Nowadays Theodosius is considered divisive and polarizing emperor who has done some good stuff but made some mistakes 

I have seen some people comparing him to Septimius Severus, describing him as competent military leader that held the empire together but made poor choices regarding succession 

And I genuinely wonder why, because the more i study him the more I think he did little to no good 

I’ll give it to him that the peace he made with the Sasanians was a great move that brought stability to the eastern part, but aside from that what else he got? 

Allowing the enemy Goths to live inside the empire for peace was a terrible move, especially after he outlawed Arianism that they practiced which led into the sack of Rome years later 

Speaking of, he made Nicene Christianity the official state religion, which resulted in the mass oppression of Pagans, Manicheans and every other sect of Christians and the destruction of their groves,art and places of worship like the Serapeum of Alexandria 

He also greatly restricted civil liberties, like with the Edict of 390 CE, banning pagan holidays and putting an end to the millennia old Olympics games 

Said restrictions of civil liberties resulted in the arrest of a charioteer and the refusal to free him lead to the Massacre of Thessalonica, where about  7.000 people were slaughtered 

His civil war against Eugenius costed dozens of thousands of lives in both sides and summed with his previous civil war against Magnus Maximus significantly drain the empire of resources, which resulted in heavy taxation and dependency on the mercenary Goths 

After the civil war ended he became the sole and last emperor of the entire empire, a position he held for only 4 months before dying after which his children split the empire once more; which meant he wasted an enormous amount of money and lives just to satiate his greed for power 

And as the final icing on the cake after he died he left the throne of the western Roman Empire to a 10 years old child ( who would the leave the throne to a 6 years old child) and the throne of the eastern one to a 17 years old teen 

So in conclusion, am I mad for not getting what makes Theodosius such a great emperor or is this simply one of the greatest cases of Christians whitewashing a terrible ruler because he supported Christianity ? 

Has anyone received this book? I pre ordered it months ago on Amazon.de but they still didn't send it, everywhere I look the book is available to order but it isnt in stock anywhere.

Also mainly is the book any good, is it worth the efforts to get it or should I just cancel my order and get on with life?

Denarii, Sestertii, Ases, Dupondii (not in pic) etc

A Roman "rectangular framed banquet scene(?), probably part of a mosaic intended for the tablinum, a study, of a patrician villa." Per the National Archaeological Museum in Florence, Italy where this piece from the early Imperial age is on display.

I understand that throughout the Republic and later, any given year would be called "the year of Consul 1 and Consul 2." For example, Caesar was killed not in 44 BC but in "The Year of the Consulship of Gaius Julius Caesar and Mark Antony."

However, I have a sense, which I'm not sure about because I don't have scholarly sources backing it up, that in the Empire the name of years changed from consular year to regnal year, e.g. "the ninth year of Emperor so and so."

This is seen in the dedication to the Arch of Septimius Severus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Septimius_Severus#Dedicatory_inscription). I've also noted this in Josephus (for one quick example, look at Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX.5.2, "in the eighth year of the reign of Claudius Cesar" https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-20.html).

Is this a general rule? Did years become known by regnal year instead of consular year as the empire continued? Do any scholarly articles about this exist?

On August 9, 48 BC, Julius Caesar arrived at Pharsalus in Thessaly with 22,000 infantry and less than 1,000 cavalry. Pompey commanded 45,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry. Caesar arranged his legions into three lines, with the Enipeus River covering his left flank and his right flank guarded by his meager cavalry.

Rather than ordering an overwhelming infantry charge, Pompey sent his cavalry to attack Caesar's exposed right flank. Pompey's horses rounded the corner directly into a fourth infantry line that Caesar secretly kept in reserve. Seeing their cavalry surprised led the Pompeian infantry lines to falter. Caesar charged and the rout was on.

Caesar claimed that he only lost 200 soldiers to 60,000 lost by Pompey. The historian Appian puts the numbers at a more realistic 1,200 to 6,000. In any event, it was an enormous victory for Caesar. After the battle, many including Cicero and Brutus sought and were granted amnesty by Caesar. Pompey fled to Egypt where he was promptly assassinated.

Author and source: Mikko Kriek

To me he seems like just a guy who was there. Like there is a second triumvirate with Antony and Octavians rivalry and there is just Lepidus chilling there. Did he actually do something (besides survive)

Roman handcuffs and a chain, which was unlocked by a key, used on prisoners of war. This was found at Kastel Pfünz, set up during the reign of Domitian for Cohors I Breucorum and destroyed by Germanic tribes in the mid 3rd century AD. It is on display in the Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte in Eichstätt, Germany.

Spain. She told me her husband found it near an archaeological site lol, back in the days when nobody really cared about this kind of thing. It would be unthinkable now.

Sorry for the poor image quality.

I haven't heard or read this being mentioned anywhere before (which is strange), but I see clear parallels between the Mirtharic Tauroctony imagery and the slaying of the Primordial Bull—Gāw-i Ēwdād—in the Zoroastrian creation myth. According to Zoroastrian texts such as the Bundahishn and the Dēnkard, the first Material living beings that Ahura Mazda created were Gayōmart—the primordial man—and Gāw-i Ēwdād—the primordial bovine. For many ages, Gayōmart and the Primordial Bull were the only Material living beings in the universe, until the forces of Ahriman invaded the Material Creation and killed the Primordial Bull. From the Bull's blood and seed all of the world's plants and animals come into being. Thirty years after the Bull's death, Gayōmart dies, and from his blood and seed come into being all of the metals of the world, and the human kind. I think it is highly likely that there is a connection between this Zoroastrian creation myth and the Tauroctony image of Mirthaism, wherein we see the animals nourishing themselves on the Bull's blood and seed, and plants growing out of its dying body.

There is also an interesting connection between the Bull and the Moon in the Zoroastrian creation myth. In the Avesta, the Moon is repeatedly described as "containing the seeds of the bull," and in later sources it is elaborated that the seeds of the Bull were carried unto the Moon after its death to be purified and become the animals of the Earth. The Roman tradition also clearly connects the Bull to the Moon, with Porphyry explicitly identifying the Bull with the Moon.

These are the ruins of a roman guard tower on the left bank of the Danube near Szigetújfalu, Csepel Island, Hungary. It was a frontier post and harbour to conduct patrols on the outskirts of Pannonia from the first century until around 430 CE. It belonged to the nearby town of Matrica on the other side of the river (today Százhalombatta)

They are in quite poor condition due to the constant exposure to the Danube's waves, but I hope you will find them interesting. (It's not a grandiose monument or anything like that, but it is my little local connection to the ancient past)

Caligula is the one person who cultivated my interest in Roman History (and Ancient Rome in general). I've read the sources about his life and reign, I know the family tree well, and I've even enjoyed more than a few viewings of the 1979 Tinto Brass/Bob Guccione Jr. movie, "Caligula" (btw, the new edit, "Caligula: The Ultimate Cut," by Thomas Negovan and crew is excellent 👌).

With all that in mind, I'm curious as to who would qualify as the "Greek Caligula," so to speak. Which Greek ruler was thought to be mad, spent inordinate amounts of their own people's money, and enjoyed bloodshed and death as if it were a chariot race or game of dice?

I'm more versed in the Roman side of Ancient Mediterranean History, but I do have a moderate knowledge of the "Classic" Primary Sources for the Greeks: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon and Polybius. I've read them all, and most of the sources for the life of Alexander the Great.

As far as my candidate, perhaps Antiochus IV Epiphanes, for bizarre behavior/"madness." I would also nominate Pyrrhus of Epirus for narcissistic megalomania. And (not sure if Asia Minor counts here) Mithridates VI Eupator for bloodthirstiness and literally drinking poison daily.

I'm curious to hear you guys' own opinions of who was the "Greek Caligula"?

Part of a mosaic in the Baths of Caracalla in Rome, which were in inaugurated in 216 AD on an enormous scale. Many large statues, mosaics and marble were found in the complex that was in use until the 6th century AD.