And also stone masonry or masonry restoration for knowing the names of the specific parts of the structure Great stuff

Awesome. Would like to visit Rome one day. But I just don't want to be regular tourist so I been learning Latin and Roman history for a year now. Rome is just a gem. All this beautiful contribution to humanity. Originally my people were nomads and still practices that life style. So in my country, however huge it is, we don't have permanent structures like this. No permanent city until 20th century. Ocassionally we do meet with petroglyphs and deer stones, stone monuments here and there.

I was lucky to live there for three months with complete and total freedom. I explored the city like very few people ever have. There is also so much outside the city one of my favorite sites is Villa Adriana. I went a few times its usually empty and you can walk around freely. My second favorite place is Villa D'este stunning fountains and usually very few people around. I had the pleasure of just losing my self and immersing myself with the people and culture and it will completely change you. TRUST ME! go as soon as you are able to I guarantee you wont regret it even if you go as a regular tourist.

Yes, but since the early 21th century art critics have been told to sneer at the idea that there is such a thing as good or bad, ugly or beautiful art. So they feel the need to justify the value of obviously poorer quality pieces through other means, ie: "it's not ugly, it's clear". Very good and informative video otherwise.

@@raphaelgide6111 Like those blank canvases they try to pass as art.

Thank you so much for the kind words. We really appreciate it. Here is another way of thinking about this complex issue. Any individual work of art should not be seen as the most sophisticated work that culture could produce since its survival is an historical oddity, as most works of art did not survive. Further, our culture, in 2017, produces images in very different ways. We use simplified images for road signs and airport way finding, we make both cartoons, and highly accurate reproductions. We do this for different audiences and for different purposes. The Romans also worked in numerous modes for differing audiences and in differing circumstances. Assuming that a single work necessarily represents the aspects we now value most in the art of a distant time is, in this regard, potentially misleading.

Wow thanks for replying, what an honour. If I could choose a KZfaq channel to survive intact until our ashes are discovered by alien life it would be this one. You're absolutely right, making assumptions about the state of a society based on surviving artworks is not reasonable, and now that you mention it I realize that surviving artworks are not a random sample. One thing that will probably continue to nag at me will be medieval paintings. Those misshapen, gigantic people standing next to tiny buildings and walls make me think the painter couldn't have created naturalistic works if you put a crossbow to their head but I probably have a non representative view of medieval art. Thanks so much for replying, and again, thanks for the content all these years. Bringing art into people's homes and explaining things the way you do is such a wonderful thing to do for people.

The crossbow remark made me laugh. The Medieval is a great place to point in this regard but also very tricky. I agree that much Classical knowledge was lost, especially in Western Europe. But the Medieval is a thousand years long and there were many brilliant moments. Its also important to think about how the naturalistic traditions of the ancient Greeks and Romans came to symbolize, for the Medieval Christians, a tradition that they may have seen as pagan. The classical focus on the material world may not have sat well with the new Christian emphasis on the spiritual. Distorted figures can be seen in this regard as symbols of the divine rather than representations of the earthly. So while some skills were certainly lost, the question is also, were they let go because they were no longer seen as important.

That's a great point. I had the pleasure of going to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY and was surprised at the time to see some pagan scenes depicted by Christian painters (this confused me a lot), but, just like you mentioned, none of them were anywhere near Medieval (and I'm pretty sure they were all private commissions) so that fits perfectly. Now that I think about it they were all very naturalistic too so you've really got me there.

While the smaller fourth century reliefs(the "band") when viewed closely may look to be of an inferior quality, when viewed from a person on the ground, they offer a very crisp, distinctive, and easily identifiable image, and from that angle, appear to be of an impeccable quality. So it was probably a delibrate artistic method. We see the same style used for smaller reliefs on the arch of Titus, Trajan's column, and other places that date to earlier times. So these proportions aren't unique to the late Roman period. Also, we don't know with 100% certainty where the other reliefs originate from.

These structures were made during the renaissance era. That's why they didn't degraded and look so new.

Source? I've never heard of these porphyry statues

@@SethTheOrigin there are 2 in Florence in Boboli gardens, one in the Louvre, one in the Vatican. Saw all of them with my own eyes. Very small signs near them explaining what they represent.

nope

Actual fragments of the older monuments were removed and reincorporated into this arch.

Sports teams often talk up the opposing team, it makes a victory all the more valued. Perhaps it's the same here-the Dacians as worthy foes.

They only dates to the renaissance era. They aren't Roman structure.

@@teddyissak2720 I’m pretty sure they’re from Traian’s era, not Hadran’s nor renaissance. It’s quite visible if you analyse the details.

@@aurea.antiqua Nope, it looks to young to date to that age, It doesn't show any visible sign of weathering, no sign of cracks....etc. It's standing in perfect condition for a thousands year old structure ? That's simply bs. also why would Constantine build an arc in rome, when he only reigned all his life in modern Turkey and buIgaria ?

@@teddyissak2720 Well, as archaeologist may I ask If you have some kind of scientific article to prove this? Because I’ve analysed this arch and it’s really visible which parts are from which era (Traian, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius and also Constantine). Also we have the dedication etc. Constantine did not build it, the senate did as a sign of gratitude that Constantine liberated Rome (Milvian bridge battle).

@@aurea.antiqua "Scientific article" for an archeologist ? lol, Archeology is not a science mate, It's a humanity and archeologist doesn't do any scientific investigation. They relay on visual inspection and giving a hypothetical explanation what they observe. This doesn't need any expertise, you can do it by yourself. Archeologists are not scientist. They don't analyze material science. YT doesn't allow me to post any Iink here so, You should research by yourself, "How a limestone stone degraded", "How many years a limestone structures can survive", What is the rate of limestone reaction to a dry or cold atmosphere, Humidity....etc. You will then know why the age of these structure as claimed is a bs

No in some areas he was good, but in many more he could be seen as one of the worst emperors

@@Chad_Eldridge making Christianity the standard. One of the biggest crime of humanity.

@@Chad_Eldridge he started making 4 --> 2. This stopped expansion in the West. After him, 50 -150 years later Western Roman Empire fell. Although, everything is much more complicated..

@@Chad_Eldridge what a child you are.

He was a pagan

I've written retorical , because what they are speaking here it's not accurate.

Actually the silly video you dismiss is historically accurate! This one not so much. There are not Christian symbols to be found on the Arch! He converted in his deathbed!

That is something you should take up with Niccolo Machiavelli, not us.

@@smarthistoryvideos It’s your video I just asked the question! Besides I can’t talk with dead people lol

One common explanation is that the Roman's depicted their rivals as powerful to underscore the import of their own victory.

Since there in not much known about Dacia in the history books, all explanations can be possible! What is curios to me, is that the language of Dacia can't be Roman Latin, but is the closes language to Latin.

There were a few Emperors and high officials who were in fact Dacian. So I think there has been a lot of misconceptions or out right lies about Dacia and it's involvement (and possible founding of) with Rome.

The term is meant to express how Constantine and Romans of the 4th century may have viewed certain previous rulers (though it is possible that the term is no older than the 14th century). I applaud your skepticism.

@@smarthistoryvideos I did appreciate the video about these different arches. Roman history does fascinate me.

We have quite a lot of content on ancient Rome. You can find all of it here: smarthistory.org/ancient-mediterranean/ancient-rome/

@@smarthistoryvideos Thanks for the link. It looks like a good resource.

And Ironically, the beard was popular from Hardrian all the way to Diocletian, while it was Constantine who made clean-shaven popular again.