I’ve been reading one of Steven Saylor’s books set in Rome around 80 BC. It got me wondering.
If I was a time traveller, what differences would I notice between the Rome of 80 BC and the Rome of 80 AD (when the Colosseum was finished)?
Maybe I wouldn’t notice as much a difference as I would between 1860 and today, but what about the average Roman citizen of the times?
The ladies gots very fancy hairstyles, including blonde and black wigs from Germany and India, respectively.
The foreign imports. OMG, the foreign imports. You got your Indian pearls, rubies, diamonds, emeralds, ivory, pepper, cardamom, cloves, cinnamon, sandalwood; your Chinese silk; your German slaves; your British tin, lead and wool; your African grain; and so on and so on.
That pesky Jesus will have come and gone, and the troublesome Jewish temple been removed, though these may have excited little commentary or change in Rome at the time.
The attitudes of people about the Senate and about Rome’s place in the world changed quite a bit. In 80BC Rome was still a Republic, with important leaders, but no one person who dominated - by 80AD there were Emperors. In 80BC, Rome was facing a formidable challenge in the near east, which threatened Greek holdings - by 80AD, Rome dominated the Near East, most of Europe, and Northern Africa.
Augustus’ boast was that he found Rome in brick and left it in marble. New temples, arches, porticos, obelisks, baths aqueducts and a new forum, not mentioning his own mausoleum all sprang up just under his reign, and his successors had their own projects too. The street map and architectural style of Rome would be noticably different.
80BC was Sulla’s dictatorship - near the beginning of a prolonged period of various strongmen disputing power through their ability to command a loyal army and hold on to the support of (enough of) the plebeians and the patricians. By 80AD the situation was considerably more stable, (the ludicrous Year of the Four Emperors notwithstanding) the constitutional role of Emperor was more settled, and the ordinary people of Rome had lost a big chunk of their political influence. What you did have a lot of was clientism - where citizens would attach themselves to great families in return for dole and the possibility of advancement in their service.
What that means for life at street-level I’m not sure but I think it implies a fairly big change in how people think of themselves in relation to power. The transition is from approximately class-based divisions (plebs vs patricians) to more vertical and factionalised arrangement.
One other things springs to mind - Caesar banned ox-carts from entering the city during daylight, so possibly traffic would have been marginally better.
In addition to all these new material goods, I would guess you would see more people from all these places too - certainly as transient traders but probably also setting up small communities. More languages on the streets, possibly new forms of worship, etc.
In 80 BC, people were still committed to the idea of the Roman Republic. Although there was a lot of political violence, there were also still elections, and the system of checks and balances among the institutions. The political conflict was class based. By 80 AD, the idea of a Republic was a distant memory. The disputes revolved around who should be Emperor, and were often resolved by whoever controlled the loyalty of the strongest parts of the army; as in the Year of the Four Emperors, or the later Years of the Five and Six Emperors.
Culturally, the influence of the East would be much greater in the later period, The Greek language was becoming common among the upper classes. Eastern religions were gaining adherents - Christianity had enough of a following that Christians were blamed for starting the great Fire of 64 AD.
It’s an absolutely fascinating period in history.
It’s been a while since I’ve studied up on Rome but this seems accurate. Attacks on the town of Ostia (1st century BC) led to a sense of Roman vulnerability (similar to the attacks on 9/11 in some regards). This is coupled with the fact that Rome, despite having a democratic republic, was corrupt. There was increasing centralization of power that climaxed during Julius Caesar’s rule, and Rome pretty ceased being a democratic republic after that, and it led to a series of corrupt (often horrifically incompetent and capricious) rulers that included Caligula and Nero.
There are actually some frightening parallels between late BC early CE era Rome and the United States. I won’t say they’re the same because they’re not - democracy, republican government, and liberty are much more culturally woven into our society than in Rome’s, but there are parallels nevertheless, and we’d be unwise to ignore them. One lesson that stands out above others is, once you lose a democracy, don’t count on getting it back.
A particularly pious Roman from 80BC would likely be appalled that recently departed political figures were being proclaimed gods and worshiped as such in 80AD.