Lawrence Alma-Tadema painted marble better than anyone who has ever lived. The cool translucence of Pentelic and Carrara stone, the way light passes through alabaster, the specific warmth of Cipollino against the blue of the Mediterranean sky — these qualities are rendered in his canvases with a trompe l’oeil precision that makes the painted marble appear to be the thing itself. This is not a small achievement. It is also a precise description of what his paintings of ancient Rome accomplish and where their limitations lie: extraordinary on the surface, and the surface is the point.

The Romans did not found London because they needed a city there. They founded it because they needed a crossing point on the Thames, and the crossing point became a city because trade and administration followed the military logic that had chosen the site. The settlement that grew up at the first substantial tidal ford on the Thames — approximately where London Bridge stands today — was called Londinium, and within a century of its founding it had become the administrative capital of the Roman province of Britannia and one of the most important commercial cities in the northwestern empire. Britain was at the edge of the known world; Londinium was a world city transplanted to the edge.

Marcus Aurelius wrote the Meditations for himself. This is not an inference — it is evident from the text, which is addressed in the second person to himself, organized not as an argument for public consumption but as a series of private reminders, admonitions, and attempts to hold himself to standards he found difficult to maintain. The work was not intended for publication, and if it had been published by its author rather than preserved by accident, it would probably have been a different book. As it survives, it is the most intimate document of a Roman emperor’s inner life that exists, and one of the most honest accounts of what it is like to try to live according to a moral philosophy while holding enormous power over other people.

On October 28, 312 AD, Constantine defeated Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge north of Rome, ending the civil war between them and establishing Constantine as sole ruler of the Western Empire. The battle itself was not particularly difficult — Maxentius’s forces were pushed back onto the bridge over the Tiber, the bridge collapsed, and Maxentius drowned in the river — but what happened before the battle, or what Constantine subsequently claimed happened before it, transformed the event from a routine imperial civil war into one of the most consequential days in the history of Western civilization.

Mithras had no mythology that anyone has found. The god who attracted devotees across the Roman Empire for three centuries, whose cult spread particularly among soldiers and merchants, whose underground temples — mithraea — have been excavated from Britain to the Euphrates, left no sacred texts, no founding narrative, no theology explained in its own terms. What we know about the Mithraic mysteries we know from the material record, from hostile Christian commentary, and from scholarly inference — a body of evidence that has produced sustained academic disagreement and no consensus on the most basic questions. Where did the cult come from? What did the central image mean? What happened in the ceremonies? The answers remain genuinely uncertain.

The Medea Sarcophagus in Berlin’s Altes Museum is 227 centimeters long and 65 centimeters high, carved from white marble in Rome around 140–150 AD, found near the Porta San Lorenzo on the city’s eastern edge. It is one of the finest examples of Roman mythological sarcophagus relief in any collection, and it depicts, in four continuous scenes reading left to right, the story of a woman who poisoned her rival, murdered her own children, and escaped in a dragon-drawn chariot to avoid the consequences. This is what a wealthy Roman family chose to carve on the box that would hold someone’s bones. The choice is not self-evidently logical. Making sense of it requires understanding something about how Rome thought about death that is not immediately obvious from the surface of the stone.

Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus ruled the Roman Empire for fourteen years, from 54 to 68 AD, and the historical record that survives was almost entirely written by men who despised him. Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio — the three primary ancient sources for his reign — were senators or wrote from senatorial perspectives, and Nero’s relationship with the Senate was sufficiently hostile that objectivity from that quarter was never likely. The result is an emperor whose actual governance has to be extracted from beneath layers of accumulated literary contempt, much of which is genuine but some of which is retrospective distortion by a class that had specific and personal grievances.

In 8 AD, Augustus exiled Ovid to Tomis on the Black Sea — modern Constanța in Romania, the edge of the civilized world as Rome understood it — for reasons he described cryptically as a poem and a mistake. The poem was the Ars Amatoria, a didactic work on the art of seduction published nearly a decade earlier, which Augustus had apparently decided was a contribution to the moral looseness he had spent his reign trying to suppress. The mistake is unknown and has generated scholarly speculation for two thousand years. Ovid spent the remaining ten years of his life on the Black Sea shore writing poems of exile — the Tristia and the Epistulae ex Ponto — that constitute the most sustained literary response to political persecution in antiquity, and he died without recovering the imperial favor he spent those years petitioning for.

Palmyra occupied a position in the Syrian desert that geography had made irreplaceable and that commerce had made extraordinarily wealthy. An oasis city sitting at the crossing of the major caravan routes between the Mediterranean coast and Mesopotamia — between the Roman west and the Parthian and Sassanid east — it controlled the tolls and services that long-distance trade required and accumulated wealth that its extraordinary ruins still convey despite two millennia of decay and, most recently, deliberate destruction by forces who understood, in their way, the symbolic weight of what they were attacking.

No legal institution is more characteristically Roman than patria potestas — the power of the father — and none illustrates more starkly the gap between Roman law as a formal system and Roman life as it was actually lived. In strict legal theory, the Roman paterfamilias held power of life and death over every person in his household: his children, his children’s children, and any descendants who had not been legally emancipated from his authority. He could expose newborn children he did not wish to raise. He could sell his children into slavery. He could execute them for serious misconduct. The legal texts that state these powers are explicit and unambiguous. The social reality was that these powers were almost never exercised in the forms the law contemplated, and the history of Roman family law is substantially a history of the gap between the formal authority the law recognized and the actual conduct it produced.