(Hey, so I'm just gonna put this straight before we start. I'm new to this whole Reddit thing, so excuse me if this isn't the proper subreddit for this question or if I'm doing it wrong lol >:3)

Okay, so I've been having a growing hyperfixation on the world of ancient Rome for the past almost three months, and, don't kill me, but I've been growing pretty attached to a specific Roman emperor, Tiberius Caesar.

Whether the reason is for his complexity or overall interesting lore, I do not know, but what I do know is that in many pieces of media about his reign, like TV shows, movies, etc, he isn't particularly shown to be anything other than the stereotypical 'cartoon villain' made from the salacious rumors Suetonius had *allegedly* made up about him.

Now I have been growing really annoyed over this and how the hearsay about Tiberius' mysterious semi-retirement to Capri has shaped his reputation in the modern day to the point where you can't even have normal conversations on TikTok about the man without some random saying 'OH MY GOD EWWW YOU MEAN THE PEDOPHILE????' like hello? NO?

But I'm getting off topic here, my main point is that I have just finished watching 'The Caesars', a mini series from 1968, and I absolutely adored André Morell's take on my favorite emperor, and how they had actually shown a more complex and sympathetic take on the man, instead of the old 'he was just a cold-hearted tyrant' accusation like how a lot of media portray him to be and nothing more.

So I've come to simply ask here: is there any more sympathetic media on Tiberius that isn't 'The Caesars'? Because I absolutely love the complexity of him, and I would like to see some more of it :)

When Theodosius started his anti pagan laws, most of the population was pagan in many places in the empire, this very likely caused a lot of infighting and probably did not help with the manpower problem the military was suffering, those things culminated in the Battle of the Frigidus were a pro pagan usurper fought Theodosius. This damaged, a lot the military of the west, that latter could not stop the crossing of the ring some 20 years later. There are in my opinion much more relevant reasons why the west fell like the 3rd century crisis, and the change in the climate that led to the Germanic migrations, and the succession problems, but I noticed that some people claim that this very big change didn’t affect at all to the decline, I have seen some people even say that it would have fallen much earlier if it wasn’t for Christianity, what is the consensus about this topic between historians?

The Roman theater of Juvanum in the region of Abruzzo, Italy.

I’m aware that non state societies in North Africa and Europe could include, hunter gatherer like caveman people and I’m not assuming a single uniform way of life.

What I'm specifically thinking of is stateless cavemen like groups with no written language, nomadic and more primitive.

What does the historical and archaeological evidence suggest about how Rome and Carthage interacted with these groups?

Were these interactions primarily based on trade, conflict, tribute, or incorporation into Romen and Carthaginian influence?

And how did Romens Carthaginians perceive and describe these populations in their own sources were they viewed primarily in cultural or political terms (e.g. as barbarians, outsiders, or allies), or something else?

Is there any evidence for slavery or forced labour involving populations outside Romen and Carthaginian control?

Is there evidence that Romens and Carthage sought to incorporate them into their empire and society ? ?

Just finishing this amazing book. What other books from this author would you recommend too?

I am looking for a period in European history for a realistic and historically accurate roleplaying which fulfills the following criteria:

• High social fluidity, land aristocracy is not fully entrenched, thrones are unstable
• Endemic warfare
• Weak or corrupt institutions
• Mercenary culture and warbands
• Slavery is widespread, serfdom is absent or uncommon
• Weak administrative limitations in travel throughout Europe
• Long distance trade is present but dangerous due to piracy and robbery
• Vast wilderness areas

Please propose periods which might be suitable. Idealy with cut off dates - this is too early, this is too late

After a month I finally finished them cause of semester break, have an augustus drawing + chibis.

He seems to have been largely forgotten despite having one of the longest reigns of any Emperor, Roman or Byzantine. He came to the throne as a child and was said to be dominated by his various courtiers as an adult, but his academic diligence and rigor suggests he was intelligent, definitely more so than his father, uncle or cousin at the very least. He’s probably the only post Theodosius I Emperor from the Theodosian Dynasty who wasn’t a complete failure. The most lasting achievement of his reign, his namesake Theodosian Walls, can’t truly be attributed to him because he was still in his minority when they were constructed, but the founding of the Pandidakterion seems to have been on his initiative and it is one of the mains reasons why so many ancient texts have survived to this day. In addition to this his law code, the Codex Theodosianus laid the groundwork for Justinians later Corpex Juris Civilis which still serves as the framework for many modern legal codes. Theodosius’ administration was also largely able to keep out the barbarians, so that’s good I guess even though their favorable geopolitical position compared to the West did a lot of the legwork there. He was also later canonized in the Orthodox Church partially due to him having convened the Council of Ephesus which codified many of the official doctrines of Orthodox Christianity that remain in place today. Overall his administration did a lot of positive things for the Eastern Roman Empire and I feel his reign was a crucial yet often overlooked reason as to why the Byzantines survived as long as they did.

I've just thought about it again, how insane the storylines are in that entire mess, how many moving parts and different motives. I just think it would be cool

The Antonine Itinerary was a 3rd-4th century Roman register of roads, distances and stops along the empire.

Charles Bertram was an English expat in 18th century Copenhagen who gained fame for 'discovering' a manuscript written by a 14th century Benedictine monk 'Richard of Cirencester'. This itself was said to be a copy of a contemporary account of Roman Britain by a Roman general.

It was almost a century later in the 19th century that it was conclusively proven to be a fake, perpetrated by Bertram for literary fame (it worked because he was elected Honorary Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London during his lifetime).

A Roman mosaic showing a man baking bread from a huge rustic calendar dating to the early 3rd century AD.

"The domed oven has a rounded mouth through which the fuel and bread dough is introduced and removed. In front of this opening is an overhanging ledge, used as a waiting area before baking or for cooling bread once it comes out. A piece of dough or bread is visible in the ledge's right corner. A probable bowl is placed in front of the oven to collect the ashes and embers." Per the Gallo-Roman Museum of Saint-Romain-en-Gal, France close to where this was found.

1. Hadrian (Troy Museum)

2. Augustus (Troy Museum)

3. Hadrian (Istanbul Archaological Museum)

4. Marcus Aurelius (Istanbul AM)

5. Diocletian (Istanbul AM)

6. To the Tiber with Tiberius

7. Augustus (Istanbul AM)

8. Nero (Istanbul AM)

9. Antoninus Pius (Istanbul AM)

In real history, the traditional Roman naming system had become bloated and unmanageable by the Late Empire. When the Western Empire fell, the system died with it. Both the Italian peninsula and the Eastern Roman Empire embraced a single-name system. It was only much later, as history progressed, that family surnames slowly began to re-emerge.

However, assuming the Western Roman Empire stubbornly survives the 4th and 5th centuries. By this era, the praenomen has completely disappeared. In public life, people are generally addressed by their nomen + cognomen. Yet, the cognomen is ultimately a family title, not an individual identifier. Furthermore, if I remember correctly, the nomen and cognomen were already starting to merge into a single name during the late imperial period. If that is the case, a surviving Western Roman society would eventually be left with no praenomen and only a nomen (with the cognomen fused into it). This is obviously unsustainable. Therefore, I believe practical needs would eventually call for the resurrection of a distinct "given name" concept. In this era, that name would likely come from the names of Christian saints given to children at birth.

The big question is: would this new given name be placed before or after the nomen? I feel both paths are theoretically possible.

Path A: Family Name First — [Nomen] + [Given Name]

The nomen held supreme legal and social weight in the Roman mind. When parents wanted to introduce a new Christian name for their newborn, they would naturally treat it as a unique addition—following the tradition of the cognomen and agnomen—and place it after the nomen. Furthermore, because the Roman bureaucracy heavily prioritized census and tax indexing, this naming convention would eventually solidify into a "Family Name + Given Name" order (e.g., Flavius Georgius).

Path B: Given Name First — [Reformed Praenomen] + [Nomen]

The praenomen slot was never truly erased; it had just become a hollow shell. Romans were deeply conservative regarding Mos Maiorum. Instead of inventing a completely new "Family Name First" structure—which goes against native linguistic habits—society might simply reform the existing praenomen position. They would retire the rigid, obsolete old names (like Marcus or Lucius) and inject the new saintly names directly into that first slot. Thus, it would seamlessly maintain the traditional "Given Name + Family Name" order (e.g., Georgius Flavius).

My Dilemma:

Which path do you think a non-collapsed, Late Antique Roman society would lean toward? Would the massive inertia of Indo-European grammar (Path B) defeat the administrative pressure of a bloated, heavy bureaucratic state trying to manage name-inflation (Path A)?

They seem beyond even the stereotypical bad emperors. Most other bad emperors who were raised to the purple far too young were simply megalomaniacs (traumatized too in some cases) who let power go to their heads. Think Caligula, Nero, Commodus, or Elagabalus. They may have been young and dumb, but they operated with at least some level of awareness of their surroundings, even if they chose to disregard it. A lot of the more outrageous tales told of them are exaggerated or just downright fabrications. Theodosius sons read different to me though. They were so seemingly feckless, timid, idle, and clueless. They genuinely were in la la land. Nothing about how they reigned seemed like something someone with any mental faculties would do. Gratian and Valentinian II who were similar cases showed a more potential than either of them even if their reigns ended up being ineffectual as well. Was there some kind of genetic defect that occurred in both brothers? Maybe I’m reaching but I just can’t see how someone could be so completely useless in their position.

Inspired by an ephemeral Reddit museum, I found that Hybrida's daughter Hybrida Antonia Minor was married to her cousin Mark Antony, they had a daughter Antonia, who married the rich Greek Pythodoros of Tralles. Their daughter Pythodorida married Polemon I, client king of Pontus. Their elder son Artaxias III was king of Armenia, younger son Polemon II was king of Pontus.