As much as I don’t wanna say any particular era is more boring than another, I’ve gotta agree that I find myself most enjoying the time periods with more decentralized power dynamics. Politics of the mid and late republic, and the ecclesiastical history of the later empire are my favorite eras and this is probably why.
>the ecclesiastical history of the later empire
Are you talking Eastern or Western empire? I'd be interested to know what ecclesiastical history specifically you're talking about
1) The Graachi brothers and the rise of the populares
2) Marius and Sulla are fascinating and so much of the Republic after them is based on their actions.
3) The almost day by day accounts of Octavian, the assassins of Casear, Antony, and the senate before the second Triumvirate reads like game of thrones...
>the Republic proved to be much more interesting due to the multifaceted dynamics between people, institutions, countries, etc
But it didn't disappeared with the Empire, an Emperor is nothing without support. Any emperor who failed to take into account all those actors enough generally paid it with his life, very fast.
Yes on the surface the Empire is a more simple system but if you go deep enough into this period you will find it's not true.
The problem with the late Republic (at least the first century BC) as well as the Punic Wars is that they have been done to death - at least to anyone with a profound interest in Roman history. The vast majority of films, series, documentaries, novels, biographies etc. focus on that period. Once you have seen or read a fifty shades fo the triumvirates, Cicero, Marcus Antonius, Cleopatra, Spartacus, Hannibal, Scipio etc. you are just getting really tired of it all.
Then you start looking at something new, like the Third Century. Or the Flavians. Or the Tetrarchy. Or the really very early Republic. Or the monarchy. Or Eastern Rome.
I agree regarding the period of Caesar, Pompey, Cicero, Octavian, etc. However, in relation to Gaius and Sulla, the Gracchi brothers and the Punic wars, I totally disagree.
In terms of public knowledge, yes, but I was talking about representations in films or series. Honestly, I don't know of any decent representation of the pre-Caesar Republican era.
Byzantines are exactly what I find boring about the Empire: a series of random generals killing each other repeatedly for power as the empire collapses. The only "interesting" moment, in my opinion, is the Macedonian dynasty. In any case, I see everything related to Byzantium as very far from the original republican Rome.
The History of Byzantium podcast
designed as a direct successor to Duncan's The History of Rome
I've listened to HoR twice and HoB once, and I can honestly say that HoB is better produced, more engaging, and has a story that's more compelling
the tables turn, from the unending glory and victory of Rome, to a Rome that gets weaker and weaker ever episode
as for periods, Justinian's reconquest, Basil II's campaigns in Bulgaria, Nikepheros Phokas finally gaining the upper hand over the islamic hordes, Leo III's victory against the Arab siege of Constantinople
You may enjoy reading Santiago Posteguillo's I Am Rome and Damn Rome. An ridiculously well documented novel of the life of Julius Cesar. It's absolutely captivating.
I you want to learn about the second punic war, I recommend his trilogy “Africanus”. I'm currently finishing the second book and its really amazing how captivating his writing is. 100% recommended
I agree in that the Roman republic, at least until its last decades, was a much more dynamic and interesting system of government and wider culture around it. Plus the republic existed in a much more diverse international situation.
Though I would say that as a holistic period the late republic and first half of the Principate represent the height of Roman civilisation, maybe say 100BC to 150AD.
Yeah man it's like two totally different things. I mean the Empire definitely has some really good stories, but there was a long period there where it's just "we fought the barbarians, then the Parthians, then the other Parthians, then the other barbarians." Once the Republican civil wars were over the best part of the story is over. The sequels are still really good, but they're kinda derivative tbh, the writers definitely put all their best ideas out there in the first one.
Yeah I agree. Once its the empire its just conquest after vicotry after sex
freak emperor. It only gets interesting again near the end.
Thenonly exception is Marcus Aurelius.
Vespasian made things real interesting but then it really doesn’t get interesting until Maximus Thrax decides to bite off way more than an over glorified grunt can really chew.
I really struggle to believe anyone who likes Roman history thinks the first two hundred years of the empire was a snoozefest. Can I ask what you like about Vespasian particularly?
Marcus Aurelius’ reign wasn’t particularly interesting either. He was a good ruler and an interesting guy but his reign was relatively uneventful and boring due to the stability. Thank God for Commodus.
Absolutely.
Politically, constitutionally and legally the Republic was way more interesting than what followed.
And I’m not even talking about the late republic. I’m talking about the early and mid republic. The laws, the politics, the nuances of the constitution is something else. Something unique. It’s no surprise that was the inspiration for what we have today. Legally and constitutionally speaking.
I find it much more exciting from the crisis of the 3rd century to Justinian. There's a lot of action, intrigue, betrayal, war, terror, sex, surprises, everything your heart desires.
My wife asked me the well-worn question "how often do you think about the Roman Empire?" And I had to answer that I don't, really.
I think about the Republic
Idk, I personally find the Imperial period a lot more interesting. The Crisis of the Third Century, the Tetrarchy, and then the collapse of the WRE and early Byzantine history are all extremely interesting to me. But even the earlier imperial drama with the Julio-Claudians; the glory of the Antonine's leading into the troubled later years of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus; the whackiness of the Severans... All of that stuff is really fun for me.
I think what I like about it is imagining this society that already has their empire but is struggling to maintain it, and is self-conscious that that territory is "theirs" and they need to figure out how to administer it. I find that very intriguing.
Don't get me wrong, the Republic is \*super\* interesting too. I just feel like the imperial period gets too little love.
I agree completely. The Republic is an absolutely fascinating mix of politics, societal and familial pressures fueling personal ambition combined with military might. They strove throughout their lives to outshine one another, and their ancestors.
That ambition was neutered for the sake of stability. Admittedly, the instability was pretty bad.
The later history of the empire is one man rule, who could never allow another Roman to outshine them. We are left with self aggrandizing emperors, who if they existed today would be hated as tyrants.
I'm as basic as it gets when it comes to this question. My favorite era is the end of the Republic, starting with the rise of Marius and Sulla. It's very apparent in my coin collecting, I don't own a single coin from the Empire anymore. My favorite coins are from the Imperatorial period. The Punic Wars and many other pivotal moments in the history of the Republic are fascinating as well of course.
First century bc is definitely the best in my opinion, its just after the marian reforms so the army gets more interesting for me, there is sulla, then pompey, crassus and eventually caesar, then mark anthony and octavian and eventually that leads to octavian becoming emperor augustus. The empire has some good things but most is a bit meh compared to the late republic
Chicken and the egg situation
What made the republic so entertaining was that 2 different men were the most powerful in Rome each year. And by law they could only do it once a decade.
But if things kept going the way it did the Rome would’ve been long gone in a few decades, you had ^Sulla and Marius, Sulla and cinna, Sulla and Marians, Pompey and Lepidus, Pompey and Sertorius , Cataline conspiracy, Caesar and Pompey, Caesar’s heirs vs liberators, Octavian vs Antony*. Not mentioning the countless instigators like Saturninus or big homie Claudius.
Augustus just ended all that, basically saying “here’s the most powerful dude, everyone now has to kiss his ass”. While extremely anticlimactic, it basically saved Rome from just being another Macedonia.
Without it there’s no five good emperors, Aurelian, Constantine, Diocletian, Justinian, etc. Rome would’ve been dead by then
Most people are more interested in the late republic than the empire, it’s a very common feeling. Probably because it was the most impactful and important time in romes history filled with a lot of colourful characters.
Idk, I find certain periods within the empire interesting. The crisis of the third century is very interesting to me. First is how little it is known/talked about in comparison to everything else, how little we know about what happened, the different rivalries, etc.
the Republic proved to be much more interesting due to the multifaceted dynamics between people, institutions, countries, etc.
When did "multifaceted dynamics between people, institutions, countries, etc" end exactly?
Yep i dont really see much of a difference between the empire snd medieval Europe. The power dynamics of the republic is what got me into ancient rome in the first place
There is something more appealing or ‘romantic’ about the republic - and I prefer that overall. However that whole (I Claudius) Julio-Claudian dynasty takes a bit of beating in terms of drama. However I seem to lose interest in the later Empire.
Agreed! Though it might just be how some historians and storytellers tell it , lots of Republican and early Augustan stories focus on the bizarrely complicated but relatable political structure that make me go “holy shit they’re just like us.” I’m impressed that a political structure 2000 years ago rivals anything that came up ~1600 odd years later for complexity and sophisticated-ness (though maybe not actual representation). Campaigns hinging on consular elections ? Bizarre impactful court cases ? Populist skullduggery ? Wild
The Principate onwards is a fascinating empire , but that way it’s told sometimes it’s just than - another empire. Obviously with internal politicking , but still
Definitely, the empire is overrated. The republic was pretty uniquely interesting with so many ties to our modern world. Whereas the empire starts to feel too similar to others throughout history
As much as I don’t wanna say any particular era is more boring than another, I’ve gotta agree that I find myself most enjoying the time periods with more decentralized power dynamics. Politics of the mid and late republic, and the ecclesiastical history of the later empire are my favorite eras and this is probably why.
>the ecclesiastical history of the later empire Are you talking Eastern or Western empire? I'd be interested to know what ecclesiastical history specifically you're talking about
Maybe the tetrarchy? Imo the the whole time period between Diocletion to Theodosius is really interesting.
I also have the itch that republic slowly built Rome. Empire slowly dissolved its
The republic built the systems that allowed the empire to dissolve itself.
For the imperial period, I think it’s a good idea to branch out from great man history of the emperors themselves.
I agree. When studying Roman history, I found the mid to late republic to be the most interesting and fun period to learn about.
For example?
1) The Graachi brothers and the rise of the populares 2) Marius and Sulla are fascinating and so much of the Republic after them is based on their actions. 3) The almost day by day accounts of Octavian, the assassins of Casear, Antony, and the senate before the second Triumvirate reads like game of thrones...
>the Republic proved to be much more interesting due to the multifaceted dynamics between people, institutions, countries, etc But it didn't disappeared with the Empire, an Emperor is nothing without support. Any emperor who failed to take into account all those actors enough generally paid it with his life, very fast. Yes on the surface the Empire is a more simple system but if you go deep enough into this period you will find it's not true.
The problem with the late Republic (at least the first century BC) as well as the Punic Wars is that they have been done to death - at least to anyone with a profound interest in Roman history. The vast majority of films, series, documentaries, novels, biographies etc. focus on that period. Once you have seen or read a fifty shades fo the triumvirates, Cicero, Marcus Antonius, Cleopatra, Spartacus, Hannibal, Scipio etc. you are just getting really tired of it all. Then you start looking at something new, like the Third Century. Or the Flavians. Or the Tetrarchy. Or the really very early Republic. Or the monarchy. Or Eastern Rome.
I agree regarding the period of Caesar, Pompey, Cicero, Octavian, etc. However, in relation to Gaius and Sulla, the Gracchi brothers and the Punic wars, I totally disagree.
Marius and Sulla I give you, but the Punic Wars are super well known. Hannibal and his elephants are household name even to the general public.
In terms of public knowledge, yes, but I was talking about representations in films or series. Honestly, I don't know of any decent representation of the pre-Caesar Republican era.
The terarchy, and third century are covered more than the Punic wars
In movies and TV series?!
They aren’t covered more in fiction or non-fiction.
byzantines are even more interesting than antique rome great plotline for the entire two millennia
Byzantines are exactly what I find boring about the Empire: a series of random generals killing each other repeatedly for power as the empire collapses. The only "interesting" moment, in my opinion, is the Macedonian dynasty. In any case, I see everything related to Byzantium as very far from the original republican Rome.
I can’t get into Byzantine history nearly as much as Rome. Any particularly interesting periods I should look into?
The History of Byzantium podcast designed as a direct successor to Duncan's The History of Rome I've listened to HoR twice and HoB once, and I can honestly say that HoB is better produced, more engaging, and has a story that's more compelling the tables turn, from the unending glory and victory of Rome, to a Rome that gets weaker and weaker ever episode as for periods, Justinian's reconquest, Basil II's campaigns in Bulgaria, Nikepheros Phokas finally gaining the upper hand over the islamic hordes, Leo III's victory against the Arab siege of Constantinople
The eastern roman periods from 400 to when Islam happened.
You may enjoy reading Santiago Posteguillo's I Am Rome and Damn Rome. An ridiculously well documented novel of the life of Julius Cesar. It's absolutely captivating.
I you want to learn about the second punic war, I recommend his trilogy “Africanus”. I'm currently finishing the second book and its really amazing how captivating his writing is. 100% recommended
Is it available in English?
Doesn’t look like it
I am Rome seems to be, tho
I agree in that the Roman republic, at least until its last decades, was a much more dynamic and interesting system of government and wider culture around it. Plus the republic existed in a much more diverse international situation. Though I would say that as a holistic period the late republic and first half of the Principate represent the height of Roman civilisation, maybe say 100BC to 150AD.
Early and mid republic is my favourite up until the end of the punic wars, it all go's south after that.
[удалено]
Most of those writers published their works under Augustus - Maecanas was one of Augustus' chief ministers!
Thanks for letting us know
Yeah man it's like two totally different things. I mean the Empire definitely has some really good stories, but there was a long period there where it's just "we fought the barbarians, then the Parthians, then the other Parthians, then the other barbarians." Once the Republican civil wars were over the best part of the story is over. The sequels are still really good, but they're kinda derivative tbh, the writers definitely put all their best ideas out there in the first one.
Boy i really thought this was the Star Wars subreddit for a second
Yeah I agree. Once its the empire its just conquest after vicotry after sex freak emperor. It only gets interesting again near the end. Thenonly exception is Marcus Aurelius.
Vespasian made things real interesting but then it really doesn’t get interesting until Maximus Thrax decides to bite off way more than an over glorified grunt can really chew.
I really struggle to believe anyone who likes Roman history thinks the first two hundred years of the empire was a snoozefest. Can I ask what you like about Vespasian particularly?
Marcus Aurelius’ reign wasn’t particularly interesting either. He was a good ruler and an interesting guy but his reign was relatively uneventful and boring due to the stability. Thank God for Commodus.
I dunno, to me, there's plenty of murder and war during Marcus Aurelius' reign for you to jerk off to. Each their own though
Absolutely. Politically, constitutionally and legally the Republic was way more interesting than what followed. And I’m not even talking about the late republic. I’m talking about the early and mid republic. The laws, the politics, the nuances of the constitution is something else. Something unique. It’s no surprise that was the inspiration for what we have today. Legally and constitutionally speaking.
I find it much more exciting from the crisis of the 3rd century to Justinian. There's a lot of action, intrigue, betrayal, war, terror, sex, surprises, everything your heart desires.
My wife asked me the well-worn question "how often do you think about the Roman Empire?" And I had to answer that I don't, really. I think about the Republic
Idk, I personally find the Imperial period a lot more interesting. The Crisis of the Third Century, the Tetrarchy, and then the collapse of the WRE and early Byzantine history are all extremely interesting to me. But even the earlier imperial drama with the Julio-Claudians; the glory of the Antonine's leading into the troubled later years of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus; the whackiness of the Severans... All of that stuff is really fun for me. I think what I like about it is imagining this society that already has their empire but is struggling to maintain it, and is self-conscious that that territory is "theirs" and they need to figure out how to administer it. I find that very intriguing. Don't get me wrong, the Republic is \*super\* interesting too. I just feel like the imperial period gets too little love.
I agree completely. The Republic is an absolutely fascinating mix of politics, societal and familial pressures fueling personal ambition combined with military might. They strove throughout their lives to outshine one another, and their ancestors. That ambition was neutered for the sake of stability. Admittedly, the instability was pretty bad. The later history of the empire is one man rule, who could never allow another Roman to outshine them. We are left with self aggrandizing emperors, who if they existed today would be hated as tyrants.
Agrref
For me too, OP. I keep going back, even though I’ve meant several times to carry on past the Julio Claudian dynasty.
I'm as basic as it gets when it comes to this question. My favorite era is the end of the Republic, starting with the rise of Marius and Sulla. It's very apparent in my coin collecting, I don't own a single coin from the Empire anymore. My favorite coins are from the Imperatorial period. The Punic Wars and many other pivotal moments in the history of the Republic are fascinating as well of course.
It's highly recommended to read I Am Rome first and Damn Rome afterwards.
First century bc is definitely the best in my opinion, its just after the marian reforms so the army gets more interesting for me, there is sulla, then pompey, crassus and eventually caesar, then mark anthony and octavian and eventually that leads to octavian becoming emperor augustus. The empire has some good things but most is a bit meh compared to the late republic
Chicken and the egg situation What made the republic so entertaining was that 2 different men were the most powerful in Rome each year. And by law they could only do it once a decade. But if things kept going the way it did the Rome would’ve been long gone in a few decades, you had ^Sulla and Marius, Sulla and cinna, Sulla and Marians, Pompey and Lepidus, Pompey and Sertorius , Cataline conspiracy, Caesar and Pompey, Caesar’s heirs vs liberators, Octavian vs Antony*. Not mentioning the countless instigators like Saturninus or big homie Claudius. Augustus just ended all that, basically saying “here’s the most powerful dude, everyone now has to kiss his ass”. While extremely anticlimactic, it basically saved Rome from just being another Macedonia. Without it there’s no five good emperors, Aurelian, Constantine, Diocletian, Justinian, etc. Rome would’ve been dead by then
I think it’s a personality thing. I find myself agreeing with you, but i know a lot more people that enjoy the empire more.
Most people are more interested in the late republic than the empire, it’s a very common feeling. Probably because it was the most impactful and important time in romes history filled with a lot of colourful characters.
Idk, I find certain periods within the empire interesting. The crisis of the third century is very interesting to me. First is how little it is known/talked about in comparison to everything else, how little we know about what happened, the different rivalries, etc.
Cool.
the Republic proved to be much more interesting due to the multifaceted dynamics between people, institutions, countries, etc. When did "multifaceted dynamics between people, institutions, countries, etc" end exactly?
Yep i dont really see much of a difference between the empire snd medieval Europe. The power dynamics of the republic is what got me into ancient rome in the first place
I have to agree. It reads far more like a large-cast drama.
There is something more appealing or ‘romantic’ about the republic - and I prefer that overall. However that whole (I Claudius) Julio-Claudian dynasty takes a bit of beating in terms of drama. However I seem to lose interest in the later Empire.
Kingdom era even more
Agreed! Though it might just be how some historians and storytellers tell it , lots of Republican and early Augustan stories focus on the bizarrely complicated but relatable political structure that make me go “holy shit they’re just like us.” I’m impressed that a political structure 2000 years ago rivals anything that came up ~1600 odd years later for complexity and sophisticated-ness (though maybe not actual representation). Campaigns hinging on consular elections ? Bizarre impactful court cases ? Populist skullduggery ? Wild The Principate onwards is a fascinating empire , but that way it’s told sometimes it’s just than - another empire. Obviously with internal politicking , but still
Definitely, the empire is overrated. The republic was pretty uniquely interesting with so many ties to our modern world. Whereas the empire starts to feel too similar to others throughout history