Home of Britain’s bestselling history magazine and award-winning podcast
The Huns terrorised Rome's frontiers – but wanted to keep the ancient empire alive
Feared as savage invaders, the Huns posed a serious threat to Rome – but their goal wasn’t conquest, or Roman annihilation
To the Romans of the late 4th and 5th centuries AD, the threat posed by the Huns was akin to a nightmare made real. They were lightning fast, brutally violent, and as culturally unfamiliar as any people the Romans had ever encountered. They seemed to emerge suddenly from beyond the empire’s frontiers, bringing with them destruction and fear. Roman writers described them in vivid, unsettling terms, presenting them as the ultimate barbarians. The arrival of the Huns on the frontier of the Roman empire coincided with a period historians often describe as the ‘Migration Period’ – a time of large-scale population movements across Europe, in which multiple groups were displaced and resettled, or otherwise pushed into Roman territory. Yet for all the alarm they caused, the Huns didn’t want to destroy the Roman empire. They wanted to exploit it. The reasons why reveal as much about Rome’s internal condition, as about the Huns themselves. Who were the Huns? The Huns were part of a broader pattern of migration and movement across Eurasia in late antiquity. “They’re one of a series of non-Roman groups migrating, we assume, from Eastern Asia, possibly away from the Chinese Empire,” explains archaeologist Miles Russell, while discussing the life of Atilla the Hun on the HistoryExtra podcast. Their precise origins remain debated, but many historians link them to steppe nomadic traditions that stretched across Central Asia, where highly mobile horse-based societies had long dominated. Unlike settled agricultural societies based around static farming and protected settlements, they were very itinerant. Listen now | From the Mongols to the Huns: the nomads who dominated Eurasia “They fight predominantly on horseback,” Russell says. This fighting style was a key factor in their military effectiveness. Their speed and flexibility made them difficult for Roman forces, accustomed to more structured warfare, to counter. Hunnic warriors were particularly known for their use of composite bows, which could be fired accurately from horseback, allowing them to attack at range and retreat before heavier infantry could respond. Importantly, however, Russell makes clear that the term ‘Huns’ doesn’t describe a single, uniform people. “When we’re talking about the Hunnic empire, it’s a bit like talking about the Roman empire,” he explains. “Not everyone is from Rome; in the Hunnic Empire, not everyone is a Hun.” Instead, the Huns functioned as a dominant elite – “the militaristic aristocratic force” – leading and coordinating a wider coalition of groups. These included well-known names such as the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals and Burgundians. “These are different barbarian groups outside the Roman world,” Russell notes, “most from Europe or East Asia.” A reputation built on fear Roman knowledge of the Huns was limited and filtered through fear. “The Romans are simultaneously terrified of the Huns, and they’re also really interested in them,” Russell says. Contemporary accounts describe their appearance and fighting style in detail but offer little reliable information about their origins or history. And, because “the Huns aren’t writing anything down themselves”, Roman observers were left to fill in the gaps. In Roman literature, the Huns are portrayed as the antithesis of civilisation – people who didn’t farm, didn’t cook food in conventional ways, and lived in close physical proximity to their horses. “They describe the Huns as cooking food by sticking it under their buttocks, heating it between rider and horse,” Russell says. They are also depicted as foraging for roots for their food, and living without settled communities. Read more | Meet the people the ancient Romans and Greeks desperately tried to hide Much of this imagery comes from writers such as Ammianus Marcellinus, whose accounts emphasised the difference and danger of the Huns, often exaggerating unfamiliar practices to reinforce notions of Roman cultural superiority. Such claims are unlikely to be accurate. But they served a propagandistic purpose. “To the Romans, the Huns represent the ultimate barbarian; the ultimate savage,” Russell explains. These portrayals reinforced a long-standing Roman worldview that divided humanity into degrees of civilisation, with Rome at the centre and ‘savagery’ at the furthest extreme. A coalition of peoples A major strength of the Huns lay in their ability to mobilise and coordinate other groups beyond Rome’s borders. “They can galvanise lots of different barbarian groups together into an overwhelming military force,” Russell says. This coalition approach made them particularly dangerous. Rather than a single army, they could draw on a wide network of allied or subordinate groups, adapting their forces as circumstances required. At the same time, they stood apart from many of those groups culturally and politically. “Most of the other barbarians … want to be Roman,” Russell explains. Groups such as the Visigoths and Ostrogoths often sought integration into the Roman world, including conversion to Christianity. “The Huns don’t,” he says. “They make it clear from the beginning that they don’t want to be part of the Roman Empire.” For many Germanic groups, entry into the Roman world meant land, status and wealth. But for the Huns, power came instead from exploiting those ideas. Rome divided against itself By the time the Huns appeared on the Roman frontier in the late 4th century, the empire itself was undergoing significant internal change. “We mustn’t think of Rome at this stage as one empire, or even two halves of the same empire,” Russell says. “They are becoming two separate empires.” This division had been formalised in 395 after the death of Emperor Theodosius I, when the empire was split between his sons into eastern and western administrations. Read more | Long before the ancient Roman empire, a rival superpower looked set for supremacy The eastern half, centred on Constantinople – a city founded in the 4th century and often described as “New Rome” – remained economically vibrant and politically stable. “It’s successful, with strong trade links, a dynamic and exciting city,” Russell explains. The western half, by contrast, was struggling. “Rome in the west is more of a cultural backwater at this stage,” he says. Political authority was weakening, administrative systems were faltering, and emperors increasingly ruled from Ravenna in northern Italy rather than from Rome itself. “Its military is collapsing,” Russell notes. At the same time, various non-Roman groups had already settled within its borders. These included federate groups who were allowed to settle within the empire in exchange for military service – a system that increasingly blurred the line between Roman and non-Roman power. Crucially, the two halves of the empire were not acting in concert. “East and west are not joining forces; they are competing against one another,” Russell explains. At times, the two halves even came into conflict with each other. Roman Britain | A short course from HistoryExtra Academy Member exclusive | In this four-week course, discover everything you need to know about Roman Britain, guided by Rob Collins, professor of frontier archaeology at Newcastle University. Explore the course now The Huns’ strategy It was this fragmented, weakened Roman context that the Huns sought to exploit. The Romans first became aware of the Huns indirectly, in the 370s AD, when other groups began fleeing westwards. This movement would eventually lead to major events such as the Gothic War and the battle of Adrianople in 378. But the Huns themselves soon followed. “The first thing they do is send armies into the Eastern Empire, burning cities and saying, ‘give us money and we’ll go away,’” Russell explains. It was a strategy of intimidation and extraction: not an attempt to replace Roman authority. “They’d rather not destroy the Romans completely,” Russell says, “because they’re a useful group to blackmail and extort money from.” Roman emperors often responded by paying large sums in tribute, effectively buying temporary peace. So, a functioning Roman state – wealthy and, at this moment, vulnerable – was far more valuable to the Huns than a conquered and destabilised territory. Why Rome struggled to respond In theory, Rome possessed the resources to respond effectively to such threats. In practice, it struggled. “If Rome had been unified under a single command, if it had a decent military … it might have responded,” Russell suggests. But those conditions didn’t exist. Civil wars, political rivalries and internal fragmentation had weakened the empire’s military capacity. The division between east and west further complicated any coordinated response. A unified empire with a strong military and coherent leadership might have resisted them more effectively. Instead, the Huns encountered a declining Rome. “It can’t deal with the Huns at any level,” Russell says. This inability to respond decisively allowed the Huns to continue their strategy of pressure and negotiation, extracting wealth while avoiding the risks associated with full-scale conquest. This continuous aggression would, eventually, play a crucial role in the Western Roman empire’s slow collapse. Miles Russell was speaking to Spencer Mizen on the HistoryExtra podcast. Listen to the full conversation.
Inside a Roman villa: luxury life in ancient Britain
HistoryExtra’s Rachel Dinning and Kev Lochun introduce the underfloor heating, fine mosaics and elegant rooms of Chedworth Roman Villa in Gloucestershire, that reveal the surprising luxury of life in Roman Britain
Step into one of the grandest Roman homes ever discovered in Britain, and explore the secret luxuries of Roman Britain, as we head inside Chedworth Roman Villa in Gloucestershire, now in the care of the National Trust. HistoryExtra’s Rachel Dinning and Kev Lochun introduce the underfloor heating, fine mosaics and elegant rooms that reveal the surprising luxury of life in Roman Britain. You’ll hear how this countryside retreat functioned, who lived here, and what it tells us about wealth, identity and culture under Roman rule. With thanks to all at Chedworth Roman Villa View Green Video on the source website
Meet the rebels who destroyed an ancient Roman legion with guerrilla warfare
In theory, putting down the rebels of the First Jewish Revolt should have been easy for the mighty Roman empire. But strategic mistakes and complacency meant that the reality was very different
In AD 66, a Roman army marching through the hills west of Jerusalem was ambushed and largely destroyed. For an empire that prided itself on military discipline and dominance, the loss was quite remarkable. Roman legions were symbols of imperial authority, consisting of around 5,000 heavily trained infantry soldiers, supported by cavalry and auxiliary units. They represented the core of ancient Rome’s military power. To see one shattered by provincial rebels was, as historian Professor Barry Strauss notes, “a tremendous humiliation for Rome. It’s bad for business to have provincials destroying a legion”. The disaster took place during the early stages of what would become the First Jewish Revolt – a major uprising by Jewish groups in the Roman province of Judea against Roman rule, driven by political tensions and religious conflict. It was a struggle that would eventually draw in tens of thousands of Roman troops. But the defeat itself wasn’t an isolated accident. It exposed a deeper problem in the way Rome governed its empire. Ancient Rome’s blind spot At its height, the Roman empire controlled vast territories and populations with relatively limited military resources. “The Romans had a relatively small army – about 300,000 men – to control an empire stretching roughly 3,000 miles with a population of perhaps 50 million people,” Strauss explains, speaking on the HistoryExtra podcast about the Jewish-Roman wars. This made Rome heavily dependent on its military strength, yes, but also on administrative efficiency. This meant that Rome relied heavily on cooperation from local populations, particularly local elites who could help maintain order. There was also an underlying assumption that Roman rule would ultimately be accepted – whether through force, cultural attraction, or political advantage. That assumption was often misplaced. Read more | The overshadowed ancient empire that rivalled Rome with maritime might and an iron fist “Rome underestimated the Jewish revolt,” Strauss says. In fact, he adds, “Rome tended to underestimate revolts in general, despite their frequency.” Rebellion wasn’t unusual in the Roman world. Other major uprisings, such as the revolt led by Boudica in Britain in AD 60–61, had already demonstrated how quickly provincial resistance could escalate into serious military threats. And yet, Roman authorities often reacted as though these revolts were unexpected. A fragile Roman province Judea was a particularly sensitive region within the empire. The province had been brought under Roman control in 63 BC, when the Roman general Pompey the Great captured Jerusalem. Since then, it had experienced periodic unrest linked to religious tensions and resistance to foreign rule. Unlike more strategically central provinces, it didn’t host a permanent Roman legion. “The Romans did not keep legions in Judea,” Strauss explains. “Judea was governed by what the Romans called auxiliary troops” who were recruited locally or from neighbouring regions. These forces were cheaper and easier to deploy, but they weren’t always well suited to maintaining stability. When rebellion broke out in AD 66, these auxiliary forces proved unable to suppress it. Cestius and the failed show of force Responsibility for restoring order fell to the Roman governor of Syria, Cestius Gallus. “When the revolt begins, the Roman governor of Syria comes south with a force of about 30,000 men to try to put the revolt down,” Strauss explains. As governor of Syria – one of Rome’s most important eastern provinces – Cestius had access to significant military resources, including legions stationed in the region. Cestius approached the situation with a degree of confidence that, in retrospect, proved misplaced. “He’s an older man, and he has a somewhat lackadaisical approach,” Strauss says. “He thinks a simple show of force will put the rebels in their place and stop the troubles.” At first, the plan seemed reasonable. A large Roman army advancing on Jerusalem might well intimidate the rebels into submission. But Cestius hesitated at a crucial moment. “He’s not prepared to lay siege to Jerusalem,” Strauss explains. “It’s the autumn; it’s not the time of year for a siege. The rains are about to begin.” Siege warfare in the ancient world required extensive preparation, including supply lines, siege engines and time – all of which were harder to maintain during the winter months. Rather than committing to a prolonged campaign, Cestius chose to withdraw. Caesar: Death of a Dictator Member exclusive | On the Ides of March 44 BC, the most famous Roman in history was murdered. Julius Caesar's assassination transformed Rome forever, and the image of his bloody toga has haunted monarchs and tyrants ever since. Listen to all episodes now The ambush at Beth Horon The decision to retreat turned into a catastrophe. As the Roman army moved back through the hill country west of Jerusalem, it entered a landscape ideally suited to ambush. “On the way back, the troops are ambushed, particularly in a narrow valley… called the Beth Horon Valley,” Strauss explains. The pass of Beth Horon had long been recognised as a strategic choke point controlling access between the coastal plains and the interior highlands. The valley was constricted, limiting the ability of Roman troops to manoeuvre in formation, and the surrounding high ground gave the rebels a tactical advantage. “It had been the scene of ambushes before,” Strauss notes, “and once again it was the site of a successful ambush.” “The rebels destroy most of a Roman legion. Thousands of men are killed,” Strauss says. For Rome, this was a symbolic blow that demanded a response. A humiliation Rome could not ignore Roman military prestige depended on the perceived invincibility of its legions. A defeat on this scale – inflicted by provincial rebels, no less – risked undermining that image. Strauss says the loss was “not something they could take lightly”. If left unaddressed, it could encourage further resistance elsewhere in the empire. The infamous Roman emperor Nero moved quickly to address the crisis. Nero sent reinforcements, but his choice of commander reveals the political complexities behind Roman decision-making. Nero had reason to be cautious. He had previously forced one of his most capable generals to commit suicide, fearing that military success might translate into political ambition. As a result, “he chooses a general who is capable but non-threatening,” Strauss says. The man was Vespasian, an experienced commander who had campaigned successfully in Britain. “He came from what Romans saw as a middle-class family from the Sabine country north of Rome,” Strauss explains. “Nero felt there was no way this man would threaten him on the throne.” This assessment would later prove mistaken: Vespasian would eventually become emperor in AD 69 after a civil war known as the Year of the Four Emperors, and the founder of the powerful Flavian dynasty. Read more | Are you healthier than a Roman? These ancient secrets for longevity are still shockingly relevant With Vespasian now in charge, Rome approached the revolt with far greater seriousness. “Vespasian has a larger force, closer to 60,000 men,” Strauss says. In AD 67, he began a systematic campaign to dismantle the rebellion. “He starts in the north, conquering Galilee and the Golan,” Strauss explains. One by one, rebel strongholds were defeated. This phase of the war included the capture of fortified towns such as Jotapata, where the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus was taken prisoner. “He forces the surviving rebels either to surrender, be killed, or flee to Jerusalem.” The siege of Jerusalem Jerusalem then became the focal point of the conflict. The city was both a site of immense religious importance, and a formidable defensive position. It was home to the Second Temple, the central place of worship in Judaism, making it the spiritual and political centre for the Jewish-Roman conflict. “It is impregnable on three sides; only the north is vulnerable, and that is where invaders always attack,” Strauss says. For Rome, defeating the revolt would now require a full-scale siege. That siege would eventually take place in AD 70 under Vespasian’s son – and, later, successor – Titus, resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple. Read more | “Christianity didn’t invent itself as an empire from nothing: it adapted existing Roman structures” So, the Romans secured their victory. But the earlier disaster at Beth Horon reflected a broader pattern in Roman rule. “In part, this happens because the Romans were relatively arrogant toward the people they conquered,” Strauss explains. They assumed that local elites would align themselves with Roman interests and that resistance could be contained. But that proved to be a repeated underestimation. “Revolts were inevitable,” Strauss concludes. And, indeed, Judea would continue to be the source of more revolts in the future. “They were part of the price of doing business for the Romans.” James Osborne was speaking to Barry Strauss on the HistoryExtra podcast. Listen to the full conversation.
In AD 79, Pompeii and Herculaneum were obliterated by the eruption of Vesuvius, buried and preserved under metres of volcanic ash. Discover more in this podcast series with Dr Jess Venner
Kev Lochun speaks to Dr Jess Venner, historian of the ancient world, to explore what life was like in towns of Pompeii and Herculaneum prior to their destruction, what really happened on the fateful day Vesuvius erupted – with the help of an eyewitness – and how the buried city came to be an archeological marvel.
Tharik Hussain reveals Islam's little known but remarkable role in Europe's history, stretching back more than 1,000 years
<p data-monday-block-type="1" data-monday-block-content='[{"attributes":{"color":"var(--color-bright-blue)"},"insert":"From the magnificence of the Alhambra to the forgotten resting places of the Prophet Muhammad’s own relatives, Islam has long been a part of Europe’s history. Danny Bird speaks to Tharik Hussain about this continent-spanning saga, exploring Islam’s rich legacy within Europe and the reasons it is often overlooked today."}]' data-inline-monday="true">From the magnificence of the Alhambra to the forgotten resting places of the Prophet Muhammad’s own relatives, Islam has long been a part of Europe’s history. Danny Bird speaks to Tharik Hussain about this continent-spanning saga, exploring Islam’s rich legacy within Europe and the reasons it is often overlooked today.
Few historical figures have reputations quite as diabolical as that of Attila the Hun. Miles Russell explains Attila's astonishing life and legacy.
Few historical figures have reputations quite as diabolical as that of Attila the Hun. This nomadic leader pitched up on the edge of the Roman empire in the fifth century AD, and spread terror and chaos so effectively that he came to be dubbed the ‘Scourge of God’. But was he really all that bad? Miles Russell talks to Spencer Mizen about Attila's astonishing life and legacy.
The devastating Jewish revolt against the Roman empire
Barry Strauss reflects on the Jewish-Roman wars, exploring the roots – and legacy – of the conflict
It was under the rule of the infamous emperor Nero that the Great Revolt, the first of the Jewish-Roman wars, began, sparking many decades of continuous conflict. Speaking to James Osborne, historian and author Barry Strauss traces the story, following the the fate of the Jewish rebels and the legacy of the conflict.
The ancient Romans knew the power of entertainment as propaganda – here's the proof
In ancient Rome, putting on theatrical plays was not just a form of entertainment – it became a powerful tool of propaganda
Lysistrata by Aristophanes; Antigone by Sophocles; Medea by Euripides. Each is a play from ancient Greece, still performed on stages across the world today. Roman plays, on the other hand, are much less common. “We might think of theatre today as belonging to the cultural sphere, but in ancient Rome, it belonged to an incredibly political sphere,” says Dr Jessica Clarke, a research associate at the Institute of Classical Studies at the University of London and the author of A New History of Ancient Roman Theatre, speaking on the HistoryExtra podcast. “Entertainment is never neutral,” she says, but in ancient Rome, the theatre was explicitly political. “In Rome they didn't have independent theatres, so they didn’t have shows put on outside of politically controlled events.” This fact, she says, means that plays from ancient Rome have failed to remain as relevant as their Greek equivalents. The history of ancient Roman theatre Roman theatre hadn’t always been so overtly political; early Roman theatre was a “hodgepodge” of traditions and practices from previous empires and different areas of modern-day Italy, Clarke says. The ancient historian Livy, who Clarke says is the main source of information we have on the origins of Roman theatre, draws a "very neat line from actors arriving from Etruria to Roman theatre," Clarke says. While Etruscan performances did influence what would become Roman theatre, there’s more likely a “complicated web” of things that became the Roman theatrical tradition, including Greek plays translated into Latin and farcical plays from Campania in southern Italy. Read more | Meet the people the ancient Romans and Greeks desperately tried to hide In general, “Rome tended to absorb cultural influences, rather than inventing its own,” she adds – but it certainly gave theatre its own cultural significance. Theatrical shows would be put on at all kinds of events in Roman culture, including religious festivals, the triumphant returns of Roman generals, and even highly organised aristocratic funerals. “Crucially though, all of these performances are put on by politicians, who would have overseen rehearsals and selected the plays,” Clarke says. “Potentially there may have been some censorship involved as well – we don't know for sure, but it's very likely within this context.” This meant that the politicians could choose plays that worked with whatever political narratives they wanted to put forward (or censor parts that didn’t). <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/10/GettyImages-122211671-b717d9b-e1760010634986.jpg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="This 1st-century AD mosaic from the House of the Tragic Poet in Pompeii depicts the staging of a theatrical performance. Such scenes highlight the importance of theatre in Roman cultural life, blending entertainment with expressions of myth, satire, and social commentary." title="Roman civilization. Mosaic depicting staging of show in theatre. From House of Tragic Poet in Pompeii" /> The importance of theatre to the Roman political elite If audiences enjoyed the shows staged by politicians, this could have a hugely positive impact on their political careers, Clarke says. “It was an excellent opportunity to win popular favour, to entertain the people, to bring interest to your cause, and to get your name known in Rome,” Clarke says. For this reason, putting on shows was seen as an important thing for politicians to do as they advanced their careers and rose through the ranks. “In a traditional political career in Rome, you would work through the Cursus Honorum, which is essentially the political ladder, to get to the highest position,” Clarke says. “One of those early rungs of the ladder was something called the aedileship. That was the position as a magistrate where you were responsible for putting on games within the city. There were a couple of other responsibilities, but it was primarily putting on the shows.” Read more | The overshadowed ancient empire that rivalled Rome with maritime might and an iron fist The more spectacular a show, whether it was a play or a gladiatorial performance, the more popular a politician might be among voters. “Towards the end of the late Republic, we know that individuals were increasingly pouring huge amounts of their own money and resources into making these shows as splendid as possible, as it was a great opportunity,” Clarke says. The level of expense got so out of hand, that the senate eventually legislated a spending cap. This was brought in under the aedileship of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus in 182 BC, because his events had cost so much that it became "burdensome" to the state, its allies, and its provinces abroad. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/10/ancient-roman-theatre-mask-5dec20e.jpeg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="This 1st-century BC mosaic from the House of the Faun in Pompeii depicts a tragic dramatic mask, a powerful symbol of Roman theatrical culture. Masks like this were central to performances, allowing actors to embody gods, heroes, and emotions on stage." title="ancient-roman-theatre-mask" /> Different genres, different political messages “There's always something that you can say with a piece of entertainment,” Clarke says, making theatre a useful tool for “political manipulation.” “Tragedy seems to have had a place in high moments of political tension,” she says. For example, at the opening of the first permanent theatre in Rome in 55 BC, “Pompey chose to have two tragedies performed – Clytemnestra and The Trojan Horse – in Latin, translated from the Greek,” she says. “We also know that for Julius Caesar's funeral, again tragedies were chosen to present to the crowd.” Caesar: Death of a Dictator Member exclusive | On the Ides of March 44 BC, the most famous Roman in history was murdered. Julius Caesar's assassination transformed Rome forever, and the image of his bloody toga has haunted monarchs and tyrants ever since. Listen to all episodes now Comedies, on the other hand, helped to present and enforce the status quo that oppressed women and slaves. In Roman comedies, “violence towards women is expressed as a joke,” Clarke says. “It's seen as something that's amusing. Women are raped and that is often a plot point in the male characters' narratives, rather than having anything to do with the female character.” Similarly, slave and master dynamics would be reversed in comedies. “Often, the slave would seemingly be in a slightly more autonomous position within a comic plot,” Clarke says. “It's meant to be amusing that a slave could have a role where they are able to control their own destiny or the destiny of other characters in the play.” Some scholars disagree, interpreting the slave’s autonomous role as a challenge to the status quo with an emancipatory message, but that’s not Clarke’s view. “Whilst these comedies are bawdy, rowdy, and quite raucous, we do need to be aware that this is a form of theatre that comes from a society where slavery is institutionalised, and violence towards slaves and women is normalised as part of the comic narrative,” she says. This might be another reason why ancient Roman theatre hasn’t had the longevity that ancient Greek plays have had. “Greek theatre is still performed on the West End,” Clarke says. “But Roman theatre doesn't get performed today, primarily because the themes just aren't appropriate for a modern-day audience – with the slavery, with the depictions of violence. We just don't find that funny anymore.” Jessica Clarke was speaking to Emily Briffett on the HistoryExtra podcast. Listen to the full conversation.
Is this the best routine to boost your health? Yes, according to an ancient Roman intellectual
Pliny the Elder was an intellectual powerhouse of ancient Rome. Though not a physician, in describing the ideal daily routine of a Roman gentleman he revealed how the ancient elite believed health could be improved
In the first century AD, the Bay of Naples was fringed by villas belonging to ancient Rome’s political and military elite. The slopes of Mount Vesuvius rose above lush orchards and gardens, while trading ships came in and out of the harbour, bringing exotic imports. This was one of the most fashionable regions of the Roman empire – a retreat for senators, generals and imperial officials with vast reserves of political power and private wealth. Pliny the Elder lived here in the final years of his life. A senior Roman official, he had been a cavalry commander in his youth, later a provincial administrator, and eventually commander of the fleet stationed at Misenum (now Miseno, in the north-west of the Bay of Naples). Born around AD 23, he lived through the reigns of emperors such as Claudius, Nero and Vespasian, at a time when Rome governed vast territories stretching from Britain to north Africa and the near east. Alongside his public duties, he was an impressive scholar. According to his nephew, Pliny the Younger, he read and dictated notes almost constantly, wrote while travelling, and had books read aloud to him as he ate. His greatest work, Natural History, filled 37 volumes. It was an encyclopaedic attempt to catalogue all aspects of life and the natural world: astronomy, geography, zoology, botany, mineralogy, art and medicine. “He literally said: ‘I want to cover everything in the world’,” explains Dr Jess Venner, speaking on the HistoryExtra podcast. “It was ambitious, and he did pretty well.” The work survives today as one of the largest single texts to survive from antiquity, preserving fragments of earlier Greek and Roman science that might otherwise have been lost. That ambition shaped his thinking about health, including his views on exercise. “He’s very specific about what he likes to do in a day,” says Venner. By the first century AD, Roman notions of health rested on a sophisticated Greek-derived system, especially the Hippocratic tradition and Galen’s later work. Roman medicine was based on the ancient concept that the body contained four humours – blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile – which needed to be kept in balance to ensure good health. It was a humoral imbalance, triggered by lifestyle or environment, that was believed to cause illness. Read more | Are you healthier than a Roman? These ancient secrets for longevity are still shockingly relevant The model ancient Roman routine for health In one of his letters, Pliny describes the daily habits of an elderly statesman named Spurinna – a respected senator of the early empire – as a model of balanced living. “He’s saying: ‘This is the best way to be balanced as a Roman man – to achieve good health’,” Venner explains. “He writes that Spurinna is said to rise one hour before dawn, before taking a three-mile walk – naked – around his hippodrome.” In Roman elite culture, exercising unclothed drew on long-standing Greek athletic traditions. Public bath complexes across the empire included exercise yards where men trained before bathing. After the first walk, Spurinna would take two additional walks later in the day. In the Roman world view, walking was considered ideal exercise. Read more | 6 ways people stayed healthy in ancient Rome It was low-impact, rhythmic and adaptable to age. It stimulated digestion – a central concern in ancient medicine – without causing excessive strain. It allowed exposure to fresh air and sunlight, both believed to regulate internal qualities of heat and moisture. The repetition of walks across the day reflects the Roman belief in steady maintenance rather than single bursts of effort. The setting is revealing of elite Roman attitudes, too. Spurinna’s hippodrome was part of a private estate. “He’s going around his lovely verdant gardens, and they’re more like a park,” Venner says, adding: “They’re beautiful. And this is done in the morning sunshine.” Morning sunlight was particularly important. After the cold of night, it warmed the body gently. Roman elites and ball games Pliny also explains that Spurinna enjoyed playing ball games outdoors. “He’ll be throwing around a ball, should it not be too windy,” Venner says. Ball games were popular among the Roman elite, often played in villa courtyards or bath complexes. They provided moderate exercise, again without causing too much strain –consistent with the humoral theory that cautioned against extremes. Different types of balls were used, and sometimes more vigorous games were played, though elites were advised to favour gentler forms suitable for ageing bodies. “These are all activities deemed by Pliny to be beneficial to Spurinna’s mind and body,” Venner says. “And we can reasonably believe that Pliny would engage in these activities himself.” Caesar: Death of a Dictator Member exclusive | On the Ides of March 44 BC, the most famous Roman in history was murdered. Julius Caesar's assassination transformed Rome forever, and the image of his bloody toga has haunted monarchs and tyrants ever since. Listen to all episodes now Health as moral discipline Roman ideas of health were inseparable from notions of character and morality. Elite Roman masculinity valued moderation, discipline and order. Rising before dawn demonstrated self-control; regulating exercise signalled mastery over indulgence; exposure to one’s own land reinforced status and identity. The Roman ideal of virtus –manly excellence – was a combination of physical effort with moral restraint. Read more | “Christianity didn’t invent itself as an empire from nothing: it adapted existing Roman structures” At the same time, it’s important to situate this advice within the broader social hierarchy of ancient Rome. Structured exercise was largely an elite concern. This was guidance for wealthy men with leisure time and landscaped estates, while labourers, enslaved people and soldiers experienced intense physical exertion as necessity. Still, the underlying principles extolled by Pliny have value, emphasising that good health can be maintained though moderate walking, gentle games and exposure to air and light. In that sense, Pliny’s prescription was based on the idea of equilibrium. The best exercise, in his world, was the one that sustained balance, day after day. Pliny himself died in AD 79 – but not because of ill health. When Vesuvius erupted, he sailed across the Bay of Naples from his base at Misenum to observe the phenomenon and to help with evacuation efforts. He died during the catastrophe – killed by one of the natural phenomena about which he had been so insatiably curious throughout his life. Jess Venner was speaking to Kev Lochun on the HistoryExtra podcast. Listen to the full conversation.
Have archaeologists just found proof of ancient Carthage's legendary anti-Roman war weapon?
During the Second Punic War, the famous Carthaginian general Hannibal led his forces to numerous victories. But did he really take war elephants across the Alps?
The Punic Wars – and the Second Punic War (218–201 BC) specifically – were a definitive chapter in the history of the ancient world. Fought between the formidable Mediterranean power of Carthage and the upstart Roman Republic, the conflict ultimately saw the balance of power shift decisively away from the Carthaginians and towards the Romans. Had Rome fallen, Carthage would have retained its influence, and Roman civilisation may never have grown out of its infancy. Instead, the Romans won. Rome’s destruction of Carthage in 146 BC, at the end of the Third Punic War, eliminated its greatest rival. In victory, they took hold of the ancient Mediterranean, using it as a springboard for imperial expansion across Europe, North Africa and the Near East. It wasn’t until the invasions associated with Attila the Hun centuries later that Rome would again face such an existential threat. But that’s not to say that Roman victory was inevitable. During the apogee of the war, the Carthaginian general Hannibal Barca inflicted a series of devastating defeats on Roman armies. At Cannae in 216 BC, perhaps 50,000 Roman soldiers died in a single day – one of the worst military disasters in Roman history – while earlier victories at Trebia (218 BC) and Lake Trasimene (217 BC) had already demonstrated Hannibal’s military genius. Read more | Long before the ancient Roman empire, a rival superpower looked set for supremacy His most audacious, move, however, was none of these. Marching from Carthaginian territories in Iberia – modern-day Spain – Hannibal led an expeditionary force through southern Gaul and across the Alps, where he traversed the imposing mountainous slopes with a vast army that included war elephants. It was a force that arrived at the gates of Rome, pushing for a Roman surrender. It’s an astonishing story that underlines Hannibal’s determination, and most of all, his astounding logistical capabilities. But for all its fame, did it really happen? While many historians and archaeologists accept its plausibility, no physical evidence has ever been found for Hannibal’s elephantine, Alpine crossing. Ancient texts recount the elephants in detail, but physical evidence has remained conspicuous in its absence. At least, until now. New evidence for Hannibal’s ancient elephants? Archaeologists – led by Professor Rafael M Martínez Sánchez – excavating at Colina de los Quemados, near Córdoba in southern Spain, have uncovered a small elephant foot bone dating to the late third century BC – the period of Hannibal’s campaign. The discovery may represent the first tangible archaeological evidence connected to the elephants used during the Punic Wars. The roughly 10-centimetre cube-shaped bone was found beneath a collapsed wall within an Iron Age settlement. Radiocarbon dating places it firmly within the timeframe of the Second Punic War. Additional finds from the 2020 excavation (including coins, ceramics and military material) suggest the site was associated with armed conflict. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2026/02/elephant-bone-60cdac0-e1772187879548.jpeg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="Comparative figure of elephant third carpal (wrist) bones showing an Iron Age archaeological specimen from Colina de los Quemados, Córdoba (top row) alongside modern Asian elephant and Steppe Mammoth examples, with numbered articular facets used for anatomical comparison." title="elephant-bone" /> Comparisons with modern elephant skeletons and even prehistoric steppe mammoths confirmed the identification. Because elephants weren’t native to Iberia, the researchers argue the animal must have been transported there, most likely by ship as part of a military operation. Carthage had long experience using the animals, likely North African forest elephants (now extinct), as part of its military. Read more | How did a crow help Rome defeat Carthage? Does the age and location of the find, and its surrounding context, point to the possibility of the bone being the remains of an elephant that was part of Hannibal’s war band, perhaps dying before the general began his famous Alpine crossing? As the paper states, the bone “could potentially embody the first known relic … of the animals used in the Punic Roman wars for the control of the Mediterranean.” So, is the bone proof of Hannibal’s elephants? For Emeritus Professor Kevin Walsh, an archaeologist at the University of York, the discovery is significant less for what it proves, than for how it fits into a long-standing historical puzzle. “The new bone evidence supports the argument that elephants were present in Hannibal’s world,” he says, speaking to HistoryExtra. But, he notes, the bone isn’t proof that this elephant belonged to Hannibal. “This does not constitute definitive physical evidence for war elephants in Hannibal’s army, and consequently, certainly not definitive evidence for elephants that would have gone on to cross France and then traverse the Alps.” Read more | Alice Roberts: “Christianity didn’t invent itself as an empire from nothing: it adapted existing Roman structures” Proof, Walsh says, would ideally be “a site – or sites – that comprise artefacts directly linked to a Carthaginian army at an alpine site, along with elephant bones; a site that comprises several types of evidence supporting the presence of an army in this area in the Alps during the late third century BC.” But, as Walsh explains, preservation itself poses a problem: acidic alpine soils rarely allow bone to survive over long periods. High-altitude environments also shift over time due to erosion, glacial movement and landslides, further complicating the archaeological record. In an ideal scenario, he suggests, researchers might one day detect elephant DNA preserved within lake sediments near a plausible crossing route. In this context, the Spanish discovery serves mainly as confirmation that elephants were indeed present within the military world of late third-century BC Carthage. As Walsh says, it’s “another tantalising piece of evidence for a puzzle that is missing numerous pieces.” What was the point of Hannibal’s war elephants? Even if the bone was firm evidence for Hannibal’s war elephants, Professor Philip Freeman – a classicist at Pepperdine University and specialist in the ancient Mediterranean – says that the broader historical implications would be limited, simply because elephants weren’t always the most effective weapons. “I think the evidence of elephant bones in Spain is intriguing, but it doesn't really change our view of Hannibal or the Punic War,” he says. “No one ever seriously doubted that the Carthaginians used them in battle or that Hannibal took them to Italy, as the ancient texts say.” Read more | The overshadowed ancient empire that rivalled Rome with maritime might and an iron fist “The problem with elephants in ancient warfare was that they never made much difference. They were large and imposing but tactically offered little help. They were hard to control and might just as easily turn on their own side as the enemy. They were good for show, but not much else.” As Freeman notes, according to ancient sources, “Hannibal only had one elephant who survived the crossing of the Alps into Italy, so it made little difference to the war.” Whether the bone belongs to one of Hannibal’s elephants or simply proves the presence of elephants within the Carthaginian context, both Freeman and Walsh argue that the animals themselves were not especially important. Freeman concludes, “it was Hannibal's military brilliance that enabled him to defeat the Romans again and again, not elephants.” Hannibal’s journey across the Alps with elephants, navigating winding passes and narrow mountain ledges, may therefore be more significant as an audacious logistical achievement than as a moment of true military importance. “It is perhaps the enigma itself, and faith in the idea that such an exploit was possible, that makes any new piece of research on the topic interesting,” concludes Walsh. “Hannibal's achievement and his army's remarkable struggle contribute to a timeless story of human resilience in the face of an apparently impossible task.” Roman Britain | A short course from HistoryExtra Academy Member exclusive | In this four-week course, discover everything you need to know about Roman Britain, guided by Rob Collins, professor of frontier archaeology at Newcastle University. Explore the course now