From its humble beginnings as a small city-state on the banks of the Tiber, Rome grew into an Empire covering around five million square kilometers by the early 2nd century AD. How did the Romans govern such a sprawling Empire? They developed an administrative unit called a “province” that incorporated these far-flung regions into the existing Roman governing system. The first was created in the 3rd century BC, and there were more than 40 by the end of the reign of the emperor Trajan in AD 117. How did the Roman province develop as an administrative unit, and what influence did it have on Roman politics? When did the different provinces become part of the Roman Empire? And what was life like in the Roman provinces?

Provincia: The Emergence of the Roman Province

In the early and middle Republic, when Rome was mostly concerned with dominating the Italian peninsula, the Romans used the term provincia to refer to the portfolio assigned to a magistrate. For example, a quaestor could be given the provincia of managing the treasury, or a consul could be given the provincia of leading a war against an enemy.

As Roman influence expanded across the Mediterranean, it gained overseas interests. This was largely linked to their conflict with Carthage, starting with their battle for Sicily and the important maritime trade routes it unlocked. When Rome gained dominance of Sicily at the end of the First Punic War (264-241 BC), it moved from the offensive to the defensive. Rome needed to keep an eye on their interests in Sicily, so a quaestor, one of the first offices on Rome’s ladder of public magistracies, was given the provincia of Sicily. Before the end of the century, they were replaced by a higher-ranking praetor. This made Sicily the first Roman province.

There was no immediate thought of replicating the Sicilian precedent. Publius Sulpicius Galba Maximus, an ancestor of the later emperor Galba, received Macedonia as a provincia in 211 BC. But when the conflict was resolved following the Third Macedonian War, rather than creating a province, the region was divided into four client kingdoms that paid tribute to Rome. Macedonia would only come under direct Roman control as a province following the Fourth Macedonian War in 148 BC.

Except for Macedon, the other early provinces acquired by the Roman Republic were all linked to their conflict with Carthage. Sardinia and Corsica were annexed for direct control as a provincia in 237 BC after they were taken from Carthage. Hispania Citerior and Hispania Ulterior were both taken from Carthage following the Second Punic War (218-201 BC). They were divided, with the River Baetis as their border, to clarify the independent provincia of the two commanders in the area. North Africa, including areas of modern Tunisia, Algeria, and Libya, was made a province following the destruction of Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War in 146 BC.

These provinciae were usually assigned to praetors who had imperium, which was the power to command Roman armies. They were also sometimes given to ex-praetors following their term in office, with pro-praetorial imperium. They could also be commanded by ex-consuls with proconsular imperium. Regions that were in active conflict were often assigned to the consuls in office.

Formalizing Provincial Governorships

During the Roman Republic, provinciae of already pacified regions weren’t attractive to ambitious Roman politicians as they offered little opportunity for military glory. However, soon, many took the opportunity to profit from their commands through financial exploitation and outright robbery. The story belongs to the later Republic, but the most famous example was Cicero’s prosecution of Gaius Verres for corruption while “governor” (this was not a term used by the Romans) of Sicily. He was accused of ruinous tax extortion, theft of private property, and abuse of power.

In response to growing accusations of corruption, which threatened Roman control of regions and went against Roman ideals of virtue and honor, the lex Calpurnia de repetundis was passed in 149 BC. This established Rome’s first permanent criminal court, specifically to deal with crimes committed by provincial governors, which was where Verres was tried in 70 BC.

At this time, the Senate assigned provincial commands largely as it wished, typically assigning provinces by lot or mutual agreement. Steps were taken to formalize this process when, in 123 or 122 BC, the tribune of the plebs Gaius Gracchus passed the lex Sempronia de provinciis consularibus, requiring the Senate to announce which provinces would be commanded by the consuls before consular elections. This forced the geographic provinces to be more stable, as it became more challenging for the Senate to create new geographic provinciae on an ad hoc basis as needed.

Gallia Narbonensis, the region of southern France, was annexed as a province in 120 BC following attacks on the Greek city of Massalia in the region, a Roman ally. Rome stepped in, defeated the Allobroges and Averni, and then took the region. Asia became a province in 129 BC, when the Attalid client kingdom was bequeathed to Rome by Attalus III. Attalus probably had little other choice due to growing Roman dominance in the region and the threat of internal bloodshed, as he had no heir. Around this time, more praetors were added to the number elected annually as more were needed to manage the growing number of provinces.

Italy was also divided into eleven provinciae, though they were not provinces in the same sense, as the Italians received Roman citizenship during the Social War (91-88 BC). These were I Latium et Campania, II Apulia et Calabria, III Lucania et Brutii, IV Samnium, V Picenum, VI Umbria et Ager Gallicus, VII Etruria, VIII Aemilia, IX Liguria, X Venetia et Histria, and XI Transpadana.

Late Republican Super-Provinces

Corruption cases aside, the Roman system of provincial governorship worked well as an extension of the Roman political system, which was designed to prevent any single man from gaining too much power. But this system began to break down when the general Gaius Marius used a friendly tribune of the plebs to reassign the provincia of Numidia, which was already assigned to Quintus Caecilius Metellus, to him, allowing him to assume command of the Jugurthine War (111-105 BC).

This set a precedent that allowed the generals of the late Republic to use special laws to carve out huge geographic provinciae for themselves. Pompey had the lex Gabinia de piratis persequendis passed in 67 BC, which gave him command of every province that was within 50 miles of the Mediterranean Sea so that he could deal with a pirate threat. This means that he had power over almost every province. This, and other extraordinary commands in the East, gave Pompey the power to annex several more Roman provinces, including Crete et Cyrenaica, Bithynia et Pontus, Syria, and Cilicia.

The consul Julius Caesar, with the help of his first triumvirate allies Pompey and Crassus, had the lex Vatinia passed in 59 BC that assigned him pro-consular command of both Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum. When the governor of Transalpine Gaul unexpectedly died the same year, it was also awarded to Caesar. The command was given for five years, rather than the usual one year, allowing him to carry out his famous Gallic Wars. Pompey and Crassus then supported him again, passing the lex Pompeia Licinia in 55 BC, which extended his command by another five years.

This represented a major threat to the Roman system, as Caesar’s extraordinary command allowed him to enrich himself and build personal loyalty with his now veteran army. However, when his term ended, he could also be prosecuted for corruption in the courts by his enemies, which now included Pompey. Caesar tried to avoid this by getting elected consul in absentia before returning, which would make him immune from prosecution. Pompey blocked this path, saying that he would have to give up his command and return to Rome before he could stand for election. This led Caesar to decide to march on Rome with his army, launching the civil war that would see the Republic replaced by imperial rule.

Imperial Provinces

During the second triumvirate that emerged after the assassination of Caesar, control of the provinces was divided between Caesar’s successors, Mark Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian. The division changed as the power balance between the three changed, and the men were able to enrich themselves as Caesar had done. But when Octavian defeated Antony at Actium in 31 BC, all the provinces were placed under his command, confirming that Rome and its Empire were now under one-man rule.

In 27 BC, when Octavian was holding his seventh consecutive consulship, he began taking steps to formulate and “normalize” his power within the surviving shell of the old Republic. This was the same year he accepted the title Augustus. He made a great show of returning control of the provinces to the Senate, but then at a Senate meeting that same year, he orchestrated the Senate giving him direct control of Spain, Gaul, Syria, Cilicia, Cyprus, and Egypt, for ten years in the first instance. These provinces contained 22 of Rome’s 28 standing legions at the time.

This division between senatorial and imperial provinces became permanent. The peaceful senatorial provinces were managed by the Senate, which appointed governors in the traditional way. However, considering the emperor’s power in the Senate, he had significant influence over these appointments.

Augustus, technically in direct command of his province, appointed subordinate legates to oversee his provinces on his behalf, with the official title legatus Augusti pro praetore. Importantly, while these legates held imperium, they were subordinate to Augustus, who held maius imperium, which gave him the power to overrule any provincial governor. This meant that any victories won by the legates did not belong to them, but to Augustus. So, they could not celebrate triumphs for their victories.

Exceptions were sometimes made to this rule. Augustus allowed his stepson and, at the time, potential heir, Tiberius, to celebrate a triumph in 7 BC for his victories in Germany.

Many new provinces were incorporated into the Roman Empire under Augustus, largely through the consolidation and reorganization of territories won prior to his reign. The most important new province was Egypt, which Julius Caesar took control of in 47 BC, but was treated as the personal possession of Caesar, then Antony, and then Octavian. Because of the power and wealth of Egypt, it was believed that the governor of that province could challenge imperial power. So, rather than a regular legate, Augustus appointed a lower-ranking equestrian governor, giving Augustus greater control.

Achaia (Greece) was made a separate province from Macedonia under Augustus. Hispania was reorganized into the provinces of Hispania Tarraconensis, Baetica, and Lusitania. Caesar’s Gallic conquests were organized into Illyricum, Aquitania, Gallia Lugdunensis, and Gallia Belgica. North Africa was consolidated into Africa Proconsularis. Client kingdoms were bequeathed or annexed as provinces, such as Galatia and Judaea.

The Limits of the Empire

Before he died, Augustus reportedly advised his successor, Tiberius, not to expand the Empire beyond its current borders, as the Empire had already reached its workable limits. While the Empire continued to expand, it did so on a much slower scale, primarily through relatively peaceful annexation. Some notable exceptions included Britannia, taken during the reign of Claudius, who needed to prove his military credentials, and Germania Superior and Germania Inferior, taken under Domitian, who also needed to prove his military chops. Trajan also famously conquered the province of Dacia. The Roman Empire reached its greatest extent under Trajan, with few new territories added following his reign.

The nature of the Roman provinces changed near the end of the 3rd century AD when Diocletian introduced the Tetrarchy. This was a major administrative reorganization that, among other things, saw the Empire reorganized into more than 100 provinces.

Life in the Roman Provinces

Life in the Roman provinces would have depended on where and when you lived. In general, life was a blend of forced Romanization and enduring local tradition. For example, we see the spread of the Latin language in the West, though Greek continued to be the lingua franca in the East.

There was also a meeting of religious practices. The cult of the Roman emperor was encouraged, with temples set up by locals in the East, and the Roman authorities setting up altars in the West and requiring local worship. While Rome expected provincials to respect their gods and perform sacrifices to maintain their favor, they also respected local deities and customs, allowing them to continue and mixing them with Roman practices. The exception to this was Judaism and Christianity. Because these religions were monotheistic, their devotees did not participate in Roman sacrifices. This was the problem, rather than the religions themselves.

The Romans brought infrastructure such as roads, sewage, and public baths that improved daily life. They also made enormous tax demands, which placed stress on agriculture and pushed some of the poorest into forced labor. There were sometimes local grain shortages in the provinces because so much grain was sent to Rome.

Newly conquered provinces had a strong Roman military presence that must have felt imposing. Locals were also pressured to enlist in the Roman army as auxiliary non-citizen troops. After 25 years of service, they could earn Roman citizenship, which was passed on to their children, granting them rights and privileges that their neighbors did not enjoy. In combination with migration, this saw a wealthy Roman citizen class emerge across the Empire. Some even rose to the top position. Both Trajan and Hadrian were Roman citizens born in Hispania, while Septimus Severus was born in North Africa.

The emperor Caracalla granted blanket citizenship to all free men living within the Roman Empire in AD 212. However, his reasons were probably not altruistic. This increased the number of people liable to pay taxes, such as inheritance and manumission taxes. It may have had little impact on people’s daily lives in practice, while undermining the value of Roman citizenship more generally.

List of Roman Provinces Under Trajan

At the death of Trajan in AD 117, there were 40 Roman provinces, excluding the eleven Italian provinces.

The early years of the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) between Athens and Sparta were a humiliating stalemate for the Spartans, who prided themselves on their military superiority. However, one remarkable brave Spartan soldier emerged as a daring commander, creating his own heroic legacy. Brasidas was a bold visionary in a community noted for its conservatism. He was a powerful orator among a people notorious for their laconic brevity. He was the exception that saved Sparta.

Sparta’s First Hero

Brasidas son of Tellis was a Spartiate, a member of the elite group of citizens that stood on top of Sparta’s rigid social hierarchy. Beyond that, we know little of his early life. At the start of the Peloponnesian War, he was a relatively low-level commander. However, he was the first Spartan to be commended for bravery when a quick dash through the outnumbering enemy ranks prevented the fall of the town of Methone during an Athenian raid (Thucydides 2.25).

He next appears in 429 and 427 BC as an advisor to Spartan admirals. The Peloponnesian War was a duel between the day’s primary land power, Sparta, and its primary sea power, Athens. It took decades for the Spartans to learn to fight at sea and their early efforts were hesitant and often failures. Brasidas’ two campaigns as advisor show him to be one of the few Spartans who adapted to changing military tactics. His boldness may have been behind a daring, but failed, surprise attack on the critical Athenian harbor of Piraeus, which would have ended the war in a stroke.

Bravery in Defeat at Pylos and Megara

Brasidas made a name for himself in the early years of the war. However, he remained an advisor and subordinate rather than a high-level commander. It was only after some difficult years that the Spartans elevated him to the next level.

Brasidas was one of the few Spartans that came out well from the debacle at Pylos in 425 BC. After the Athenians had fortified a position in Spartan-held territory at Pylos, Brasidas led the naval assault. Seeing the other ship captains reluctant to storm the beach in the face of Athenian opposition, Brasidas led the way. In Thucydides’ account (4.12), he fought bravely but was wounded. His comrades saved his life, but his shield was picked up by the Athenians and displayed as a trophy.

These heroics were ultimately fruitless. Over a hundred Spartans surrendered and were taken to Athens as hostages. Humiliating as this was, the Spartans had Brasidas to thank that it did not go worse. In 424 BC, the Athenians attempted to seize the strategic city of Megara. Its position on the isthmus connecting the Peloponnese to the rest of Greece would allow the Athenians to hem in the bewildered Spartans.

The Athenians captured the Megarian port and soon threatened the city. Brasidas happened to be nearby preparing for another mission. He quickly gathered an army and appeared outside Megara. Despite their recent successes, the Athenians were unwilling to risk a battle against the Spartan force and withdrew. Brasidas had prevented the loss of a strategically vital town by swiftly and effectively gathering a force and communicating with allies. It was his first individual contribution to turning the tide of the war.

Weaponizing the Northern Aegean

The conservative Spartans desperately needed new ideas. The traditional Spartan strategy of invading Athenian territory with a large army had already reached its limits and was now impossible if the Spartans wanted their hostages back.

In 424 BC Brasidas had an innovative plan. Potential Athenian opponents and rebellious subjects in the northern Aegean had called for aid. However, reaching King Perdiccas of Macedon and the cities of the Chalcidice peninsula that wanted to revolt from Athens would not be easy. The Spartans could not go by sea, necessitating a march of hundreds of miles through unfriendly territory.

Spartans traditionally traveled poorly, but while the risks were great, so too were the potential rewards. Chalcidice supplied the Athenians with tribute and the much-needed wood to build their fleet. A Spartan presence in the northern Aegean would be a strategic game changer threatening Athens’ crucial supply lines from the Black Sea.

The campaign in the north was an innovation in Spartan strategy, but a risky one (Sears 2024, 122; Kagan 1974, 288). The Spartans decided to take the chance but staked little. Brasidas could go, but only with a small force of 1,700 helot slaves and mercenaries.

Brasidas, finally in command of his own independent force, set off and skillfully guided his men north. Diplomacy and speed got them through the large and potentially hostile region of Thessaly. Perdiccas’ attempts to exploit the expedition to fight his own battles were evaded. The Spartans’ best commander was now in position to take the war to the Athenians.

“Not a Bad Speaker, for a Spartan”

With only a small force and a long way from home, the success of the campaign rested on finding allies. Fortunately, this was another arena in which Brasidas outstripped his compatriots. Before and after Brasidas, Spartan commanders abroad earned a reputation for arrogance, corruption, and, not uncommonly, incompetence. Not only was this not the case with Brasidas, but Thucydides tells us that he was a surprisingly good orator for a Spartan (4.84).

Winning Empires With Words: The Spartan Diplomat

The first test was at the Athenian subject city of Acanthus in the Chalcidice. Brasidas arrived before the Acanthians had gathered in their economically vital grape harvest. Finding them reluctant to revolt from Athens, Brasidas entered the city alone and spoke before the assembly. The speech Thucydides presents marks a turning point in the war.

Brasidas assured his nervous audience that he was there to liberate, not attack them. Sparta, he claimed, was on a mission to free Greece from the tyranny of Athens. Similar arguments must have been made before as part of routine justifications for war, but Brasidas was one of the first to convince an audience that the Spartans were fighting not for power or glory but for liberty (Sears 2024, 100). This rhetoric, helped along by the army outside poised to burn the vineyards, won the day. Acanthus revolted and Brasidas’ message that Sparta was a liberator became central to subsequent propaganda.

Brasidas’ claim to liberate rather than conquer proved effective and he felt strong enough to move on to the region’s biggest target, Amphipolis. The city sat east of the Chalcidice peninsula on the Strymon River. The river wrapped around three sides of the city making it easily defended and positioned between the timber-bearing forests of the north and the Aegean. It had taken several attempts for the Athenians to successfully found a colony here, and it remained a strategic obsession for decades to come.

The Crown Jewel: The Fall of Amphipolis

Taking Amphipolis would not be easy. Brasidas needed to cross a fortified bridge on the Strymon and take the well-defended city before Athenian reinforcements arrived. Surprise, speed, and diplomacy, key elements of Brasidas’ campaigns, would get him this prize.

To keep his momentum, Brasidas continued to campaign in the winter, rare for an ancient army. A snowstorm masked his approach to the bridge. Here diplomacy, or treachery, came into play. Amphipolis was an Athenian foundation but most of its inhabitants were drawn from the local area. These local elements helped Brasidas cross the bridge.

Taken by surprise, many Athenian inhabitants were captured in the suburbs. Now outside the walls of Amphipolis, speed remained essential as Athenian reinforcements were surely on the way. Brasidas offered very lenient terms to the Athenians, allowing them to leave the city with their possessions if they surrendered. This olive branch worked, and Amphipolis surrendered just as Athenian reinforcements came into view.

An unintended consequence of the fall of Amphipolis is one of the greatest works of history. The Athenian reinforcements were commanded by the future historian Thucydides, who was exiled for his failure to prevent the city’s fall. This gave him the time to write his great work and, no doubt, provided motivation for talking up the greatness of his opponent.

Flouting the Armistice: The Capture of Scione

The goals of the campaign had been achieved. The Spartans were inflicting damage on the Athenians and now had leverage. This, coupled with a major Athenian defeat at the hands of the Spartan allied Boiotians at the battle of Delium in 424 BC, represented substantial steps towards peace. A one-year truce was agreed for 423 BC. But Brasidas, it seems, had larger goals.

After the fall of Amphipolis, he began building a fleet of warships. There was insufficient time for this plan to develop, but a Spartan naval presence in the northern Aegean could have been transformative. It was exactly that which eventually won the war for Sparta, 20 years later.

More substantially, Brasidas was in no mood to break his momentum and honor the truce. Before word of the agreement reached him, though crucially after it had been made, another city, Scione, revolted from the Athenians. Brasidas warmly embraced the Scionaeans and refused to hand over the city after the truce. Brasidas then doubled down by accepting the revolt of another city, Mende, paving the way for the resumption of war.

While waiting for the Athenian reaction, Brasidas joined the Macedonian king Perdiccas in an expedition against his local enemies. The relationship between the two men completely broke down when Perdiccas abandoned Brasidas in the face of a much larger enemy. The Macedonian alliance was over, but Brasidas did display his skills once again as he got his army out of a difficult spot with a well-organized retreat.

The Final Clash and the Death of Two Generals

The year 422 BC pitted the two men most committed to continuing the war against each other. To reverse Brasidas’ success, the Athenians dispatched Cleon, a politician with limited military experience but a harsh line against any opponents of Athens.

The fate of the campaign was decided at Amphipolis. The Athenians had retaken some towns and were awaiting reinforcements from the Thracians to the north and potentially the Macedonians. Meanwhile, Spartan reinforcements were blocked from reaching the north. A problem with the account given by Thucydides is that he hated Cleon as much as he admired Brasidas. This distorts our image of Cleon who, Thucydides claimed (5.6), arrogantly dismissed Brasidas’ forces. This may or may not be the case but Cleon did make a mistake outside Amphipolis, and Brasidas pounced on it.

Cleon was wisely waiting for allies before taking on Brasidas, but he did approach the city with a small force. This may have just been a reconnaissance mission, which the inexperienced Cleon took too far. Brasidas had been watching the Athenians from a high point and saw an opportunity as the Athenians approached the city. As he had done several times in his career, Brasidas used speed and surprise. He himself led a small force of 150 hoplites to charge into the Athenians while the main force rushed out from a different gate, attacking the Athenians from another direction.

Cleon may have understood his mistake, but his attempt to fix it made matters worse. Brasidas’ preparations to attack had been noticed and the Athenians started to withdraw. To speed matters up, Cleon ordered his right wing to turn and withdraw. This meant turning their sides, unprotected by their large hoplite shields, towards the city gate where Brasidas was waiting. At this moment, the Spartan came rushing out. The Athenians were thrown into confusion, made worse when the second, larger attack came in. A part of the Athenian force withstood the shock and fought back for a while, but they never recovered from the initial chaos Brasidas had exploited.

According to Thucydides, 600 Athenian troops were lost, including Cleon himself, while the Spartans lost just seven. However, among the dead was Brasidas himself who had been wounded in the first charge and died just after learning of his victory.

The Posthumous Cult of Sparta’s Most Radical Commander

The first phase of the Peloponnesian War ended outside Amphipolis. That Sparta recovered from the disaster at Pylos to earn a stalemate peace was largely thanks to Brasidas. Though it was probably not his intention, peace was his immediate legacy.

Brasidas’ career, though brief, was one of the most influential in Spartan history. Thucydides recognized this. His efforts to win over Athenian subject cities and his generally honorable behavior created an image of Sparta beneficial later in the war (4.81). After Brasidas, the Spartans could pose as the liberators of Greece (Sears 2024, 100).

In death he also set precedents. The citizens of Amphipolis turned the Spartan into their new hero. They stopped honoring the Athenian who founded their city and instead worshipped Brasidas with an annual festival and a hero’s tomb. In 1992, archaeologists discovered an unlooted silver ossuary containing a gold olive wreath inside the Amphipolis agora, which is widely recognized as the remains of Brasidas (Sears 2024, 131). This type of hero worship of the recently dead is one of the earliest examples of apotheosis.

For the Spartans, who also commemorated him with a cenotaph at home, Brasidas was the hero they needed at a critical moment. Modern scholars largely agree and proclaim him Sparta’s most gifted soldier (Trittle 2010, 95). Tactical boldness, speed, and innovation were paired with strategic vision. Combined with his bravery and ability to win allies, Brasidas had a real impact on the war. In its long history, Sparta produced few others like him.

Sources

• Kagan, D. (1974). The Archidamian War. Cornell University Press
• Sears, M. (2024). Sparta and the Commemoration of War. Cambridge University Press
• Tritle, L. A. (2010). A New History of the Peloponnesian War. Wiley-Blackwell.

If you are in the United States, you don’t need a passport to walk through ancient history. Some of the world’s most extraordinary antiquity collections reside in the US. From colossal 13-ton sphinxes and fully reconstructed Roman palace courtyards to sacred Maya artifacts and 4,000-year-old cuneiform tablets, American institutions preserve breathtaking glimpses of human origin. Whether you are a seasoned history buff or a curious traveler, these world-class research centers and university museums offer an immersive journey into our planet’s greatest ancient civilizations.

1. How Chicago’s ISAC Museum Reshaped Near Eastern Archaeology (Chicago, IL)

Located on the University of Chicago campus, the Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures (ISAC) is a world-class research museum holding a large collection of artifacts from the ancient Middle East and North Africa.

The Institute’s founder, James Henry Breasted, dreamed of creating a “laboratory for the study of the rise and development of civilization.” In 1919, with the financial help of John D. Rockefeller, that is exactly what he did.

On display across ten different galleries is the vast collection of material culture from some of the oldest civilizations in human history, including bronze figurines from Anatolia, gold jewelry from Persia, and Cuneiform tablets recording the epic of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia. One of the main attractions is the Khorsabad Court Gallery, which displays authentic monumental stone reliefs and a 40-ton lamassu excavated from the palace courtyard of Assyrian king Sargon II (721 to 705 BC).

Breasted was the first American to obtain a PhD in Egyptology, so it makes sense that the Institute also boasts a particularly interesting Egyptian history gallery. The collection includes over 800 Egyptian objects from roughly 5,000 BC to 600 AD. Many were brought back from university expeditions or purchased in the early 20th century by Breasted himself. Highlights include the mummy of Meresamun, a temple singer, and a written account of the first recorded labor strike in history.

The Institute is also a scholarly research center, undertaking research and archaeological projects in several countries in the Middle East and North Africa. The majority of the museum’s 350,000 artifacts were excavated by the Institute’s archaeologists and grad students. It continues to promote fieldwork in the Middle East and North Africa today for both professional and aspiring archaeologists.

2. Inside the Penn Museum and the Wonders of Ancient Mesopotamia (Philadelphia, PA)

Located on Pennsylvania University’s campus, the Penn Museum is a top-tier museum when it comes to the study of ancient cultures from around the world. It has a 300,000 square foot exhibit space containing artifacts from the ancient Mediterranean world, Anatolia, East Asia, North and Central America, and Africa. The museum highlights objects from its own archaeological excavations and anthropological fieldwork.

Arguably one of the most visited galleries in the museum is their Ancient Egypt and Nubia Exhibit. One of the largest Egyptian collections in the world, the gallery contains countless objects and artworks representative of the daily lives and beliefs of the ancient Egyptians, as well as treasures that belonged to the pharaohs.  A big draw in the exhibit is the Sphinx of Ramses II, a large 13-ton granite sphinx carved sometime between 1293 and 1185 BC and is the largest sphinx in the Western Hemisphere.

The Penn Museum is also home to the Center for the Analysis of Archaeological Materials (CAAM). CAAM offers laboratory and classroom facilities, materials, equipment, and expert personnel to mentor Penn students in a range of scientific techniques crucial to archaeologists and other scholars as they seek to interpret the past. This makes it one of the top schools in the country for pursuing archaeology and anthropology.

3. Step Inside the Getty Villa for Immersion in Classical Antiquity (Los Angeles, CA)

The Getty Villa Museum is one of the more unique museums to visit on this list. What is special about the Villa is that it is a recreation of a countryside estate from the Roman town of Herculaneum called the Villa dei Papiri (Villa of Papyruses). Visitors are transported back to the time of Caesar and Pompey as they wander through the lush gardens or learn how an impluvium works, making for a much more immersive experience.

On display are artworks from the Getty’s ancient Greek, Etruscan, and Roman collections. The museum is separated into two floors with the exhibits flowing chronologically, starting with the Stone Age and going through the end of the Roman Empire. Mosaics, statues, frescoes, pottery, and fine jewelry are just a handful of the objects that adorn the galleries of this traditional Roman villa.

One of the key pieces is a statue called Victorious Youth. It is one of the few life-sized Greek bronze statues to have survived to the present day. It provides much information on the technology of ancient bronze casting, making it a critical find.

Another beautiful statue in the collection is Leda and the Swan, which is inspired by the Greek mythological tale of Zeus, who disguised himself as a swan to seduce Leda, the Queen of Sparta. More than two dozen examples of this statue exist today, mostly Roman replicas of the Greek originals, attesting to the story’s popularity and Greek influence on the Romans.

4. The Metropolitan Museum of Art and Its Monumental Treasures (New York City, NY)

Arguably the most well-known museum on this list, the Metropolitan Museum of Art (informally known as The Met) is home to over 1.5 million works of art spanning 5,000 years, and its 633,000-square-foot footprint makes it the fourth-largest museum in the world by floor area. The museum features art spanning 5,000 years of human history and from every corner of the globe. That being said, their ancient art exhibits are nothing short of extraordinary.

The museum’s Egyptian exhibit alone is made up of 38 galleries with beautiful works from all periods of Egypt’s history. Highlights include massive statues of the female pharaoh Hatshepsut, intricately decorated coffins of high officials, and recreated tomb art from the Old Kingdom (c. 2700 to 2200 BC). One of the main attractions is the Temple of Dendur, a Roman-period temple to the goddess Isis which was taken apart in Egypt before being shipped and put back together in the US as a gift from the Egyptian government in the 1960s.

The Met’s Greek and Roman art exhibit is just as exquisite, with over 5,300 objects on view from the many different periods of the two Mediterranean civilizations. The main draw is the Leon Levy and Shelby White Court. It is a monumental, skylit peristyle for the display of Hellenic and Roman art with a soaring two-story atrium. Objects worth seeing include bronze sculptures from Classical Greece, marble portraits of Roman emperors, and frescoes from a Roman villa. The department also exhibits the art of prehistoric Greece (Helladic, Cycladic, and Minoan) and pre-Roman art of Italic peoples, notably the Etruscans.

The Met also boasts a world-class research center with a focus on several topics including conservation and provenance.

5. Exploring Daily Life in the Ancient Mediterranean at the Kelsey Museum (Ann Arbor, MI)

Situated on the University of Michigan campus, the Kelsey Museum houses a collection of more than 100,000 ancient and medieval objects from the civilizations of the Mediterranean and Near East. Among its most significant holdings are 45,000 daily-life objects from the Greco-Roman town of Karanis in Egypt, the largest collection of its kind outside of Cairo.

A unique feature of the Kelsey’s ancient Rome exhibit is a reproduction of murals from the Villa of Mysteries in Pompeii. The murals depict a young bride-to-be as she goes through the stages of initiation into a Bacchic mystery cult before her wedding day. In 1924, Francis Kelsey (the museum’s founder) commissioned Italian artist Maria Barosso to replicate the Pompeian murals, but Kelsey died before they were completed. When they were shipped to the US, they sat in storage for decades, with only a few panels being put on display once in a while for special programs. It was not until 2000 that the murals were displayed in their entirety for an exhibition on cultic rites practiced by Roman women.

The museum also works with the Archaeology, History, and Classical Studies departments at the university to sponsor field research in the Mediterranean region and Middle East. Like Breasted with the ISAC in Chicago, this program has a long tradition dating back to Kelsey himself going on expeditions to Egypt and Mesopotamia in the early 20th century and procuring many of the artifacts found in the museum today. Work today focuses on sites in Italy, Greece, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Egypt, Sudan, and Tunisia, and is arguably one of the best archaeology programs in the US.

6. Discovering Old Kingdom Egyptian Splendor at the MFA Boston (Boston, MA)

Founded in 1870, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston is a world-renowned institution housing around 450,000 objects and artworks ranging from Egyptian mummies to contemporary paintings. Its Greek and Roman art exhibit is truly a marvel.

The main antiquities wing underwent a recent transformation, creating a grand entrance to the exhibition and new displays to highlight key pieces in the collection. Early Greek pottery, Roman marble portraits, mythological scenes, and daily life objects, such as coins, jewelry, and lamps, are just a few of the objects on display. One of the highlights of this collection is a colossal statue of the Roman goddess Juno, which was traditionally claimed to be made for the Theater of Pompey in the 1st century BC, but probably comes from the 2nd century AD. The statue then traveled from place to place over the centuries, being housed in several private estates before coming to the Fine Arts Museum.

The museum’s Egyptian art exhibit is one of the most extensive in the world outside Cairo, containing over 16,000 pieces spanning from 6,500 BC to 600 AD. Among these are 140 funerary objects, including richly painted coffins, canopic jars, embalming tools, and anything else involved in burial rituals and preparing the soul of the deceased for their journey to the afterlife.

7. Why the Michael C. Carlos Museum Is the Southeast’s Antiquities Hub (Atlanta, GA)

The Michael C. Carlos Museum is located on Emory University’s campus just outside downtown Atlanta, and pretty much specializes in all things ancient. Their galleries feature artifacts from Africa, the Americas, ancient Egypt, Nubia, the Near East, ancient Greece, Rome, and South Asia.

The museum’s collection of Greek and Roman Art comprises over 5,400 Greek, Roman, Etruscan, Cypriot, and Bronze Age Aegean artifacts. Mythology was a major part of the Mediterranean peoples’ everyday lives, as evidenced by the plethora of objects (including oil lamps, statuettes, ceramics, and more) depicting Greek and Roman gods and goddesses in this collection.

The museum began in the 1920’s with a set of Roman coins and expanded piecemeal throughout the 20th century. It has developed into one of the most significant collections of Greek and Roman art in the American Southeast.

The museum also notably holds one of the most extensive collections of Native American art in the country, setting it apart from others on this list. It has more than 3,300 ancient and contemporary pieces from North, Central, and South America, spanning 4,000 years. Their ancient Costa Rican collection is of particular interest, including greenstone ceremonial axes and stone metates (grinding stones).

8. How the Nelson-Atkins Museum Preserves Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean Art (Kansas City, MO)

Many would not think of Kansas City for their fine arts scene, but the Nelson-Atkins Museum has a surprisingly large and elaborate collection of antiquities. Their ancient art collection spans more than 4,000 years of history from the Near East, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman civilizations.

The Egyptian galleries contain an extensive collection of stone portraiture depicting prominent pharaohs and queens, spanning from Sen-useret III and Ramses II to Nefertiti and the Ptolemaic rulers. Particularly significant is the 2007 acquisition of the funerary items of the noblewoman Meret-it-es. Comprising two coffins, cartonnage, and 304 servant statuettes, the assemblage collectively occupies nearly an entire gallery space.

These eight extraordinary museums bring the wonder of ancient civilizations right to our doorstep. From world-class university research labs to monumental metropolitan galleries, these institutions prove that exploring the deep past doesn’t require crossing an ocean.

With its politics, art, literature, and architecture, Athens is considered the embodiment of ancient Greece. And yet, it lost one of that era’s defining conflicts, the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC). The Athenians, at the pinnacle of their “Golden Age,” were defeated by the infamously austere and conservative Spartans. How did Sparta win the war? A mix of Spartan innovation, Athenian mistakes, and a large amount of Persian gold.

The Structural Clash Between Land Power and Sea Power

The Peloponnesian War can be seen as a struggle between two opposites. The Athenians were democratic and adventurous. Their power rested on their fleet, which controlled a maritime empire in the Aegean. The Spartans were oligarchic and slow. Their source of strength was their heavy infantry hoplite army. The fact that the war lasted 27 years shows how closely matched these two powers were.

For much of the 5th century BC, Greek political life was organized around these two poles. The combination of the Athenian fleet and Spartan hoplites had won the Persian Wars. But half a century later, any hope of stability and peace in Greece was gone.

It is not easy to determine where the balance of power lay in 431 BC. According to the historian Thucydides (1.23.6), the ultimate reason for the war was Spartan fear that the Athenians were becoming too powerful.

That fear was not unfounded. Athenian leadership of the Delian League, an anti-Persian alliance, had been converted into an Athenian empire covering most of the Aegean and the coastal cities on its northern and eastern shores. This empire was maintained by a fleet of up to 300 trireme warships. With decades of experience, the Athenian fleet both outnumbered and outclassed its rivals. The empire and trade brought wealth, which gave Athens, already one of the largest Greek states, the advantage in terms of money. Athens itself was almost impregnable with a series of long walls that connected the city to the port of Piraeus, giving it the same protection as an island.

On the other side, the Spartans were by no means alone. We call this conflict the Peloponnesian War because the Athenians were at war with a Spartan-led alliance that covered most cities of the large Peloponnese peninsula, called the Peloponnesian League. Along with allies in central Greece, especially the Boeotians, the Spartans could call up more than 40,000 hoplite infantry. Even if a decreasing number of these were the famed Spartan hoplites that had a reputation as the best soldiers in Greece, this was a force the Athenians could never match.

The Athenians had ships and money. The Spartans had allies and hoplites. The balance of power was finely poised, perhaps slightly tilted Athens’ way.

The Spartans at Sea: A Change in Strategy

If there was no significant advantage for the Spartans going into the war, perhaps their strategy brought them victory. In the early years of the war, this was certainly not the case. The Spartans started the war with a traditional and simple strategy that the Athenians easily negated.

The Spartans began the war using their superior hoplite army to invade Attica. They had no way to breach Athens’ walls, but the Peloponnesians could devastate the countryside and amass at least twice the number of men as the Athenians. The Spartans hoped the Athenians would either refuse to fight and negotiate or meet the Spartans on their terms and lose. Instead, the Athenians did neither. Safe behind their walls and supplied by their fleet, they waited out a series of annual invasions. Crowding into the city did contribute to a devastating plague in Athens, but the Spartan strategy failed. Athenian raids on the Peloponnesian coast brought results and the first decade of the war ended in a stalemate.

At the end of the first decade, the Spartan position was precarious. Their ineffectiveness was alienating allies, leading the Athenians to try and step into the Peloponnese. This was checked at the Battle of Mantineia in 418 BC, which restored Spartan prestige, but they needed a new approach.

They could not destroy Athens directly, so they had to weaken the Athenian empire. Since that empire was composed of islands and coastal cities, that meant building a fleet. It took years for the Peloponnesians to build a fleet capable of challenging the Athenians. Even as the balance of power started to shift at sea, the Athenians continued to win a string of battles. However, by the last decade of the century, Athens was only ever one defeat away from catastrophe. That defeat came at the Battle of Aegospotami in 405 BC.

It took decades, but the Peloponnesians learned how to fight at sea. Sparta produced an admiral, Lysander, capable of bringing victory. Switching from a strategy of directly attacking Athens to taking away the fleet and empire that supported it worked. However, the success of that strategy rested on several other factors.

Athenian Mistakes and Political Chaos

A good case can be made that Athenian mistakes decided the war. The initial Spartan strategy of invading Attica failed because the Athenians adopted an effective response. Thucydides (1.141) has the Athenian politician Pericles outline this strategy in his account of the conflict. The Peloponnesians could not win if the Athenians refused to meet them in a hoplite battle.

The Athenian fleet would keep them supplied and safe and could raid the Peloponnese in response. It would be difficult to watch the Peloponnesians devastate their countryside and not react, but they would be safe. The strategy came with a warning. Everything depended on the fleet, and so it must be kept safe. There could be no adventurous moves to expand the empire during the war.

Pericles was a victim of his own strategy as he died of a plague made worse by the overcrowding in Athens, but the approach was a success. The result of the first decade of war was not an Athenian victory, but it successfully undermined Spartan prestige. An attempt to exploit Spartan weakness by stepping into the Peloponnese failed at Mantineia in 418 BC. Then came the Sicilian Expedition.

Between 415 and 413 BC, the Athenians sent two large forces on an ill-defined mission to Sicily. It did not begin as an ambitious attempt to conquer the island’s largest city, Syracuse, but that is what it became. When the expedition turned into a major disaster, the balance of power shifted dramatically.

The Athenians had risked, and lost, hundreds of ships, thousands of soldiers and sailors, and some of their best leaders. The last decade of the war was a desperate attempt by the Athenians to hold on as subjects revolted, money ran out, and the Peloponnesians gained more experience at sea.

Political divisions in Athens threw in another element of chaos. Remarkably, the Athenians continued to fight and win naval battles. However, following a heroic effort to scatter a Peloponnesian fleet at the battle of Arginusae in 406 BC, the Athenians turned on their victorious generals. A year later, the poorly led fleet was finally defeated by the Peloponnesians, and Athens was forced to surrender.

A Matter of Money: Military Spending

In his account, Thucydides (1.80) had the Spartan king Archidamus state that war is a matter of money. Initially, this favored the commercial city of Athens with its tribute-bearing empire. Building and maintaining a fleet of wooden warships and employing the thousands of sailors to man it was far more expensive than assembling a hoplite army. For years, the capital-poor Peloponnesians found it difficult to construct a fleet and had little opportunity to earn the experience needed to challenge Athens. That changed with the intervention of the Persian Empire.

The Peloponnesian fleets that eventually wrestled control of the seas from Athens relied on Persian funds. Athens’ defeat in Sicily and the subsequent rebellions of its subjects encouraged the Persians to fund the Spartans’ bid to overthrow the power that had taken the Aegean from them. Initially, Persian support was haphazard and conducted through the satraps, the local governors in the provinces bordering the Greek world. The defeat of Athens would be good for Persian policy and allow them to retake the Aegean coast, but restricting funds to prolong the war was even better. Allowing the Spartans and Athenians to weaken each other worked for a few years.

A policy change came with the arrival of the Persian prince Cyrus. He struck up a relationship with the Spartan general Lysander and saw long-term personal benefits in winning friends in the Greek world. The calculation was simple. Cyrus saw that the Athenians could still dig deep, man a fleet, and defeat the Peloponnesians, but they had reached the limit of their resources. However, as long as Persian gold flowed into Sparta, it could employ better sailors and rebuild lost fleets, letting them beat Athens in a battle of resources. Without Persian funds it is unlikely the Spartans could have continued the war long enough to achieve final victory.

Propaganda: Winning Hearts and Minds

As the Greek world divided between Sparta and Athens, it was the former’s message of the liberation of Greece from Athenian domination that was the more persuasive propaganda.

During the 5th century BC, the Athenians had converted an anti-Persian alliance into a form of empire. Coercion replaced cooperation as tribute was extracted and rebellions crushed. Both sides committed massacres during the war, but the Athenian slaughter of the people of Melos and their threats to do the same elsewhere are still remembered. Their aggressive moves abroad, particularly the invasion of Sicily, painted the picture of a power bent on expansion.

A telling moment came in the 420s. The Spartan general Brasidas was one of the first to emphasize the message of liberation. With promises and fair treatment, he won over many Athenian subjects in the northern Aegean, providing a template for later Spartans to follow. The Athenian threat to massacre rebellious subjects in the region was not an effective counter.

Ideological tensions also played a role. The Athenians represented democracy and probably had some support amongst the mass of people in the Greek world. The Spartans stood for oligarchy and had the natural sympathy of the elites and better off, even in Athens itself. The Athenians never really managed to spread democracy amongst Sparta’s allies. The Spartans, on the other hand, always had a chance of elite sympathizers bringing over a city. Once a city rebelled, it would be risky to submit to the notoriously vengeful Athenians.

Sparta’s message of liberation helped their war effort, but it did not outlast the war. The price of Persian support was sacrificing the Greeks of the eastern Aegean coast to Persia. When the Spartans started to craft their own empire out of the ashes of Athenian power, they quickly became the next tyrant to tear down.

A Spartan Victory or an Athenian Defeat?

The Spartans won the war because, over the course of decades of conflict, they were able to move into their enemies’ territory, the sea, whereas the Athenians never managed to move onto theirs, the land. The Spartans started as a land power, but the final decisive battles were all at sea.

Athenian attempts to remove Spartan allies all required battles on land. The Athenians did attempt this by attacking the Boeotians at the Battle of Delium in 424 BC and trying to build a network of allies around Argos in 418 BC. Both those initiatives failed. Sicily can be seen as an attempt to gain more allies and resources to tip the balance. That too failed, though any of those attempts could conceivably have succeeded.

Athenian mistakes opened an opportunity for the Spartans, which they seized thanks to Persian funds and persuasive propaganda. Thucydides at least believed there was a deeper reason for those mistakes.

One of the reasons why Thucydides is so renowned as a historian is his claim to identify deeper causes behind events. For instance, he stated that the real reason for the war was not the events that triggered it but Spartan fear of the growing power of the Athenians (1.23.6). While Thucydides never finished writing his history of the war, we can detect a similar method for determining its result.

Having explained Pericles’ cautious strategy of not directly engaging the Spartans and not risking the fleet, he explains why this broke down. For Thucydides, Pericles was the only politician capable of keeping the Athenians on this difficult but sensible road. Once he died, successive politicians allowed personal ambition to start directing policy with disastrous results (2.65.7). There is a clear hint of an anti-democratic argument here as Thucydides believes only a capable leader like Pericles could curb the dangerous will of the masses.

Whether it is necessary to blame democracy itself or not, it is hard not to see Athenian mistakes as the ultimate explanation for the result of the war. The Spartans deserve credit for exploiting Athenian errors, but it was certainly those mistakes that opened the door.

Sources

• Hanson, V. D. (2005). A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War. Random House.
• Kagan, D. (1974). The Archidamian War. Cornell University Press.
• Kagan, D. (1986). The Fall of the Athenian Empire. Cornell University Press.
• Tritle, L. A. (2010). A New History of the Peloponnesian War. Wiley-Blackwell.

Gaius Marius is one of the most compelling personalities of the Roman Republic. Entering politics as a “novus homo” from Italy with few political connections, he proved both his military skill and unbridled ambition during the Jugurthine War. He was subsequently elected consul an incredible seven times as he was seen as the only general capable of dealing with the Cimbrian threat. Serving into his late 50s, Marius initially looked like he would retire as a respected statesman, but fate and ambition involved him in the civil war that left his rival Sulla as dictator in Rome. This is the story of Rome’s first strongman, who broke precedents and created a personal army, paving the way for future strongmen, like his nephew Julius Caesar.

Timeline: The Life of Gaius Marius

Gaius Marius: Novus Homo

Gaius Marius was born in 157 BC in the Arpinum area of Latium in Italy. Rome conquered the region in the 4th century BC, but its people were only granted Roman citizenship in 188 BC. Marius was one of the first leading men of Arpinium to consider a political career in Rome.

The biographer Plutarch suggests Marius came from a family of small landholders and that his father was a laborer. This plays into Plutarch’s characterization of Marius as a commoner who built his formidable career with nothing but ambition. However, Marius must have come from local nobility with considerable wealth for his family to have sponsored his political career, and that of his younger brother Marcus Marius, in Rome.

Nevertheless, when Marius began to climb Rome’s political ladder, he was a “novus homo,” which means that he was the first man in his family to do so. Successful new men were rare. Most Roman politicians could point to fathers, grandfathers, or great-grandfathers who held the consulship and commanded armies. In fact, we will meet many ancestors of the late Republic’s great politicians in Marius’s story. Therefore, despite his wealth, Marius was waging an uphill battle to build his career.

Early Military Experience (134-121 BC, Age 23-36)

In 134 BC, Marius had already started his military career and joined the personal legion of the famous general Scipio Aemilianus in Numantia. According to Plutarch, Marius’s military acumen was already evident, and Scipio praised his potential.

This type of support allowed Marius, a political unknown, to be elected military tribune, placing him on the first rung of Rome’s cursus honorum. Later he served under Quintus Caecilius Metellus Balearicus, participating in the conflict that earned Balearicus his cognomen and a triumph in 121 BC.

Tribune of the Plebs (119 BC, Age 38)

After serving under Belearicus, Marius reportedly ran unsuccessfully for local office back in Arpinum and for quaestor in Rome. With these routes blocked Marius stood for tribune of the plebs, an office that represented the lower classes and was a vehicle for popular support. He campaigned alongside the consular candidate Lucius Caecilius Metellus Dalmaticus. These kinds of parallel campaigns were common and suggest that Marius was now a client of the powerful Metelli family.

Winning the election, he held office in 119 BC, passing the Lex Maria, which narrowed the passage that voters passed down to cast their ballots, preventing wealthy patrons from inspecting client ballots.

Higher Political Office (117-110 BC, Age 40-47)

In 117 BC, Marius failed to be elected aedile, perhaps because his voting reforms alienated his Metelli supporters. He was narrowly elected praetor in 116 BC, suggesting that he was still considered relatively unknown and an outsider in Roman politics.

After serving as praetor, he was sent to Further Spain as governor in 114 BC. He held this coveted position for two years, dealing with brigands and enlarging his wealth through the province’s mineral resources, as was common practice for governors.

In 110 BC, Marius married Julia, Julius Caesar’s aunt, connecting himself to the prestigious Julii family. This was an advantageous marriage on both sides. It boosted Marius’s aristocratic connections, while the Julii had not had a consul in the family since 157 BC; they needed some new blood.

Jugurthine War & First Consulship (109-104 BC, Age 48-53)

In 112 BC, the Numidian King Jugurtha waged civil war against his half-brothers, during which he massacred Italian traders living in North Africa. This brought him into conflict with Rome, whose first legions to enter the foray suffered a humiliating defeat that needed to be avenged. We know much about the subsequent Jugurthine War from the account of Sallust, a Roman author living about 50 years after the fact.

Marius joined the conflict in 109 BC as a senior legate of the consul Quintus Caecilius Metellus. He played a pivotal role in several battles. Notably, at the Battle of Muthul, the Numidian light cavalry took the Romans by surprise and broke their infantry into small detachments that could be picked off easily. The Romans were set to be massacred, but Marius was able to form a column of 2,000 men, march through the Numidians, join up with Metellus, and force Jugurtha to withdraw.

Winning Support (109-108 BC, Age 48-49)

Marius’s military reputation, along with actions such as eating meals alongside the troops and sharing in their labors, won him significant support among the soldiers. He also won support among Italian traders in the area by suggesting he could end the war in a few days with half of Metellus’s troops. Both groups wrote home recommending Marius.

With his growing support, Marius wanted to run for consul in 108 BC, but Metellus did not support him or give him leave to return to Rome to contest the election. Nevertheless, Marius was determined, according to Sallust, partly due to a positive prediction from a fortune-teller; the Romans placed great stock in the predictions of soothsayers and astrologers.

Also in 108 BC, a Roman detachment garrisoned at Vege was ambushed and annihilated, but their commander, who was a client of the Metelli, survived. Probably looking to boost his popularity, Marius urged Metellus to sentence him to death for cowardice, but Metellus refused. Marius sent letters to Rome denouncing Metellus’s actions, and the general finally let Marius return to Rome to run for consul, no doubt wanting the troublemaker out of his camp.

Consulship & Command (107-106 BC, Age 50-51)

In Rome, Marius used widespread dissatisfaction with how the war was being managed to be elected one of the two consuls for 107 BC. He did not immediately get the Numidian command because the Senate had extended Metellus’s command. Not one to be disappointed, he had a friendly tribune of the plebs override the senatorial order and have the plebiscite grant him command. An angry Metellus returned to Rome where he was voted a triumph and the name Numidicus.

Marius understood that he would need fresh troops to end the war in Numidia quickly. Rome’s traditional recruits, landowning citizens, were overextended, so Marius obtained permission to recruit discharged veterans and men without property to fight in exchange for loot. Some modern scholars suggest that this led to a change in Roman military recruitment, but the evidence suggests this happened a few decades later. Nevertheless, Marius’s innovation set a precedent. He left for Africa with new cavalry, and his new infantry sailed behind him with his quaestor Lucius Cornelius Sulla.

Despite his new recruits, Marius did not manage to defeat Jugurtha in a few weeks. The Numidians effectively used guerrilla tactics to rob the Romans of an overall victory. Marius arrived late in 107 BC and successfully engaged the Numidians near Cirta. He then launched a dangerous march through the desert to capture the city of Caspa in a surprise attack. Even though the town surrendered, Marius sent a message by killing all the men, enslaving the survivors, and allowing his men to loot the city.

This put such sufficient pressure on Jugurtha that he went to his father-in-law Bocchus, the king of Mauretania. While Bocchus seems to have been reluctant to engage the Romans, when Marius captured a fortress near the river Molochath in the west in 106 BC, he began to encroach on Bocchus’s territory. A combined force of Numidian and Mauretanian troops surprised Marius in the desert near Serif. They managed to hold off the enemy until nightfall, when the Africans retired. Then at dawn, the Romans surprised the Africans by attacking their camp and completely routed their army. Nevertheless, they still did not have Jugurtha or victory.

The Defeat of Jugurtha (105-104 BC, Age 52-53)

Despite Marius never suffering a military defeat, it became clear that the Romans would never fully deal with Jugurtha by military means. Instead, they negotiated with Bocchus to hand over Jugurtha in exchange for part of his territory and a Roman alliance. Sulla, an aristocrat who had friends at Bocchus’s court, was sent to receive Jugurtha and oversee the slaughter of his surviving followers.

When Marius returned to Rome, Jugurtha was paraded in his triumph in 104 BC, and then thrown into Rome’s underground prison. After the triumph, there was talk of who deserved credit for the victory, Marius or Sulla. The war was won under Marius’s auspices, so he celebrated the triumph, but clearly, Sulla was leveraging his role to rally support for his political ambitions.

The Cimbrian War (104-101 BC, Age 53-56)

While Marius was now a celebrated general, Rome’s other generals were having less success. In 109 BC, a Germanic tribe called the Cimbri moved into Gaul and battered the Romans. This dramatically reduced Rome’s prestige among the recently subdued Celtic tribes of Gaul, who began to agitate. In 107 BC, Marius’s consular colleague Longinus suffered a terrible defeat at the hands of the Tigurini Celts.

In 106 BC, the new consul Quintus Servilius Caepio arrived with a new army, and he was joined in 105 BC by yet another new consul, Gneaus Mallius Maximus. The two men were antagonistic towards one another and were unable to cooperate. Consequently, the Germans could divide and conquer. The Cimbri and Teutones trapped Mallius and his men in their camp on the Rhone. They then used overwhelming numbers to defeat Caepio at the Battle of Arausio. The survivors fled to Mallius’s camp, where the Romans were pinned down and annihilated.

News of this humiliating defeat reached Rome around the same time as news of Marius’s success against Jugurtha. Seeing Marius as their only hope, the Senate took the unprecedented step of electing Marius as consul for 104 BC in absentia; traditionally candidates had to be in Rome to be elected consul. After his triumph, Marius headed to Gaul to deal with the Cimbri, who were now in Spain.

War Preparations (104-103 BC, Age 53-54)

When Marius took up the command, again with Sulla as his legate, the legions in Gaul had been decimated. Again, he recruited veterans and unlanded Romans to fight, gathering 30,000 Roman and 40,000 Italian and allied troops. He was in no rush to engage, instead establishing a base at Aquae Sextiae to train his new men.

The Cimbri were a big enough threat that Rome was willing to give Marius time, and he was re-elected as consul, again in absentia, in 103 BC, even though he could have continued his command as proconsul. But in 103 BC, Marius was still forced to return to Rome to oversee consular elections for the following year because his colleague had died in office. Despite not yet making any progress against the Cimbri, he was re-elected yet again in 102 BC.

Defending Italy (102-101 BC, Age 55-56)

In 102 BC, with Marius back in Gaul, the Cimbri finally emerged from Spain with plans to move into Italy with their allies. The Teutones and the Ambrones were to advance into Italy from the south, while the Cimbri and Tiburini planned separate crossings over the Alps. The consuls Marius and Quintus Lutatius Catulus split their troops, with Marius in Gaul and Catulus defending the Alps.

Marius initially refused to engage the Teutones and Ambrones in battle, instead staying in his fortified camp. When the tribes passed him to move toward Italy, he was able to shadow them and wait for the best moment to attack. This came near Aquae Sextia when the Ambrones attacked Roman soldiers collecting water. The Romans slaughtered 30,000 Germans. The following day, the Ambrones and Teutones attacked the Romans again, who had an advantageous position on a hill. The Germans were outflanked and Marius’s men killed at least 100,000 of them. Marius’s subordinate and ally Manius Aquilius was sent to Rome to report on the engagement, where he was elected consul along with Marius, again in absentia, for 101 BC.

Catulus was not as successful as Marius and the Cimbri made it across the Alps into northern Italy. When Marius received the news that he had been re-elected consul, he returned to Rome. He delayed celebrating another triumph to join up with Catulus. He met the Cimbri at the Battle of Vercellae and had a decisive victory, which again involved actions by Sulla, who was leading the cavalry. Around 120,000 Cimbri were reportedly slaughtered or enslaved. When the Tigurini heard the news, they abandoned their advance and returned to Gaul.

Later that year, there were 15 days of thanksgiving and a shared triumph for Marius and Catulus, though according to Plutarch, everyone knew the victory belonged to Marius. Basking in his glory, Marius secured yet another consulship for 100 BC alongside Lucius Valerius Flaccus.

Twilight Years (100-87 BC, Age 57-70)

Marius needed his sixth consulship to ensure credit for his victories in the Cimbrian War and to get the land he had promised his veterans. He worked together with a tribune of the plebs called Lucius Apuleius Saturninus to push through what he needed. But Saturninus proved ruthless, even assassinating a political opponent, so Marius soon distanced himself from the tribune.

Later in his term, Marius used his power as the standing consul to block Saturninus’s ally Glauca from standing for consul. Again, Saturninus killed one of the standing candidates to delay the election and give Glauca another chance. The conflict in the city got so bad that the Senate passed their first ever senatus consultum ultimum that ordered the magistrates, so Marius, to take whatever action necessary to end the unrest caused by another magistrate, Saturninus. Marius rallied volunteers from his veterans and the people and used them to besiege Saturninus on the Capitoline, where he was killed by an angry mob. Glauca was also dragged from his house and killed.

Despite being authorized by the Senate, this incident left its mark on Marius’s reputation, and his career suffered. He traveled to Galatia in 98 BC to fulfill a vow he had made to Magna Mater, and probably to flee the embarrassment of having to abandon his candidature for the position of censor due to a lack of support. Nevertheless, he clearly still had friends in Rome, as in the same year he was elected in absentia to the College of Augurs. There are also records of him being present at the trial of his friend Manius Aquilius in 98 BC, which was enough to see him acquitted, and defending Titus Matrinius in 95 BC.

Marius was back in action briefly during the Social War. This conflict with Rome’s Italian allies, socii, started in 95 BC when the Lex Licinia Mucia expelled all residents from Rome who were not Roman citizens. Then, in 91 BC, Marcus Livius Drusus, a tribune of the plebs, proposed land reforms and citizenship for the Italian allies. When Drusus was assassinated, the Social War broke about between Rome and the Italian allies.

Marius acted as a senior legate for the consul Publius Rutilius Lupus, but when he fell during an ambush on June 11, 90 BC, Marius took command and was able to drive back the enemy forces. The Senate then appointed Marius to take over the command, and he won another important victory, again with the help of Sulla. But the following year he was replaced with no fanfare by the new consul Lucius Porcius Cato. It is possible that he relinquished the command willingly due to his age. The war was concluded in 87 BC without further input from Marius.

Civil War & Death (88-86 BC, Age 69-71)

A new conflict broke out in 88 BC when Mithridates of Pontus started invading Rome’s client kingdoms and holdings in Asia. This led to fierce competition for the consulship in 88 BC for the honor of leading Rome’s armies against the eastern king. Sulla was elected consul and received the command.

The following year, the now 70-year-old Marius started to position himself for his seventh consulship, seemingly with his eye on the command against Mithridates. To gain support, he worked with Sulpicius Rufus, a candidate for tribune of the plebs, to distribute new Italian citizens into 35 voting tribes. This led to riots, delaying Sulla’s departure, as the consul worked to restore peace, but a deal was struck between Marius, Rufus, and Sulla. When the riots were quelled and Sulla left, Rufus passed his bill, but with an amendment that gave Marius command against Mithridates.

Marius sent two of his legates to take over the command from Sulla, who refused and killed the legates. In an unexpected move, Sulla then turned and marched on Rome, forcing Marius to try to defend the city with gladiators. Marius was defeated and fled to his veterans in Africa. Back in Rome, Sulla proscribed the people who had worked against him and had a death sentence passed on Marius and his allies. He then reconfirmed his command and continued his march towards Mithridates.

With Sulla away, unrest broke out in Rome again when the conservative Gnaeus Octavius and the populist Lucius Cornelius Cinna were elected consuls with opposing agendas. Marius used the opportunity to gather ten legions and march on Rome. Like Sulla before him, he purged his opponents including the well-known senators Lucius Licinius Crassus, Marcus Antonius Orator, and Lucius Julius Caesar.

Show elections were held and Marius was made consul for 86 BC with Cinna. Sulla was again declared an enemy and stripped of his command. But before Marius could do anything to take up the command against Mithridates himself, he died, apparently of natural causes on January 13, 86 BC.

The civil war continued without Marius, who was made the scapegoat for many crimes. The conflict culminated with Sulla returning to Rome and having himself declared dictator.

How many Egyptian pharaohs were female? While very few Egyptian rulers were women, there were more female pharaohs than most people imagine. The challenge is that they are difficult to trace in history, as they either legitimized their rule by presenting themselves as male, as in Hatshepsut’s case, or were called queens, as in Nefertiti’s, making it unclear whether they ruled independently or with a partner. As a result, female pharaohs remain an intriguing historical puzzle.

Which Female Pharaohs Do We Know the Most About?

Probably the most well-known female pharaoh was Hatshepsut, who ruled Egypt for two decades and constructed a plethora of imagery representing her rule. The world-famous bust of Nefertiti makes her name well known beyond Egyptology. Despite her fame, evidence of her role as a pharaoh is disputed. Then there is Cleopatra, the most popular female pharaoh in modern times.

There were many more women who ruled ancient Egypt during its long history. However, proving the number of female pharaohs and the extent of their power is a challenge that often raises more questions than answers.

Ancient Egyptian scholars have evidence for several other female pharaohs. Tawosret was a mysterious woman who ruled in the 19th dynasty. She was buried in the Valley of the Kings, and her impact is clear in the archaeological record.

An even more obscure female pharaoh is Neithikret (also called Nitiqret or Nitocris), who lived during the 6th dynasty. The trouble with identifying Neithikret is that the records of her rule describe her as a male king. The first Egyptian woman who is agreed upon as rising to the top is Sobekneferu.

How Sobekneferu’s Story Explains Female Rule

The first female pharaoh for whom there is definitive evidence was Sobekneferu, who held the title of king of Egypt from 1806 to 1802 BC. Her story of becoming pharaoh is complicated.

After the death of her father, Amenemhet III, there were three natural options to fill his shoes: his son (or grandson, son-in-law, or stepson), Amenemhat IV, his other daughter, Neferuptah, or Sobekneferu. As a result, Amenemhat IV became king and ruled for about ten years until his death. By that time, Neferuptah had also passed away, leaving Sobekneferu in a place of rightful succession.

While not detailed, this evidence provides us with a general timeline of succession for the 12th dynasty, ending with Sobekneferu. The fact that Amenemhat IV, who may have been a more distant relative of the previous pharaoh than either of his two daughters, inherited the throne, demonstrates the preference for male rulers.

But the story of Sobekneferu also highlights the importance of royal bloodlines. An empty throne without a male heir produced a clear line for Sobekneferu to become king. In this case, the familial lineage can be deduced as being more important than crowning a male. This is probably how most female pharaohs came to power: being in the right place at the right time and the only viable option.

Egyptian Women Often Held Important Titles

The relative equality of women and men in law, society, and religion in ancient Egypt explains why female pharaohs existed. While most women did not work outside the home, those who did received the same pay as their male counterparts. Unlike women in other parts of the ancient world, Egyptian women are known to have owned estates, received honorable awards for military campaigns, engaged in trade, and held the highest positions in religious and political leadership.

Personified as a goddess, the deity Maat represented order and justice. Her worship was part of the pharaoh’s job description. If Maat was not appeased, chaos would ensue. In the absence of a male heir, placing a queen as pharaoh may have prevented cosmic imbalance.

While poorer Egyptian women prioritized motherhood and were defined as wives and mothers first, wealthy women could play a much greater role in society. Rather than running the household personally, she would have managed a team of servants. She probably also had fewer children, since the extra labor provided by a large family was unnecessary. Therefore, women of rank could take on leadership roles, including royal positions.

Female Pharaohs Presenting as Male Kings

Although men and women in ancient Egypt were considered equal under the law, the position of king was a male one, as he was the incarnation of the (male) god Horus. The women who took the status of pharaoh often adopted male characteristics to imitate their predecessors and reinforce their legitimacy.

In general, pharaohs represented themselves with consistent imagery to show the continuation of successful Egyptian leadership. This included a regal headdress, a strong masculine body, and a fake beard. Archaeological evidence shows that Hatshepsut often depicted herself with male characteristics, including a beard. In the above example of a kneeling statue of Hatshepsut, only her face reveals more slender, feminine features.

Sometimes, this use of standard iconography can make it difficult to distinguish between male and female pharaohs. It is possible that some surviving pharaonic images, assumed to be male, belonged to forgotten female pharaohs.

Hatshepsut was another queen who became pharaoh by happenstance. Her kingship was required to avoid disorder and keep her family on the throne. During the two decades she ruled, Egypt was prosperous. She focused heavily on new construction; therefore, her position as pharaoh is well-documented. Nevertheless, the imagery that she used became more masculine throughout her reign. Images from her later years are impossible to differentiate from images of male pharaohs without an identifying inscription.

The Difference Between a Queen Regent and a Female Pharaoh

Another key obstruction in finding women who had absolute power in ancient Egypt is their ambiguous titles. For some women, there is good evidence that they had sole ruling power but were referred to by titles such as “Queen” or “Mother of the King.” The reason for this phenomenon is that their claim to power was based on their role within the royal family, and these female royal titles were extremely important.

These titles equated the wife or mother of the pharaoh with important goddesses, such as Isis, and lent support to the idea that the pharaoh was a divinity on earth. Female pharaohs often possessed these titles before coming to power, and they could not just be abandoned because they supported the legitimacy of the entire dynasty.

In some cases, the pharaoh would be polygamous, and if his son did not survive, a stepson could take charge. In a few unfortunate circumstances, the pharaoh died while his oldest son was still a young child. The queen was often appointed regent for her son and honored as the king’s mother. But even when serving as regent, in some cases, for all intents and purposes, the queen was the pharaoh.

This is how Hatshepsut came to power, as she was originally the regent of her two-year-old stepson. As a member of the royal family, she had to step in as regent to prevent other powerful people from taking advantage of the infant king and usurping power.

Over time, she partially erased and reshaped previous artworks representing her as a queen to reinforce her role as pharaoh. She proclaimed herself as the daughter and wife of the god Amun and the true pharaoh in direct communication with the gods.

Were Female Pharaohs Only Enlisted to Prevent Downfall?

In a way, female pharaohs were utilized during dangerous times when the line of succession was threatened. While history shows that male pharaohs were preferred, maintaining the royal bloodline was more important than having a male as pharaoh. The pharaoh was required to have direct ties to their predecessor for religious purposes. The family of the pharaoh was part of the family of the gods and joined them as deities themselves after death. Therefore, a female member of the family could fill that role temporarily.

The Egyptians would see a break in the lineage as a punishment from the gods and a guarantee of disorder. The pharaoh was a religious leader who communicated divine wishes to the mortal realm. Choosing the wrong pharaoh would upset Maat. Not to mention, unwelcome groups were more likely to invade if the royal family lost absolute power. The queen becoming king was a last resort to keep the peace. So, in a way, female pharaohs were only enlisted to prevent downfall.

Many queen regents did not claim ultimate power over Egypt. A few queens declared their autonomy as kings. No matter the scenario or title, many females took power in ancient Egypt and constructed evidence of their rule intended to last thousands of years.

This only changed significantly with the Ptolemies. These Hellenistic rulers adopted intra-familial marriages to ensure the strength and purity of their external dynasty. This gave the women of the family, almost all named Cleopatra, a much more important role. Seven Ptolemaic queens named Cleopatra were co-rulers with their male family members over almost 300 years of rule. Even Cleopatra VII, who was the true power in Egypt from 47 BC, thanks to her alliance with Rome, always had a male co-ruler: her father Ptolemy XII, then her brothers Ptolemy XIII and XIV, and finally her son Ptolemy XV Caesarion.

The difficulty in discerning details about the identities of pharaohs is not limited to the scope of those who were female. The names and deeds of many pharaohs have been lost to history. But between the looted burial sites left behind by tomb raiders and our inconclusive understanding of how female rulers became pharaohs, the clues point to an intriguing history of female leadership in ancient history.

Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations is no ordinary philosophical treatise. Written by the 2nd-century AD Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, the “Meditations” was not an organized text edited for publication, but a collection of the emperor’s philosophical thoughts and reflections as he sought clarity, resilience, and patience while ruling Rome’s mighty empire. They were only discovered and published centuries after his death. A follower of Stoic philosophy, his words have been embraced as practical lessons on how to achieve goals, overcome obstacles, and live a good life. Let’s look at five of the emperor’s most important quotes from the Meditations and the wisdom they contain.

1. “The Obstacle is the Way”

“Our actions may be impeded… but there can be no impeding our intentions or dispositions. Because we can accommodate and adapt. The mind adapts and converts to its purposes the obstacle to our acting. The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.” (Meditations 5.20)

Marcus Aurelius frames obstacles as opportunities, suggesting that you should not get discouraged when you encounter a bump in the road. He suggests that obstacles can sometimes give us clarity on a better way to move forward, as they force us to keep digging. Obstacles can lead people to find inner strength and realize that they are capable of things they previously thought impossible. They also develop our character in the face of setbacks, helping people to become better human beings.

The author suggests that it is best to work with obstacles rather than resist them and to maintain a positive attitude when faced with difficulties. Instead of seeing obstacles as scary, they should be embraced as an opportunity to learn and grow. This is how you find the right path. If everything was easy, what’s the point of pursuing it anyway? It is the inner joy found while overcoming obstacles that contributes to a truly purposeful life.

2. “The Stars Can Help”

“To watch the course of the stars as if you revolved with them. To keep constantly in mind how the elements alter into one another. Thoughts like this wash off the mud of life below.” (Meditations 7.47)

Here, Marcus Aurelius suggests that when you are feeling overwhelmed, it is a good idea to put your problems in perspective. He encourages individuals to imagine themselves running with the stars while appreciating the universe with astonishment, to realize that their problems are not as significant as they imagine. This exercise can help to reduce negative thoughts and encourage a sense of humility.

The Stoic emperor also shares the reminder that change is the natural condition of the universe. He explains that nothing lasts forever; everything will transform. Remembering how seasons change, for example, or how the storm will sooner or later be replaced by the bright sun with its warm rays, is comforting. Anyone can benefit from keeping in mind that the adversity they are facing will end; change is inevitable.

3. “Do Less, But Better”

“If you seek tranquility, do less. Or (more accurately) do what’s essential—what the logos of a social being requires, and in the requisite way. 

Which brings a double satisfaction: to do less, better. Because most of what we say and do is not essential. If you can eliminate it, you’ll have more time, and more tranquility. Ask yourself at every moment, ‘Is this necessary?’

But we need to eliminate unnecessary assumptions as well. To eliminate the unnecessary actions that follow.” (Meditations 4.24)

Here, Marcus Aurelius suggests that we can gain more tranquility in life by doing less, by not doing the things that are not essential. This minimalism not only reduces stress, but gives us the capacity to do the things that matter better, increasing satisfaction.

This feels like a lesson for the modern world, a time when many people subscribe to the cult of productivity. We are often made to feel guilty if we are not doing something productive all the time. This need to be busy means that we often fill our lives with things that are unnecessary. Marcus Aurelius suggests that this leads us to waste time on things that don’t matter, and reduce our ability to engage with the things that do.

His advice is to be careful how we spend our time, eliminating things that are unnecessary and prioritizing the things that truly matter to us. In this way, we are valuing our time and energy in the most beneficial way. But he suggests that this approach should not only extend to what we do, but also how we think. Don’t waste time on judging others when you could be focused on your own challenges.

4. “Be Good”

“To feel affection for people even when they make mistakes is uniquely human. You can do it too, if you simply recognize that they’re human too, that they act out of ignorance, against their will, and that you’ll both be dead before long. And, above all, that they haven’t really hurt you. They haven’t diminished your ability to choose.” (Meditations 7.22)

This passage emphasizes the importance of forgiveness and understanding. Marcus Aurelius suggests that we try to feel sympathy for people who have wronged others and understand what is behind their actions. For example, if you encounter someone who is incredibly rude, it may be that you are meeting them on the worst day of their life, and stress is causing their behavior. Therefore, try to be empathetic before passing judgment.

Marcus Aurelius also talks about death in this passage. He is saying that both these people will die soon, so what’s the point of getting angry or upset? Some people might see this as pessimistic, but Marcus Aurelius is highlighting that whatever you are upset about won’t matter for very long.

The Stoic emperor also suggests that while another person’s actions might feel hurtful, their actions don’t control how we choose to respond. The freedom and responsibility of our response lies with us. This is one of the most powerful teachings of the Stoics: we choose our thoughts and actions, and therefore create the world in which we live.

5. “All is For the Best”

“He does only what is his to do and considers constantly what the world has in store for him—doing his best and trusting that all is for the best. For we carry our fate with us—and it carries us.” (Meditations 3.4)

Here, Marcus Aurelius talks about doing the tasks required of a person while staying curious and maintaining a positive attitude toward life. The individual is encouraged to care only about what will bring him to the achievement of his goals, one step at a time. He should not care about what others are doing unless people ask for his help.

While the emperor suggests focused action, he also promotes curiosity. When you stay curious and constantly strive to discover the world, you will start to notice the opportunities.

He also suggests embracing a positive attitude and expecting good things to happen. Even when faced with adversity, remember that something good will come out of it in the end. He suggests that a wise person understands that everything happens for a reason.

The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius contain much more wisdom from Stoic philosophy. The Stoics believed in the importance of daily reflection and writing down philosophical teachings and principles to keep them in mind and live by them. This seems to have been Marcus Aurelius’ aim in writing his Meditations.

The ancient Greek gods were not silent. Throughout the Mediterranean world, worshipers traveled to sanctuaries to seek answers from the gods regarding politics, wars, crops, and even their private lives. At special sanctuaries, called oracles, the gods spoke through their intermediaries. The Oracle of Delphi was considered the most famous and often called the heart of Greek religious life, but it was not the only one. Oracles were widespread throughout the Greek world. Discover some of the other most important, including the Oracle at Dodona in northern Greece and the Oracle of Siwa in Egypt.

1. Oracle of Dodona Was the Oldest and Spoke Through Oak Leaves

Long before the establishment of the Oracle of Delphi, the ancient Greeks believed that their gods communicated at Oracle of Dodona, located in an ancient and remote Epirote town in northwestern Greece. Ancient writers such as Herodotus believed that the sanctuary at Dodona dated back to the Late Bronze Age, and that it was primarily dedicated to Zeus and his consort Dione.

At this oracle, the gods were believed to speak in a very specific way: through oak leaves. More precisely, at the center of the sanctuary stood a large oak tree that was considered divine. When someone came to seek an answer from the oracle, the sounds of the tree were carefully observed. The rustling of leaves, the movement of branches in the wind, and even the songs of birds nesting among its branches were all interpreted as divine messages. In some ancient accounts, bronze cauldrons placed around the tree are also mentioned, which produced ringing sounds. Each of these sounds was considered to be the voice of Zeus.

The Oracle of Dodona was not reserved only for kings and generals. Archaeological finds include a large number of lead tablets left by pilgrims. Based on these tablets, we know what people asked the oracle. Most commonly, they were questions related to marriage, property disputes, or long-distance travel.

2. Didyma Rivaled Delphi With Its Massive Temple and Sacred Spring

In the eastern Greek regions of Ionia, few oracles had as much prestige as the Oracle of Didyma. Closely connected to the powerful city of Miletus, Didyma was one of the most important monuments of Apollo outside mainland Greece. Didyma was the principal oracle for the eastern regions, and it was consulted by kings, cities, and later even the Roman elite.

At the center of Didyma stood the enormous Temple of Apollo, with massive columns and spacious courtyards. The temple reflected the wealth of Miletus, and its construction, which began in the Archaic period, lasted for centuries. The temple itself left pilgrims speechless even before they reached the oracle.

The prophecies at Didyma differed greatly from the trance-based prophecies of Delphi. According to ancient tradition, the oracle was delivered within the adyton, the sacred inner chamber of the temple. Only selected priests from the hereditary priestly line of the Branchidae could interpret the will of Apollo. Before approaching Apollo, both the supplicant and the priests would be purified at the sacred spring next to the temple. According to some traditions, the priests would even inhale vapors, fast, or perform other rituals to interpret the will of Apollo.

3. The Oracle of Siwa Confirmed Alexander the Great as a Divine Ruler

Far from Greece, deep in the Libyan deserts, stood one of the most mysterious and fascinating oracles of the ancient world. The Oracle at Siwa was dedicated to the deity Zeus-Ammon, which combined Greek and Egyptian religious traditions into a unique syncretic cult. For the Egyptians, Ammon had been one of the most important deities for centuries, and Zeus was the principal Greek god.

The oracle is closely associated with Alexander the Great after his famous journey in 331 BC during his campaign in Egypt. Ancient sources describe how Alexander traveled with a small entourage to the oracle to personally seek answers. Although we do not know exactly what Alexander asked the oracle, some ancient sources state that the priests called Alexander the son of Zeus-Ammon, which strengthened his authority in Egypt and his belief in his own divinity.

For ordinary pilgrims, it was not easy to reach the Oracle of Siwa. Unlike Delphi or Didyma, Siwa was deeply isolated in the merciless deserts far from the Nile Valley. Travelers crossed scorching heat and weathered sandstorms to reach the surprisingly fertile Siwa Oasis. Sources mention that even Alexander became lost during the journey until the gods showed him the way. All of this created an additional aura around the Oracle of Siwa, located at the very edge of the known world.

4. The Oracle of Trophonius Required a Terrifying Subterranean Descent

Of all the oracles on our list, few inspired fear like the Oracle of Trophonius. Unlike more of Greece’s bright oracles, the Oracle of Trophonius was directly connected to the underworld. Trophonius was believed to have once been a legendary architect and demigod who, after death, became an underground prophetic power. For pilgrims, the journey to the oracle provided a once in a lifetime experience.

Similar to other oracles, the process began with purification at a nearby spring. Ancient sources such as Pausanias describe how pilgrims spent days at this oracle, fasting, bathing, and drinking water from the spring. However, the final stage of seeking answers was the harshest.

After completing the initial rituals, the seeker passed through a narrow underground opening and descended into a deep chasm where the prophetic power of Trophonius was believed to reside. Ancient sources emphasize the claustrophobic phase of the descent. In their fear, visitors often experienced supernatural encounters, visions, and divine revelations. Ancient sources state that those who entered the chasm never laughed again afterward. Unlike other oracles, there were no priests at the Oracle of Trophonius and the experience was entirely personal.

5. Seekers at the Amphiaraion Received Divine Healing Through Sleep

After Trophonius, every other oracle seemed more relaxed, and among the most relaxed was certainly the Amphiaraion. Located on the border between Attica and Boeotia, the Amphiaraion became one of the most important sanctuaries and healing centers of ancient Greece.

It was dedicated to Amphiaraus, a legendary hero, seer, and warrior associated with the mythological expedition of the Seven Against Thebes. According to legend, the earth swallowed Amphiaraus, transforming him into an energy that could heal and provide prophecies.

The central practice associated with this oracle was a process called incubation, in which pilgrims slept within the sacred precinct in the hope that answers and healing would come in their dreams. Before lying down, supplicants were purified at a nearby spring, similar to other oracles. After that, they would lie in a designated place and wait for visions. Dreams were interpreted as divine messages, diagnoses, or instructions for healing. Visitors would sleep until they were satisfied with the answer. Some pilgrims even claimed that Amphiaraus himself appeared to them in dreams in human form.

6. Claros Offered the Most Sophisticated Prophecies of the Imperial Age

During the Roman Imperial period, the Oracle of Claros developed into the most refined and theologically advanced oracle. Located near the Ionian city of Colophon and dedicated to Apollo, it reached its peak in the centuries following the rise of Rome. At that time, it became a key destination for seeking political, religious, and civic answers, primarily for the Roman elite.

This oracle was highly structured and in some ways resembled the Oracle of Delphi. At its head stood a male priest known as the prophetes. After ritual preparation, he would descend into a chamber beneath the ground, where he drank sacred water from a hidden spring. Ancient believers thought that this water produced trance-like effects, allowing Apollo to speak through the priest. The atmosphere of the sanctuary itself was mystical, with many dimly lit underground spaces and labyrinth-like passages.

What most distinguished the Oracle of Claros was the way its responses were delivered and their intellectual character. The answers were often composed in Greek verse and elevated prose, requiring a high level of theological and rhetorical skill. Instead of cryptic messages, they were structured as philosophical explanations of divine will.

7. Oracle of Abae, a Forgotten Rival of Delphi in the Heart of Phocis

The Oracle of Abae once stood as the most important sanctuary dedicated to Apollo until it was overshadowed by the Oracle of Delphi. They were even located close to one another. Although it most often served the local population, Abae was visited in times of crisis by pilgrims from other parts of Greece. Abae was a traditional place and did not have the dramatic characteristics of some of the other oracles on our list.

Herodotus recorded that the Oracle of Abae played an important role during the Persian Wars, when many people sought answers about what would happen next. It was precisely during the Persian Wars that this oracle was damaged. Although it was not destroyed, it never managed to regain its former importance.

Although we have fewer writings about this oracle and the procedure of obtaining answers, it is believed that the structure was a classical Apollonian one. This involved a priest interpreting divine signs and delivering answers within the sacred space, without the ecstatic trances of the Pythia at Delphi.

Human survival has always depended on water. Important ancient waterways were the Nile, the Tigris, Euphrates, Ganges, and the Yellow River that determined whether civilizations survived or thrived. To better understand these rivers, ancient people deified them and worshiped them to control and pacify the mighty bodies of water. These sacred waters influenced religious pantheons, political authority, and shaped the civilizations that created them.

The Hydrological Foundations of Early Human Faith

During the Neolithic Revolution, humans went from hunter-gatherer societies to agrarian societies that required them to settle near large rivers. These rivers were the life-giving sources for these cultures, so they came to regard them as gods. Humans have a natural tendency to want to explain life, and that can be done by creating gods that control the world around them. These life-giving rivers were personified and were viewed as living entities that had to be worshipped. Most ancient civilizations also had creation myths in which the first instance of life came from primordial waters.

How Flood Dynamics Shaped Perceptions of the Divine

The Nile is arguably the most famous ancient river, and it had a predictable schedule where it flooded, then receded. Hapi was the ancient Egyptian god of the annual flooding, when rich silt was deposited on the river’s banks. His arrival was a celebration, but other rivers like the Yellow, Tigris, and Euphrates were more chaotic. 

Tiamat is an ocean goddess from Mesopotamia who mated with Abzû t to create the Babylonian pantheon. She was regarded as a monster despite being the mother of all things. 

Hebo (the Yellow River) was also a scary god to behold because the river caused many unfortunate drownings and was known to alter course on a whim. In order to appease the gods, ancient rituals were needed, and they could be serious, with sacrificial offerings.

Sacred Waters and the Architecture of Spiritual Purification

In ancient civilizations, water played an important spiritual and practical role in people’s lives. Water represented life, but it was also viewed as a physical and spiritual cleansing tool. The Ganges is the most sacred river in Hinduism. It is believed to be the source of life, and Hindus make sacred pilgrimages or tirtha to bathe in its waters. It’s similar to how Egyptians priests would cleanse themselves or offer libations to the dead to symbolize rebirth. 

In ancient Mesopotamia, lustral water was used to bathe feet and hands before entering temples, to anoint kings, and for its medicinal properties believed to be found in the ceremonies. Rivers, like the Ganges, still draw millions of people to their banks for spiritual purifications

Hydraulic Control and the Divine Legitimacy of Ancient Monarchs

Kings, priests, and other ruling classes monopolized access to rivers and used them to maintain their dominance over people. To bring water to civilizations and demonstrate their power, rulers undertook massive engineering projects as instructions from divine mandates. Huge projects like canals, dykes, and aqueducts were constructed, showing how rulers controlled rivers to bring water to their people. However, if projects failed or rivers flooded and caused catastrophe, the ruling classes were blamed and lost their dominance.

The Enduring Legacy of Ancient River Deities

Throughout the ancient world, rivers were viewed as sacred sites that brought either life or death. Over time, worship of the actual river changed to ceremonies tied to later religions, such as cleansing/purification. The symbolism remained, but it was incorporated as cultures and religions shifted. 

Dependence on water is a factor that is as old as humanity and one that will never change. Rivers are still viewed as important resources in the modern world; they may not be worshipped, but they are still regarded as sacred in that they must be preserved and protected.

According to Greek myth, the goddess Artemis demanded the sacrifice of Princess Iphigenia at Aulis because her father King Agamemnon’s hubris in killing a sacred stag and claiming his hunting prowess surpassed that of the goddess. To punish his arrogance and test his commitment to the Trojan War, Artemis halted the winds, paralyzing the Greek fleet. The seer Calchas declared that only the blood of Agamemnon’s eldest daughter could appease the deity, setting in motion one of the most devastating family tragedies in Greek mythology. But why did Artemis, a protector of women, demand this sacrifice, why did Agamemnon inevitably agree, and how did the Greeks understand this horrific scene?

The Divine Crime of Agamemnon at Aulis

According to the story of the Trojan War, when Paris of Troy whisked Helen away from her husband Menelaus of Sparta, Menelaus’ brother Agamemnon, the king of Argos, assembled the Greek coalition at Aulis to set sail for Troy.

While there, Agamemnon went hunting in a grove sacred to Artemis. She was the goddess of the hunt, wild nature, pregnant women and children, and the boundary between civilization and wilderness. There he killed one of the goddess’ sacred stags. While this was already a sacrilegious offence, he compounded his guilt by boasting about his ability as a hunter, claiming that even Artemis could not shoot as well as he had.

In immediate retribution for Agamemnon’s offence and hubris, Artemis calmed the sea winds, stranding the Greek fleet at Aulis. This was a narrow harbor strait in Boeotia closely connected to her cult, giving her the power to control the conditions there.

Unaware of why his fleet was being detained but keen to set off for war, Agamemnon consulted the seer Calchas. He informed Agamemnon of Artemis’ anger and told him that the only way to appease her and release his fleet was to sacrifice his oldest daughter, Iphigenia, in compensation for the slain stag.

Why Artemis Demanded a Human Sacrifice

This is the most common version of the story of Agamemnon’s crime and Artemis’ anger. It is also one of the earliest, as Proclus records that it appeared in the Cypria, one of the lost epics of the Epic Cycle. The same story appears in later sources such as Sophocles’ Electra, Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Bibliotheca, and Hyginus’s Fabulae.

However, in Aeschylus’ tragic play Agamemnon, as the fleet was preparing to set sail, the army saw two eagles, one black and one white, pounce on a pregnant hare and devour both mother and child. The seer Calchas suggests that the eagles are Agamemnon and Menelaus and that the hare is Troy, and that the omen predicts their victory. Even though the omen was sent by Zeus, Artemis is offended by the death of the pregnant animal and the predicted slaughter of the innocent of Troy. She demands that Agamemnon sacrifice his firstborn before he sets off on his bloody mission.

In his play Iphigenia in Aulis, Euripides gives yet another version. He claims that Agamemnon had previously vowed to sacrifice the “most beautiful thing the year brings forth” to Artemis. The year he made the vow, his daughter Iphigenia was born, but he never made the sacrifice. Therefore, when the fleet assembles at Aulis, Artemis takes her opportunity, stopping the wind until Agamemnon fulfills the vow.

In the play, Agamemnon considers abandoning the war to save his daughter, but pressure from Menelaus, his personal ambition, and fear of losing the respect of the other Greek war leaders drive him to commit what was considered a morally corrupt act and a hallmark of barbarism in the eyes of the ancient Greeks.

When human sacrifice appears in Greek plays, it is usually of an innocent virgin girl, highlighting the senselessness of the act. Aeschylus and Euripides probably change the reason for Artemis demanding the sacrifice to make it seem more justified, but despite Artemis being a protector of women and children, this demand is not out of character. The wilderness was a dangerous place where life demanded death. Artemis’ stories are often filled with this type of vengeance. When Actaeon accidentally came upon Artemis naked, she turned him into a stag and had him torn apart by his own hunting gods.

How Euripides Transformed the Tragedy of Iphigenia

While Agamemnon was horrified by the demand to sacrifice his eldest daughter, he agreed. He was trapped between paternal love and his duty as a military commander and was forced to choose the latter. In some accounts, Odysseus reminds Agamemnon of his solemn oath to lead the Greek army against Troy, an oath he cannot fulfil without appeasing the goddess.

In Euripides’ version of events in Iphigenia at Aulis, Agamemnon knows that his wife Clytemnestra, the sister of Helen, would never agree. Therefore, when he sent a letter to Argos ordering Iphigenia to be sent to Aulis immediately, he claimed that it was to marry her to the hero Achilles to further strengthen the Greek alliance. Achilles was the greatest hero of the Greek army, so this would have been an honor for the princess. Agamemnon reportedly had second thoughts and tried to send a second letter canceling the request, but Menelaus intercepted it, and Clytemnestra arrived, accompanied by her daughter.

Upon arrival, expecting a wedding feast, Clytemnestra encountered Achilles, who was confused when she congratulated him on the upcoming marriage. The ruse was quickly revealed.

In Aeschylus’ account of the sacrifice, Iphigenia is escorted to the altar in saffron-colored robes, which are removed as she is lifted above the altar like a sacrificial goat by the attendants. She is gagged so that she cannot mutter curses against her family in her final moments (though the Atreidae family of Agamemnon was already cursed). As she looks out on the surrounding generals with pleading eyes, Agamemnon gives the signal, and the sacrifice is carried out in full view of the weeping Greek army. A tragic price paid for the Greek campaign against Troy.

Did Iphigenia Actually Die at Aulis

Euripides gives us a less harrowing version of the story. He has Iphigenia bravely accept her fate on behalf of the Greek army and calmly walk into Artemis’ grove to be sacrificed. It is then Agamemnon who covers his face, as he cannot bear to watch. But as the blade is about to strike, Artemis whisks Iphigenia away and replaces her with a deer, which is sacrificed in her place. But Agamemnon and the rest of the Greeks are left ignorant of the switch.

Artemis deposits Iphigenia at a place called Tauris, in modern-day Crimea, where she is made high priestess of the goddess’ temple. Agamemnon’s willingness to sacrifice his daughter meets Artemis’ requirements, so she frees the Greek fleet, but she saves the young woman for her courage and bravery.

With his sleight of hand, Euripides lightens the load and also opens the possibility of continuing the princess’s story in his sequel Iphigenia in Tauris (authors always have to have an eye on the sequel).

At Tauris, Iphigenia is recast as a new type of tragic heroine. She is forced to work as the priestess of King Thoas, preparing the bodies of any foreign sailors who wash ashore to be sacrificed on the altar to Artemis. For these barbarians, human sacrifice does not hold the same horror, and Iphigenia is forced to participate.

The Aftermath of Iphigenia’s Sacrifice

When the Trojan War is over, Agamemnon returns triumphant to Argos, where his wife Clytemnestra has been nursing her anger for a decade. She and her lover Aegisthus kill Agamemnon and take control of his kingdom. While Clytemnestra considered her actions just, Agamemnon’s son, Orestes, later returned and killed his mother for her actions following the orders of the god Apollo.

Killing family members was considered a blood crime, regardless of the reason, so this cycle of killing drove the family into a deep curse. Orestes was driven mad by the Furies, the goddesses of retribution, and could not take on the kingship while he was insane. He went to Athens, where Athena set up the first trial by jury, and Orestes was acquitted for his actions.

Despite this, the Furies refuse to let Orestes go. He travels to the Oracle at Delphi looking for a solution, and he is told to sail to Tauris and retrieve the cult image of Artemis there and return it to Greece. When he arrives, Orestes is captured and taken to the priestess to be prepared for sacrifice. He discovers that the priestess is none other than his sister, presumed dead. Together they trick King Thaos, steal the sacred statue, and sail back to Greece, where a now-sane Orestes can take over the kingship of Argos.

Iphigenia serves as the priestess of Artemis Brauronia for the rest of her life. Upon death, she is granted immortality by Artemis for her faith and years of service. Hesiod suggests that Artemis dripped Ambrosia on her head, granting her eternal youth and transforming her into the underworld goddess Hecate. Another regional myth says that upon becoming immortal, she was transported to the White Island in the Black Sea where she was wed to Achilles’ resurrected soul, bringing her story full circle.

The oldest stories probably saw Iphigenia die on the altar at Aulis, as just one more bloody scene in the Trojan War. But the ancient Greeks, who, much like modern audiences, found it difficult to accept unprovoked violence against an innocent, invented ways for her to endure and overcome her divine fate.