-than-life figure he became. His name itself became a title for emperors—Caesar in Rome and later derivatives such as Kaiserand Tsar. To this day, he symbolizes both the potential for greatness and the dangers of overreaching power.

Julius Caesar's story is a reminder of the profound impact a single individual can have on history. His genius, ambition, and flaws continue to captivate and inspire, making him not only a cornerstone of Roman history but also a figure of timeless significance. As we look back on his life, we see in Caesar a reflection of humanity's greatest strengths and most enduring vulnerabilities—a man who reshaped his world and remains, even millennia later, a symbol of what it means to lead and to aspire.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes:

Quaestor

In ancient Rome, a quaestor was a public official primarily responsible for financial and administrative duties. The position, which originated during the early Republic, was among the first steps on the cursus honorum, the structured sequence of public offices leading to higher positions of power.

Quaestors managed the state treasury, oversaw the collection of taxes, and kept financial records. Some served as aides to provincial governors, supervising the financial aspects of governance, while others managed Rome's grain supply or military finances, accompanying generals on campaigns to handle funds and supplies.

Over time, the number of quaestors expanded to accommodate the growing administrative needs of the Republic and, later, the Empire. Their work was crucial for maintaining the fiscal stability of the Roman state.

Aedile

An aedile was a public official in Ancient Rome responsible for various aspects of the city's administration, particularly its infrastructure and public order. The position originated in the early Republic, initially tied to the plebeians as assistants to the tribunes, but later expanded to include patrician aediles.

Their duties included overseeing the maintenance of public buildings, roads, and temples, as well as managing the water supply and sanitation. Aediles also regulated markets, ensured the availability and fair pricing of goods, and organized public games and festivals, making the role both administrative and ceremonial. Serving as an aedile was often seen as a stepping stone in a political career, providing an opportunity to gain public favor through the sponsorship of grand spectacles and improvements to the city.

Praetor

A praetor was a high-ranking public official and magistrate in Ancient Rome, second only to the consuls in the hierarchy of the Roman Republic and later the Empire. Originally established in 367 BCE, the office of praetor was primarily judicial, with praetors overseeing legal cases and interpreting Roman law.

They were tasked with administering justice in both civil disputes among Roman citizens (praetor urbanus) and cases involving foreigners (praetor peregrinus). Over time, their responsibilities expanded to include governance of provinces and command of military forces, especially as Rome's territories grew. Praetors held imperium, a form of authority that allowed them to command armies and exercise significant control in their areas of jurisdiction. They also played a vital role in proposing and enacting laws, often shaping Roman legal and administrative systems significantly.

Cursus honorum

The cursus honorum in Ancient Rome referred to the structured sequence of public offices and political positions that aspiring politicians and magistrates were expected to follow as they progressed through their careers.

Translating to the "course of honors," this system embodied the hierarchical nature of Roman political life and served as a framework for career advancement among the senatorial and equestrian classes. It began with lower-ranking roles, such as the position of quaestor, responsible for financial administration, and gradually advanced to more prestigious offices like praetor and consul, with each step requiring prior service in a lesser role.

The cursus honorum was not merely a ladder of power but also a mechanism to instill governance experience and maintain order within the Republic, emphasizing merit, seniority, and adherence to tradition. Exceptions, however, did exist, particularly during the Empire, when emperors and their influence could bypass traditional norms.

Points of interest:

Crossing the Rubicon

Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon River in 49 BCE marked a pivotal moment in Roman history, symbolizing the irreversible decision to challenge the authority of the Roman Senate and the Republic itself. By crossing the Rubicon with his army, a direct violation of Roman law forbidding generals from leading an army into Roman territory, Caesar defied the Senate's authority and signaled the beginning of civil war.

His famous declaration, "Alea iacta est" ("The die is cast"), underscored the gravity of his choice and his acceptance of the uncertain and potentially catastrophic consequences of his actions. The event encapsulates the transition from the Roman Republic, with its fragile political balance, to the autocratic rule of the Roman Empire.

The phrase "crossing the Rubicon" has since become a metaphor for making a fateful and irreversible decision. Caesar's act demonstrated his ambition and belief in his destiny, setting the stage for a series of events that would ultimately lead to his dictatorship and the reshaping of Rome's political structure.

This decisive moment not only highlighted the weaknesses within the Republic but also emphasized the role of individual agency and ambition in altering the course of history. Caesar's defiance and the ensuing civil war profoundly changed Rome, laying the foundation for the rise of imperial rule under Augustus and the eventual transformation of the Roman world.

Et tu, Brute?

The often quoted statement, "Et tu, Brute?" literally means "and you, Brutus", which appears in Act 3 Scene 1 of William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, where it is spoken by the Roman dictator Julius Caesar, at the moment of his assassination, to his friend Marcus Junius Brutus, upon recognizing him as one of the assassins.

Ancient Roman Emperor Trajan – Leader at the Height of Rome’s Power

Emperor Trajan led the Roman Empire from 98 to 117 AD, and played an important role in maintaining and expanding the Roman Empire. Here, Dylan Wardle looks at what he did and considers whether he was a good or bad emperor.

Trajan, in military clothes, in the Xanten Archaeological Park. Source: Hartmann Linge, available here.

His Rise To Power

The great Roman Empire began in 27 BC and was the post-republican period of ancient Rome. Since its formation, it had undergone many changes and vast amounts of hardship. War, turmoil, plague, and betrayal; Rome had experienced it all.

Most people are aware of the Roman Empire and what it consisted of. Many know of its aesthetic and agricultural expertise and that it was one of the largest empires in history.

Very few, however, know just how big the empire was. At the height of its power, it reached from Scotland to the Caspian Sea. The Roman legions and their wartime capabilities were feared by many.

But who was it exactly that allowed Rome to become such a superpower? Who ruled at the height of Rome’s potential?

The name you are looking for is Marcus Ulpius Trajanus, more commonly known as Emperor Trajan. Born on September 18, 53 AD, Marcus eventually spent his early life serving the Roman Empire by participating in various battles on the empire’s frontier.

It wasn’t until the year 89 AD when Marcus marched upon Rhine. His reasons for the march were paramount: to assist Domitian (the current emperor) in his fight against Saturninus (a German rebel governor).

It was soon after this event that Marcus was granted the honor of praetor and then in 91 AD was made consul.

5 years after, Domitian was assassinated and Nerva (Marcus’ adoptive father) became ruler. Nerva then proceeded to make Marcus Ulpius Trajanus governor of northern Germany. Marcus was eventually named Nerva’s successor and so, on the day of Nerva’s death, Marcus became emperor Trajan.

His Reign

Emperor Trajan ruled for a total of 19 years and was admired by many and was observed to be Rome’s kindest and wisest emperor. He encouraged the construction of formidable roads, aqueducts, and harbors as well as implementing the alimenta. The alimenta, which was a Roman welfare program, was inaugurated soon after the Dacian wars. It implemented many necessities for the empire’s recovery after the wars and provided aspects such as funds, food and improved education to children and orphans. Most of this was paid for via the spoils of war.

He was also known for his conquests to expand the empire to the East. The Roman Empire witnessed 6 years of peace and tranquility after the Second Dacian War. That was until the year 114 AD, which started the war against the Parthian dynasty. But what started this final conflict before Trajan’s death? What instigated a brutal and intemperate series of events that would last 3 years?

We must first turn our attention to Armenia, which is located in South Caucasus. At the time, it was a Roman buffer state. The Parthian dynasty placed one of their own on the throne, which aggravated the opposing side.

Trajan, in the year 114 AD, sent his troops to Armenia for an all-out invasion and was soon named a Roman province.

The following year, he proceeded to invade Northern Mesopotamia (which is now commonly known as part of the Middle East) and claimed it as another Roman province. It then wasn’t long until the Romans captured Ctesiphon, the Parthian capital.

After many more conflicts of the war, followed by a few rebellions, Trajan died in the year 117 AD on his return to Rome. He died of a stroke but many at the time suspected poison.

A few years prior to this (specifically in the year 112 AD) Trajan’s forum was formed. It was 300 meters in length and 185 meters wide. It was here that Trajan’s column was constructed which was the resting place of the emperor.

Trajan’s column was to commemorate his 2 victories against the Dacians.

Good Or Bad?

It is difficult to say whether or not Trajan was a good or bad emperor. He accomplished some spectacular feats and sought to see Rome reach a cosmic level of power. Despite the multiple wars he found himself in, the proceeds all went towards better roads and bridges and even harbors from modern-day Spain to the Balkans.

He was an extremely generous emperor too, as he even increased the total amount of grain handed out to peasants. One act of generosity that caught most off guard was that he remitted the gold sent to emperors on their accession back to the people and cities from whence it came.

He may have come across as kind and wise but nonetheless, he was as strict as they come. He had a true burning passion for war and thrived on battle, especially during his early years as an army commander.

After the Second Dacian War, when Trajan returned to Rome, he held competitions between 10,000 gladiators for all to watch.

However, Trajan had no child and so there was no heir to the throne. He had taken a similar approach to his father and adopted a child, which was his cousin’s son Hadrian.

So, what do you think? Was Trajan a good emperor of Rome or a bad one? Let us know below

References

National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/trajan/

World History Encyclopedia: https://www.worldhistory.org/trajan/

Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Trajan

New World Encyclopedia: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/trajan

Trajan- The Best Emperor #13: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BagdB-pqno

The Theater in Ancient Rome: A Theatrical Spectacle

The theater in Ancient Rome was an important form of entertainment. With its origins in the plays of Ancient Greece, over time Roman theater found its identity, customs - and grand arenas. Jamil Bakhtawar tells us about Ancient Roman theater.

You can read Jamil’s previous article on the theater in Ancient Greece here.

Ancient Roman playwright Plautus.

A thriving and diverse form of art which ranged from street performances, acrobatics, and nude dancing to the staging of situational comedies and the elaborately articulated tragedies, the theater of Ancient Rome evolved over time. The Romans drew on the influence of Greek theaters and shared many distinct features. At the time, the neighboring Etruscans were noted for practicing performance arts, many of which were used as part of religious ceremonies. In fact, Romans were later known to hire Etruscan performers to visit Rome during times of famine and crisis.

During the time the Roman Empire was being developed, Roman plays were performed by professional actors at virtually every public and religious festival. From the beginning, they valued all sorts of spectacles and entertainment, and one of the oldest events was an athletic competition in honor of the god Jupiter known as the 'Ludi Romani'. By the 3rd century BCE, this event routinely featured pop-up plays performed by professional actors, funded by a local politician or wealthy businessman. Considering that their calendar contained over 200 days of these events, the Romans had good access to theater.

Adaptations and Inspiration

Most historians associate melodramatic performances, mime, circus and comedies with Ancient Roman theater. The Romans were fond of theatrical spectacles such as gladiatorial combats, dances and stage performances. An earlier Roman theater would have used plots and characters inspired by the Greeks and many concepts would have been adapted to a Roman context. Archetypal characters, stereotypes and clowns were common in those plays. Many provinces were essentially bankrupt by the end of the late Republic period, and plays became more expensive and grand. The fact that most dramas were connected to key features of Roman life such as worshipping the gods, glorifying one’s self, and honoring the dead meant that the dramas likely encouraged the grand displays and expenditures normally associated with these parts of Roman life.

According to the ancient historian Livy, the earliest theatrical activity in Rome took the form of dances with musical support and it was introduced to the city by the Etruscans in 364 B.C. The literary record also indicates that 'Atellanae', a form of native Italic plays, were performed in Rome by a relatively early date. In 240 B.C., full-length, scripted plays were introduced to Rome by the playwright Livius Andronicus, a native of the Greek city of Tarentum. The earliest Latin plays to have survived were adaptations of the Greek New Comedy. Latin tragedy also flourished during the second century B.C. While some examples of the genre treated stories from Greek myth, others were concerned with notable episodes from Roman history. After the second century B.C., the composition of both tragedy and comedy declined precipitously in Rome. During the imperial period, the most popular forms of theatrical entertainment were mime and pantomime with choral accompaniment, usually re-creating tragic myths. Mimes were comic productions with sensational plots; where as pantomimes were performed by solo dancers.

Notable Playwrights and Their Plays

Some Roman comedies that have survived are based on Greek subjects (also known as fabula palliata) and come from two exceptional dramatists: Titus Maccius Plautus (Plautus) and Publius Terentius Afer (Terence). In adapting the Greek originals, the Roman comic dramatists abolished the role of the chorus in dividing the drama into episodes and introduced musical chorus to the dialogue.

Plautus, the more popular of the two, wrote between 205 and 184 BC and twenty of his comedies have survived. He was admired for the wit of his dialogue and his use of a variety of poetic meters. Plautus was prolific and wrote around 50 plays. Some of the most famous plays which have survived are Amphitryon, Bacchides, The Casket Comedy, Mercator and Persa. An admirable sense of his comedy is probably evident in the modern play and film A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.

Terence produced six comedies in his brief life: The Andrian Girl (166BC), The Mother-in-Law (165BC), The Self-Tormentor (163BC), The Eunuch (161BC), Phormio (161BC), and Adelphi: The Brothers (160BC). All of the six comedies that Terence wrote between 166 and 160 BC have survived. The complexity of his plays, in which he frequently combined several Greek originals, was sometimes denounced, but his double-plots enabled a sophisticated presentation of conflicting human behavior.

The most famous Ancient Roman playwright for tragedy was Seneca (4BC-65AD) and he adapted plays from the Greek playwrights. His plays pushed the boundaries of Ancient Rome and in 65AD he was forced by Nero to commit suicide due to offensive commentary in one of his plays. Seneca agreed to this and slashed his wrists but this proved too slow and painful so Seneca called for poison. This also didn’t kill him, so his servants placed him in a hot copper bath and the steam suffocated him to death. Nine of Seneca's tragedies survive, all of which are tragedies on Greek originals. For example, Phaedra was based on Euripides' Hippolytus.

Tragedies and Comedies

The first significant works of Roman literature consisted of the tragedies and comedies that Livius Andronicus wrote from 240 BC. Five years later, Gnaeus Naevius also began writing drama. Unfortunately none of the plays from the writers have survived. While the dramatists composed in both genres, Andronicus was most appreciated for his tragedies and Naevius for his comedies. Their successors tended to specialize in one or the other, which led to a separation of the development of each type of drama. By the beginning of the 2nd century BC, drama was firmly established in Rome and a guild of writers (known as collegium poetarum) had been formed. No early Roman tragedy survives, though it was highly regarded in its day; historians know of three early tragedians - Quintus Ennius, Marcus Pacuvius, and Lucius Accius.

Characters in Roman Comedy

Like commedia del arte (which is derived from Ancient Roman Comedy), the comedy of Ancient Rome often used recognizable stereotypes or stock characters. Here are some of the most common from Ancient Roman plays:

Adulescens: the young, love-struck and not too brave lover.

Senex: normally the overly strict father or the miser. He sometimes carries a stick or staff.

Leno: the amoral deviant. Sometimes owns a brothel or house of disrepute.

Miles gloriosus: the braggart is a character that is especially familiar today.

Virgo: (young maiden) is the love interest of the adulescens, but does not get much stage time. She is beautiful and virtuous but sometimes a little dim.

Masks and Costumes

Masks were one of the essential conventions used in Ancient Roman plays. They usually covered the whole head and the designs were quite simple. The masks were made from cheap materials such as linen or cork and had holes for the mouth and eyes. Some masks were large and portrayed exaggerated expressions which could be seen from the back of the theater so the audience could tell how the character was feeling. As such, the masks conveyed simple emotions in its expression such as happiness, sadness, regret and fear. All masks were color coded, brown for men and white for women. Later Ancient Roman Comedy used half-masks for certain characters.

The costumes were simple and colors were the major feature used to distinguish between characters and their types. Purple was used for rich male and female characters; however since women were mostly forbidden from acting, men had performed feminine parts. A red toga was used to represent a poor character and a striped tunic was used for a slave boy since tunics typically showed the character was a slave.

An Architectural Wonder

Probably the first permanent Ancient Roman theater was the Theater of Pompey and most theaters based their structures and design on this stunning example. Roman theaters were traditionally built on their own foundations. The arena was set up quite high so as to avoid the noise of the city and to enclose the performance. However, the audience were seldom quite like modern audiences and, therefore, masks were used to make it easier for people to clearly understand the performance.

As in the case of theatrical entertainment, the earliest venues for gladiatorial games at Rome were temporary wooden structures. According to Livy, as early as 218 B.C., gladiatorial contests were staged in the open elongated space of the Roman Forum with wooden stands for spectators. These temporary structures probably provided the prototype for the monumental amphitheater, a building type characterized by an elliptical seating area enclosing a flat performance space. For example, the stone amphitheater at Pompeii was constructed in 80–70 B.C., and similar to most amphitheaters, the Pompeian spectacle has an austere, functional appearance, with the seats partially supported on earthen embankments.

The earliest stone amphitheater in Rome was constructed in 29 B.C. by T. Statilius Taurus, one of the most trusted generals of the emperor Augustus. However, the structure burned down during the massive fire of 64 A.D. and was replaced by the Colosseum. The Colosseum remains as one of Rome’s most prominent landmarks. Unlike earlier amphitheaters, the Colosseum featured elaborate basement amenities, animal cages, mechanical elevators, as well as a complex system of vaulted concrete substructures. The facade consisted of three stories of superimposed arcades flanked by engaged columns of the Tuscan, Ionic, and Corinthian orders. Representations of the building on ancient coins indicate that colossal statues of gods and heroes stood in the upper arcades. The inclusion of Greek columnar orders and copies of Greek statues may reflect a desire to promote the amphitheater, a uniquely Roman building type, to the similar level in the architectural hierarchy as the theater, with its venerable Greek precedents.

In addition to gladiatorial contests, the amphitheater provided the venue for spectacles involving the slaughter of animals by trained hunters called venatores or bestiarii. Venationes were expensive to mount and hence served to advertise the wealth and generosity of the officials who sponsored them. The inclusion of exotic species (lions, panthers, rhinoceroses, elephants, etc.) also demonstrated the vast reach of Roman dominion. A third type of spectacle that took place in the amphitheater was the public execution. Condemned criminals were slain by crucifixion, cremated, or attacked by wild beasts, and were also forced to re-enact gruesome myths. The final days of the Republic saw the beginning of extensive theater construction. Today, the ruins of these theaters are some of the most magnificent archaeological sites in the world. 

To the people of both the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, an expected privilege of citizenship was access to free entertainment. Whether it was a gladiatorial combat, a chariot race or a theatrical spectacle, senators, governors, and emperors could always get the people back on their side by paying for a few days of public events. Roman theater borrowed from Greek precedents, but held a unique role in Roman culture. After all, Romans loved a good performance.

What do you think of the theater in Ancient Rome? Let us know below.

References 

http://ancientromanartarchitecture.weebly.com/theatre.html

https://www.dramaonlinelibrary.com/genres/ancient-roman-drama-iid-21412

https://www.theatredatabase.com/ancient/roman_theatre_001.html

https://www.usu.edu/markdamen/ClasDram/chapters/131romtheatre.htm

Who were the most powerful people in Ancient Rome?

Ancient Rome was the center of one of the most powerful empires that the world has ever known. But who were the most powerful people in Ancient Rome? Here, Adrian Burrow of www.imagininghistory.co.uk explains why he thinks the intriguing Vestal Virgins were the most powerful.

You can see some of Adrian’s past articles for the site on the weapon that conquered Ancient Egypt (here), bizarre World War One body armor (here), and the three most bizarre tanks ever (here).

The Sacrifice of Vestal by Alessandro Marchesini, 1710s.

How do you define power? That’s a difficult question to answer, certainly within the confines of this thousand-word article. So, for my purposes, power is being able to exert your will and have the maximum amount of people follow your instructions. In Ancient Rome then, there are a great many contenders for the title of ‘Most Powerful’. 

At its peak, in 117 AD, the Roman Empire was vast, covering a jaw-dropping five-million square kilometers. Just to put that in perspective, the Roman Empire was the equivalent of 1.4 billion soccer pitches. They’d have certainly needed a very well inflated pig’s bladder and a team compromising of giants in order to set up a quick game of five-a-side soccer. What is so impressive is this empire was ruled with a communication structure no more advanced than a lot of straight, flat roads.

Emperor Trajan

The ruler of the Empire at its peak was the Emperor - in this case Trajan, soon to be handing over to Hadrian on account of a severe case of premature death* - who was responsible for some sixty five million people. The Emperor had near incomputable and incomparable power then. His will could, quite literally, change the course of history. Yet, did anyone have power over the Emperor? You could argue that both the people and the senate had a degree of influence over the Emperor. After all, an Emperor is still only human and a great many of them received their comeuppance for miffing off the wrong people.** However, I would argue that the group of people who had the most influence over the Emperor were the vestal virgins.

Vestal Virgins

The Vestal Virgins were a group of six hand-picked women who were responsible for the maintaining of the perpetual sacred flame kept in the temple of Vesta. This was an incredibly important duty as it was believed that should the flame be snuffed out then Rome would fall. These sacred maidens had an unparalleled position of power amongst women at this point in history; they did not have to marry, they were not the ‘property’ of any man, and their position enabled them to wield significant religious and political influence. They could also, according to Alexandra Turney of Through Eternity Tours, “own property, vote, and write a will. They had the best seats at public games, and they even had the power to free condemned prisoners and slaves. A condemned man on his way to his execution only had to catch a glimpse of a Vestal Virgin to be freed.”

The extent of their responsibility and influence can be seen by their punishment if something went wrong in Ancient Rome. We can see an example of this in the BBC article ‘Ancient Rome’s Maidens: who were the Vestal Virgins?’ (reference at bottom of article)

“Despite their elevated position within Roman society, some historians, including Professor Brennan, argue that they were often scapegoated for military defeat. Problems on the battlefield were blamed on a failure to maintain Vesta's fire.”

Yet, I would argue, that an opposite case could be made. If the failure of a failed military campaign was the fault of the Vestal Virgins, then conversely a military success was due to their influence. To go a step further, if the Vestal Virgins were to decree that a military campaign was destined to fail, then could anyone, even an Emperor, disagree? Let’s take a look at a few examples of this. Pliny the Elder – the Roman naturalist, author and philosopher – wrote in Book 28 of his Natural History:

“At the present day, too, it is a general belief, that our Vestal virgins have the power, by uttering a certain prayer, to arrest the flight of runaway slaves, and to rivet them to the spot, provided they have not gone beyond the precincts of the City. If then these opinions be once received as truth, and if it be admitted that the gods do listen to certain prayers, or are influenced by set forms of words, we are bound to conclude in the affirmative upon the whole question.”

Vestals as ‘Super-heroes’

The Vestal Virgins had the power to convene with the gods and, even more impressively, the gods would listen to and be influencedby their words. This isn’t just regular Emperor power, this is super hero level power. If Gegania, one of the first Vestals, were to crop up as an Avenger in the next Marvel film then absolutely no-one should be surprised. This was a power that the Vestals would wield to influence and change the political landscape.

The Vestals interceded and saved Julius Caesar from Sulla’s proscriptions. Sulla was, at the time, the ‘dictator’ of Rome and the most powerful man in the city. He had a list of enemies of the state who, through his proscriptions, would be killed or banished. Julius Caesar’s name was on this list – his demise was certain. That was until the Vestal’s stepped up and saw that he was granted pardon. The Vestals had stood up to the most powerful person in Rome, in the midst of his punishing and pretty psychopathic political pruning, and been victorious. 

That’s is not to say the Vestal’s were untouchable however, they, like anyone, could be toppled. This was often done through the aforementioned scapegoating or through the besmirching of their character. The punishments for Vestas put into this position were severe. Rules prevented Vesta’s from being killed or harmed but these restrictions were averted by effectively burying them alive.*** 

Yet, what power comes without severe danger? And what power the Vestal Virgins had. Who else could bend an Emperor, and by proxy 65 million Romans, to their will?

Who do you think the most powerful people in Ancient Rome were? Let us know below.

Adrian is the co-owner of Imagining History School Workshops - an organisation dedicated to bringing the very best history workshops to primary schools across the UK. You can find out more at www.imagininghistory.co.uk or follow them on twitter at @imagininghist

If you want to keep up to date with Adrian's writing, including his regular Playing with History video game feature for thesixthaxis.com, then you can do so @adewritesstuff.

*It really was a severe case of premature death. Trajan died of a suspected stroke in the city of Selinus. His adopted son Hadrian took on the mantle of Emperor who, along with his father, is considered one of the ‘good’ Emperors.

**Emperor Caracalla had it pretty bad. He was killed by one of his bodyguards whilst taking a pee at the side of the road. Worst bodyguard ever.

*** In 114 BC the Vestal Mercia was left to starve to death in a sealed tomb – not a good way to go. Though in the historical records the frequency of such a heinous punishment was rare, most Vestals retired after a thirty-year service and enjoyed a rather generous pension.

References

https://allthatsinteresting.com/height-roman-empire-map

https://www.unrv.com/empire/roman-population.php

https://www.througheternity.com/en/blog/history/vestal-virgins-in-ancient-rome.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/18490233

Government in Ancient Rome: How was the Roman Republic Governed?

The Roman Republic lasted from 509 BC to 27 BC. It started after the period of the Roman Kings and ended with the start of the Roman Empire. Here, Cameron Sweeney explains how government operated in the Roman Republic. It considers the Senate, the Assembly, the Quaestors, Aediles, and Praetors, the Consuls, and the Censors.

a 19th-century depiction of the Roman Senate by Cesare Maccari. The painting is called Cicero attacks Catiline.

Rome. Surely the best-known empire in the history of mankind. Rome has left behind it a legacy of art, philosophy, literature, and architecture (and a horse Consul, but we will ignore that). People know of the writings of Seneca, or of the story of Aeneid, or even about the aqueducts and Coliseum. Whether it be when Caligula declared war on Neptune or the stories of Julius Caesar, people typically know quite a bit about Rome. But what many people don't know about is their government. The Romans have left a mold in which western civilizations have used in the formation of their government.

Social Divisions During the Republic

Up until Julius Caesar took hold of Rome in 49 BC, Rome was not ruled by an all-powerful individual, but by two elected Consuls. At that time, Rome was considered a Republic, and Rome was the closest it would ever be to a democracy.

The citizens of the Republic were broken up into three main social classes; the Patricians, Plebeians, and Slaves.

The patricians were usually the wealthiest and elite families of Rome. I emphasize families because Rome was a society where even the wealthiest plebeians weren't considered patricians, due to their “gens” or name. Patricians lived in grand villas and had slaves do their work for them. Due to their elite social class, they were allowed to vote and participate in government.

The plebeians were the lower class of Rome. Typically without wealth or slaves, the plebeian class usually had to work for a living (an utterly repulsiveidea, I know). It was not uncommon, however, for a wealthy plebeian to buy their way into the patrician class, if a certain patrician family was in dire need of funds. Regardless of this, Plebeians were still citizens of Rome and thus were also allowed to vote and participate in government.

The slave class of Rome, on the other hand, had no money, no land, and no freedoms. Although slaves, they had some rights and often would occupy important positions such as accountants or physicians. Nonetheless, they were not considered citizens of Rome and were not allowed the right to vote or participate in government.

The Senate

Throughout the history of Rome, the Senate played an important part in Roman politics and government. The Senate consisted of men aged 30 or older, and senators held their office for their entire life!  Senators would advise the Consuls, and even the Emperor later in Roman history, and would often discuss and vote on legislation.

What makes the Senate interesting is that it had no legislative power. That's right, the Senate had no power to create or destroy laws. This didn't make it powerless, as the Senate still held a significant influence over government and acted as a prime advisory body to the Consuls in the time of the Republic.

During the time of the Emperor the Senate naturally lost significant power. Even so, the Senate discussed domestic and foreign policy and supervised relations with foreign powers and governments. The Senate would direct the religious life of Rome and, most importantly, controlled state finances. The ability to control finance was an incredible tool for the Senate's disposal, as that gave them leverage when the Germanic tribes decided they wanted to give taking over Rome just one more try, and the Emperor needed additional funds to wage war.

The Assembly

Throughout Rome, there were several different assemblies that held legislative power. The Senate may have held influence over legislation and policy, but the assemblies had legislative power. The most prominent assembly was the “Concilium Plebis,” or the Council of the Plebeians. This assembly allowed Plebeians to gain a say in Roman law. These assemblies acted as the voice of Rome and portrayed the needs and desires of the general public.

Even more so than the elite Senate, these assemblies represented the voice of the plebeians, and even more, the voice of the ordinary citizens of Rome. By no means was this system fully democratic, but the establishment of these assemblies was one of the first steps to modern democracy, that is used in many nations today. The assemblies’ critical role in Roman government is what gave it a name in their military standard, SPQR - "Senatus Populusque Romanus."

The Quaestors, Aediles, and Praetors

At the very beginning of the Roman Republic, people quickly realized that they would need magistrates to oversee various administrative tasks and positions. Over time, these positions became known to be sort of a “path to consulship.” Each position had a different task and purpose to fulfil.

The first step of the “path to consulship” was the Quaestor. Men 30 years (28 if you were a patrician) or older were eligible to run. Quaestors served in various financial positions throughout the Empire. Quaestors did not possess the power of imperium and were not guarded by Lictors Guild.

The next step was the Aediles. At 36 years old, former Quaestors were allowed to run for Aedile. At any time there were four Aediles, two patricians and two plebeians, each of which were elected by the Council of the Plebeians. They were entrusted with administrative positions, such as caring for public buildings and temples or organizing games. This ability to organize games was critical to boosting any aspiring politicians popularity with the people, and was certainly utilized to its fullest.

The final step to Consulship was the Praetor. After occupying the office of the Aediles or Quaestor, a man of 39 years could run for office. In the absence of either Consul, a Praetor would hold command over the garrison. The main purpose of the Praetor, however, was to act as a judge.

The Consuls

The two consuls of the Roman Republic really represented two main things; an executive branch, and checks and balances. With the establishment of Consulship after the fall of the Roman Kings, this showed the beginning of an executive branch, in the sense that there is one, or two in the case of the Romans, powerful head(s) of a government. What made this system interesting is that there were two Consuls at any given time, and bothcould veto each other.

Giving this executive, the Consul, the power of veto is another addition into Roman checks and balances put in place to keep one man from ruling all of Rome, which is why there was never a Roman Emperor… Oh, wait a second… Anyway… Up until Caesar, Romans kept the Consuls in check through their own system of checks and balances. Since both Consuls could veto each other, and there was an assembly to vote and discuss laws, the Consul was kept from overpowering Roman government. 

The Consul had the power of Imperium,or basically the power to lead the army, presided over the Senate, and represented the state in foreign affairs. That being said, even with checks and balances, each Consul wielded significant power. Once Rome was ruled by Emperors, the office of the Consul dramatically lost its powers to the Emperor, but was still maintained as a sort of symbolic reminder of Rome’s Republican past and where they came from.     

The Censors & Magister Populi

Becoming a Censor in Rome was considered the pinnacleof public office for several reasons. During the time of the Republic, the Censor held an 18 month term, as opposed to the usual 12 month terms. This position was elected every five years and although without the power of imperium, it was still considered a great honor.

Censors not only counted the population, or census, in Rome but had the ability to add and remove Senators from office, as well as construct public buildings. An example of this being Appius Claudius, who sanctioned the first aqueduct. 

The last “public office,” that needs to be brought up is that of the dictator, or Magister Populi.In times of immense danger or crisis, the people would elect one of the sitting Consuls to adopt the title of Magister Populi, or Master of the People. This position served for six months and essentially ruled as an Emperor, with total power. This position continued until Julius Caesar was named dictator for life by the Senate, and the position would never be used again thereafter. Unfortunately in 44 BC, Caesar was stabbed in the back… literally… 23 times… His death ultimately ended the Republic, and began the reign of the Emperors.

Conclusion

The Roman Republic, and SPQR in general had been a civilization that stood the test of time, and ultimately existed for roughly 1800 years.The way they wrote, sculpted, and governed shaped, and continues to shape, the world we live in today. Their ability to govern, reform, and adapt to their growing environment is what ultimately allowed them to exist for almost two millennia, and prove themselves such a successful civilization.

What do you think about Roman Government? Let us know below.

References

“The Romans - Roman Government.” History, 11 May 2017, www.historyonthenet.com/the-romans-roman-government/.

“The Roman Republic.” Ushistory.org, Independence Hall Association,www.ushistory.org/civ/6a.asp.

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Roman Republic.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 3 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/place/Roman-Republic.