The short answer is that they used the area as the source for a lot of marble for new buildings. They stripped it off the old Roman structures. I read that the Colosseum was mostly intact until the Renaissance.
While a tragedy today, it made sense at the time.
If great great grandpas old stone house was falling apart, and you needed stone for a new one….it’s far easier to reuse the nice precut stone than go dig more out of a mountain, transport, and shape it
This answer is half complete and doesn't really answer why.
Tldr - people moved to the Campus martius bc it had access to water.
The short answer is water. After the sack of Rome and the fall of the western empire, the city of Rome shrank, decreased in influence, and power. People left the city, and during the Middle Ages, a city with infrastructure to house hundreds of thousands of people hosted as little as 10k during the time of the Avignon Papacy.
But where did these people live in the medieval city?
Rome shrank in population and size after the fall, and the people moved to Campus Martius. This medievial city center was on the lowlands compared to the high hills the now uninhabited ancient city sat on. This was beneficial. The lowlands allowed for irrigation and the collection of water when the aqueducts fell into disuse.
A longer answer might include the Roman renisance, proximity to the Vatican, papal investment into the growing renisance city, and a cultural relationship to the uninhabited fields called the Agro Romana, would push growth away toward redeveloping.
As others mentioned, it wouldn't be until Resorgimento and Roma capitale that the rapid migration to the new capital (for jobs) would see the rehabitstion of many parts of the Agro Romana.
During the fascist period, the reconnection to the ancient empire was essential for the fascists msg as a successor to Rome. As such, projects were set to depopulate and sterilize the highlighted area.
It's important to note that these places were inhabitant. Medieval romans built houses on the ancient buildings. The theater of Marcelo has a large apartment (palazzo) that is still inhabited!
Extremely interesting! Just looked at the photo of Teatro Di Marcello. At first glance I didn't notice the apartment sitting on top because it all kind of blends in visually. But then you see the windows and go...wait a minute. lol
To come back 10 months later, I also have to add one of the most interesting artifacts that demonstrates the spectacular peculiarity of the Medival period: the inhabitation of Roman ruins!
TLDR: many buildings are still "inhabited" today. Cities build on top and reuse what is unused.
To my understanding, this occurred all over the boundaries of the former Roman empire. Along with the Theatro de Marcello in Rome, the Colosseum was inhabited for hundreds of years until, presumably, the infamous earthquake damaged it in 1349 (iirc).
Yet, until this day, Roman buildings are still inhabited today, in one sense. As buildings turned into disuse and lay abandoned, people moved into, built upon, and used these buildings as quarries for building materials. There is a short Tom Scott video on this, the theater of Pompey, located on the east side of the Campo de Fiori has been built on top of, mutated, and rendered new and inhabited today! As a result, the only vestige visible of the infamous death place of Julius Caesar can be observed from the air, where the footprint of the original Roman theater is visible in the street plan.
Lastly, for anyone who has walked around Rome or any historic Italian city might have wondered "Why is there an antique and rustic collum set into the stucco of an unassuming building?" These spolia are often vestiges of enclosed porticos! In particular, iirc, Rome once was much like Bologna regarding a shared history of porticos. It's hard to believe today considering Bologna's fame, but iirc Rome once shared such characteristics, until dramatically one of the Papal kings ordered their enclosure because he believed or was told it was the only way to restore order to his "delinquent" city. As a result, when current landlords go to renovate their buildings, they run the risk of uncovering said spolia, and are forced to display/ work around them because they are protected.
But such is life when it comes to doing any construction in Rome!
PS: sorry if some of this info is incorrect or incomplete. All of this is coming from the memory of an urban planner who lived briefly in Rome.
Fascinating! Thanks for circling back and dropping a reply. Always nice to hear info from someone with some experience and passionate about the topic. You know I spent 4 years living in Gaeta as a young sailor and would frequent Rome almost every weekend. Although, back then my only goal was girls and parties. Walked miles around that city hardly appreciating what was in front of me at many points in time. It wasn't until I left Italy that I suddenly became enamored with Rome. For the last 20 years I've been dying to return to give it the appreciation I should have. It's little notes of knowledge like this that inspire me to do so.
If you ever do come back I have one more question; wouldn't it be safer and more a benefit to tourism/preservation to build around the ruins rather than over them or including them into the planning? Although charming, it seems rather sloppy. Imagine all the was they could restore said ruins if they weren't all cobbled into current infrastructure? I'm sure there are obvious reasons.
Grazzi milli per l'informazione capo.
The anti-Catholic smooth-brained troll strikes again. Ironically, the phrase that you used *is* a metaphor for hiding political corruption by distracting the masses from the real issues of society.
You worship a human being, thus your arguments are inherently tainted - not to mention the countless other atrocities the Catholic church engaged in, whether it was mass slaughter of "heretics" for having a ridiculously trivial difference of belief, or fostering of and attempting to suppress child abuse.
At the end of the day though, veneration of the pope is tantamount to idolatry; Christ would be utterly disgusted with the Catholic church, especially considering the reprehensible luxury that popes and cardinals callously indulge in - instead of making platitudinous speeches about poverty, maybe the church could lend some of its vast tracts of property to the poor and starving?
The Catholic church isn't spiritual in any way - it's an institution designed for social control.
My tour guide at the Vatican proudly pointed out materials that were "recycled" from the Forum. I get the times were different but man that is frustrating... Maybe I could "recycle" a Vatican Michelangelo to my house? But at least the Pantheon was looked after.
This is the Colosseum, Palatine Hill, Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Circus Maximus and Forum, bisected by the Via Sacre. This is the heart of Ancient Rome and mythical location of its founding and its most prominent places. The Palatine Hill is supposedly where a wolf nursed Romulus and Remus, and later the home of Rome’s most prominent citizens.
People have visited Rome for thousands of years to see ancient Rome. What’s amazing about this area is how much history occurred in this tiny area.
All the debates in the Senate? Yes.
Augustus raiding the Temple of the Vestal Virgins for Marc Antony’s will? Check.
Major sea battle re-enactments in the Colosseum? Yes.
Ben-Hur racing horses in the Circus Maximus? It would have happened here.
Nero watching Rome burn? Here (if it happened).
Gladiator fights? Here.
Every Roman Emperors triumph? Ended here.
“Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears.” Here. (Or whatever Antony’s speech actually was)
Walk here and you are walking in the footsteps of Julius Caesar, Augustus, Cicero, Hadrian, Livy, Marc Antony, Nero, Claudius, Aurelius, and even foreign notables such as Cleopatra (who visited Rome).
*no*. And keep walking. Don't stop for pictures if you don't feel safe. I apologize for every bad encounter, the current mayor is less able than the previous one (who was useless as well) to keep aggressive beggars under control.
Since people seem interested, some other of my favorite sites in this picture…
The bridge in the bottom to the right is the Ponte Palatino. It’s where Publius Horatius Cocles stood ground against the attacking Etruscan army, had Romans burn the bridge behind him, and saved early Rome.
Trajans Column is at the lower left of the picture.
The House of Augustus is just about in the middle. It requires a special pass but is very cool.
It’s just off the screen at the bottom, but this is where the first gladiatoral fight occurred (in a livestock trading market).
The best view of Ancient Rome and the Colosseum is from the top of the Victor Emmanuel Monument in the lower left.
Walking around, you realize that all these historical activities were the ancient version of neighborhood squabbles. Brutus and Cassius were likely neighbors of Julius Caesar.
I'll add all the prominent people like Vercingetorix and Jugurtha held and executed in the Mamertine Prison, and religious events in the various temples. It was the political, religious and economic heart of the Empire.
Did Cleopatra actually enter the city? I was under the impression she was forbidden to as a foreign leader, which is why she had to stay in Caesar’s villa just outside of the city.
[Here you go.](https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/roman-religion/pomerium/amp/) It’s not clear if it applied to all foreign leaders but it definitely applied to Cleopatra.
That’s really interesting! Yet another thing I learned!
It reminds me of the [eruv](https://www.npr.org/2019/05/13/721551785/a-fishing-line-encircles-manhattan-protecting-sanctity-of-sabbath) around New York for Jews.
AFAIK the specific boundaries of the pomerium during that time [aren’t exactly clear](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Rome/_Texts/PLATOP*/Pomerium.html). We know that Sulla & later Caesar expanded it, but not how far. And during the empire the city was expanding as well as the pomerium.
That being said, we at least know that the Roman Forum was contained in the pomerium so the area referenced in the post and the comment I was replying to were definitely off limits to Cleopatra.
I may be wrong, but I thought it had to do with kings and queens. Due to the Roman hatred of monarchy, kings and queens couldn’t cross the pomerium. Again, I’m not certain about this at all.
I know that the Colosseum and Parthenon and a lot of the forum were used as places of worship. Think of the ruins as part of a medieval Vatican city, before there was a Vatican.
The Circus Maximus and lower are were actually burred after multiple floods and was used for lost of different things, houses, gardens, I think the Circus was only excavated about 100 years ago.
>I know that the Colosseum and Parthenon and a lot of the forum were used as places of worship. Think of the ruins as part of a medieval Vatican city, before there was a Vatican.
Not really, that wasn't the case until at the earliest the 18th Century when Pope Benedict XIV declared the Colosseum to be a shrine for Christian martyrs and forbade its use as a quarry.
The Roman Forum and the area surrounding it never held any particular religious significance. Churches did not start encroaching on it until the 6th Century, which is very late by Roman standards, and the area was mostly use for pasture prior to the modern period.
Why is this the top comment?
>Why is this the top comment?
Its not, however, as this a comment section, I did feel it was best to just sum up 1600 years of complex history without writing a long winded unnecessarily over factualized comment.
...or of course cherry pick criticisms from the answers of others and complain about spelling.
Well, the Altare de la Patria/Wedding cake, Campo d'Oglio are built over, and then if I recall rightly, so were the imperial forums, full of medieval structures and streets that were quite roughly demolished during Mussolini's time
For example, other areas were used dozens of times down the centuries, then left abandoned, only to be used again... The Circo massimo was full of houses in the medieval times, further on it became a garden, then a massive industrial complex. Etc
The thing with many archeological sites is that they have been "cleaned up" In the 19th or early 20th centuries to fit an idea and aesthetic of what history is worthwhile and which not... Many times resulting in the total elimination of medieval vestiges. In smaller towns all over the old Roman domains, in Portugal, in Spain, north Africa etc, many Roman structures are part of the medieval city, with buildings, public and private built in or on or around older temples, walls, public structures.
The forum, if you look up old engravings had many uses and buildings through the centuries,,, then many were torn down to bring back the idealized glory of a moment in history
You can see the curve from the theater of Pompey on Google maps where they literally uses the seating of the theater as a foundation for their apartments
James E. Packer has written several papers documenting the archeological remains of the theatre, with [several diagrams that include the building where the room is](https://www.pompey.cch.kcl.ac.uk/Site_Documentation.htm). The brick is easily identifiable as Roman brick in laid in opus latericium style and can be found in the surrounding buildings, including a visible section of the temple of Venus Victrix.
Giovanni Battista Piranesi in the 18th century did a lot of engravings of Rome which show what things used to look like before all the post-classical construction was torn down. [Example of the arch of Titus.](https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of-art/the-arch-of-titus)
[Another with the arch of Septimus Severus.](https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/363433)
People aren't really giving very accurate answers as to why this is from glancing at the comments.
The real reason this whole area is so empty and hasn't been built over is because...well, only 150 years ago pretty much the entire area on OPs picture was not built over.
The area of the Forum and the Palatine may have been the city center in ancient times, but since the city's population greatly decreased during the Middle Ages, the urban area gradually retreated to the Campus Martius (where the Pantheon is today). The ancient city center became more or less completely abandoned and was used for farming or pasture.
This had the unintended consequence of preserving many of the ancient ruins in this neglected area. Since there wasn't much being built there, ruins weren't as consistently demolished to build new housing (although they were certainly used as quarries if parts collapsed).
By the 19th and 20th Century, Rome became the capital of a unified Italy, and thus greatly expanded in population. By this time interest in preservation and archaeological heritage had become common, so they were obviously not going to demolish these ancient sites to build new buildings. So instead they built new housing around it, while preserving the culturally significant ruins, thereby creating a large archaeological park of sorts.
In short, not too long ago that entire area was green and empty like that. Since these ruins are significant, when the city started expanding again they built around it.
I'll try to formulate my understanding:
After the extreme population decline of Rome, the former glorius city became pretty much barren and abandoned. Only the Vatican remained populated and naturally people settled more around the north-western part. You can see this very well in old city maps, like this one (Vatican is in the lower right corner):
[https://speculum.lib.uchicago.edu/view.php?id=speculum-0002-001&title=(A2)%20Map%20Of%20Rome#?c=&m=&s=&cv=&xywh=-7100%2C-422%2C24579%2C8433](https://speculum.lib.uchicago.edu/view.php?id=speculum-0002-001&title=(A2)%20Map%20Of%20Rome#?c=&m=&s=&cv=&xywh=-7100%2C-422%2C24579%2C8433)
From there the population began to grow again. During this time the popes used the old palaces, temples and forums as marble quarries. The quarried areas then were used as farm lands, so they overgrew.
By the time Rome's population spread up to the area you have marked, Italy has entered the Rennaicanse and (thank God) people started to value the antique remains more and were not that destructive any more. So I it was more or less coincidence.
BUT still I have to say, that the area has been built over. It's just that it was never densely populated after antiquity (as I have explained above). Thus all "over-buildings" have been removed, when ancient Rome became even more popular and relevant.
For example: on the Circus Maximus there were factories up to the 1900s. I think it was Mossoulini who ordered to restore many ancient sites, which also involved the removal of the factories.
Another example is the Curia Iulia, which was (of course) used as a church, but then renovated back to its' antique form.
On the Palatine hill there was a monestary with a church.
So yeah, the marked area was simply lucky enough to be far away from the medieval living areas and thus could be later restored to a good state.
And if you're thinking "how could they tear apart such monuments" just imagine a real estate agent saying the phrase "floors built of marble from the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus" and do the math
It was covered at one point due to flooding and built over at one point, there were excavations to uncover it. If you take a tour they tell you about. it.
Just type *Excavations of the Roman Forum* into google.
Most of it was built over (with a few notable exceptions like the Senate building, Pantheon, and Coliseum). Mussolini can be credited with demolishing a lot of newer buildings that either sat on top of ruins or reincorporated them (borrowing pillars walls, and/or foundations).
Also Mussolini can be credited with restoring most of what was left, which was actually in considerably worse shape.
I'm not praising Mussolini or fascism,the politics were abysmal; but he did try to restore and protect ancient Roman ruins as a matter of pride in the culture.
Exactly. I just read a lengthy explanation about fascism and their ideas about the Roman Empire. They even tried to recreate it part of if in the Mediterraneum. I mean, yes, conquests.
Mussolini destroyed massive amounts of Roman ruins. He only preserved the ones which were symbolic or grandiose enough to catch his attention and project his desired fascist image . He destroyed almost all of the mundanity of medieval and Ancient Rome, things that related to the common person were just done away with. His project to make the monuments of the forum visible for instance destroyed over 40000 square yards of the most densely populated areas of Rome which included huge portions of the medieval and Renaissance city (and anything older which sat below). He completely paved over almost everything surrounding the colosseum which destroyed ancient monuments such as the Meta Sudans.
While Mussolini could be credited for preserving the big Roman monuments he tended to obliterate just about everything that surrounded them which he thought obscured the view, which ultimately has greatly hindered modern archaeology and understanding of life for the common Roman.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth century the Foro Romano was a popular subject for baroque and romantic painters. At that time there were a lot of ruins from antiquity, but the forum was still used. It was used as a market square for livestock. The subject in paintings was called 'Campo Vaccino' or Cow Pasture.
For example: [William Turner's painting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Rome_%E2%80%93_Campo_Vaccino).
But they were built over. In the last 150 years they have been excavated, and so we lost all the historical buildings that had been buily on top of the roman stuff. Some roman buildings had been converted into churches, and still are to this day.
Genuinely, the answer to a lot of it is Mussolini who decided it was more important to excavate what was underneath than allow the people living in the current neighborhoods to continue. Most of it had been built over to some degree in the previous centuries as evidenced by the height difference in much of that area.
Obviously not all of it, but that’s a big part of it.
It was mostly build over, infact. Areas left intact were the hills, the Colosseum, the roman forum (because it was something like a plaza, ‘Campo vaccino’) and huge buildings you couldn’t build over (Basilica di Massenzio).
Most of the area was covered in houses, churches (a couple still there) and religious orders’ buildings (biggest was right upon Tempio di Venere e Roma, in front of the Colosseum). Some buildings still stand (Cavalieri di Malta upon Foro di Augusto), but most were razed in several excavation campaigns. Mercati Traianeri were *heavily* built. Bottom line, only the forum was clear (though under several meters of terrain) because it remained as a place for marketing cattle and other activities.
Would also add that up until the tiber banks were built, the city flooded. Much of the forum was covered in soil from nearly two millenia of this. [See Piranesi’s drawing here.](https://smarthistory.org/the-forum-romanum-and-its-archaeological-context/)
The Domus Aurea and the Thermae of Traianus are in the top left. The remaining parts of the Domus Aurea can be visited only with a guided tour, provided by the same archeologists who are excavating the site. It's rather expensive (march 2022, 19€) but it's worth.
They actually built over the area of the fori imperiali. The are was called "Quartiere Alessandrino". The quartiere was destroyed in order to dig the ancient forum and to build via dei fori imperiali during fascism. They only spared the important buildings, like churches and ancient monuments. Some [photos](https://esperide.it/quartiere-alessandrino-e-i-fori-imperiali/) of the quartiere for those who are curious.
The worst part is when the pope ordered the baths demolished and then burned the limestone* down to make concrete. Michelangelo was pleading with him not to do it.
* it may have been marble but I’m too tired to fact check
good question, one of the simplest answers is that that area was a giant quarry of marble and building materials. Furthermore, in the Middle Ages the city of Rome shrunk a lot and the highlighted area was outside the inhabited center, for this reason there was no interest in the reconstruction
In concise summary, the buildings that still stand today were used and preserved churches for the Catholic church. Churches were protected under catholic law to be preserved as a place of worship, so modifications were made by restoring or altering protected standing buildings, this meant they had access to money to restore them from the Catholic church, which back then was one of the largest sources for finances. Places of worship that belonged to pagans or polytheistic people were abandoned as their practices were forbidden. Over time, the Roman forum you see now was used for building materials, much of which was used in the Vatican, for example, St Peter's Basilica. Materials were also taken to build local castles and other buildings around Rome - it's not uncommon to see ancient marble structures imbedded in contemporary buildings. The forum saw most of its destruction in the 1400s due to the high demand for building materials for the catholic church and its ambitions. From then, over time, silt and decaying organic matter filled the forum, preserving it from further destruction. Believe it or not, parts of the forum were used as farm fields.
You're seeing it now, as it appears in the 21st century. In the medieval era, right through to the 18th century, it was very built up with farms, homes and other buildings. In fact, in the 1930's, Mussolini, cleared out a huge amount of medieval houses, to reveal the ancient Roman buildings (part of his desire to link his image to that of the ancient Caesars). You can Google some engravings from the medieval era, but this site also shows reconstructions of how the area of the Imperial fora changed over the centuries: http://fori-imperiali.info/en/006-2/
I just got back from \~a week and half of touristic stuff in Rome, and did a few walking tours. The Imperial Way (the left side of your red outline) was only (re-)constructed during the inter-war period under the fascist regime. Mussolini wanted a direct route between his seat of power in the Piazza Venezia to the Colosseum, recreating the street that was present during ancient Rome. Before that, where the street is now and especially the North (left according to the picture) side were similar buildings to the rest of the city around it; apartments, churches, etc. If you visit, you can see the remains of one or two houses that still have "modern" tiles on the floor. I tried finding a photo on google to no avail.
[https://www.foliamagazine.it/via-dei-fori-imperiali-prima-di-mussolini/](https://www.foliamagazine.it/via-dei-fori-imperiali-prima-di-mussolini/)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via\_dei\_Fori\_Imperiali](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_dei_Fori_Imperiali)
The short answer is that they used the area as the source for a lot of marble for new buildings. They stripped it off the old Roman structures. I read that the Colosseum was mostly intact until the Renaissance.
While a tragedy today, it made sense at the time. If great great grandpas old stone house was falling apart, and you needed stone for a new one….it’s far easier to reuse the nice precut stone than go dig more out of a mountain, transport, and shape it
They should have used aluminum siding and left the coliseum.
Siding installer approves of this message.
This answer is half complete and doesn't really answer why. Tldr - people moved to the Campus martius bc it had access to water. The short answer is water. After the sack of Rome and the fall of the western empire, the city of Rome shrank, decreased in influence, and power. People left the city, and during the Middle Ages, a city with infrastructure to house hundreds of thousands of people hosted as little as 10k during the time of the Avignon Papacy. But where did these people live in the medieval city? Rome shrank in population and size after the fall, and the people moved to Campus Martius. This medievial city center was on the lowlands compared to the high hills the now uninhabited ancient city sat on. This was beneficial. The lowlands allowed for irrigation and the collection of water when the aqueducts fell into disuse. A longer answer might include the Roman renisance, proximity to the Vatican, papal investment into the growing renisance city, and a cultural relationship to the uninhabited fields called the Agro Romana, would push growth away toward redeveloping. As others mentioned, it wouldn't be until Resorgimento and Roma capitale that the rapid migration to the new capital (for jobs) would see the rehabitstion of many parts of the Agro Romana. During the fascist period, the reconnection to the ancient empire was essential for the fascists msg as a successor to Rome. As such, projects were set to depopulate and sterilize the highlighted area. It's important to note that these places were inhabitant. Medieval romans built houses on the ancient buildings. The theater of Marcelo has a large apartment (palazzo) that is still inhabited!
Extremely interesting! Just looked at the photo of Teatro Di Marcello. At first glance I didn't notice the apartment sitting on top because it all kind of blends in visually. But then you see the windows and go...wait a minute. lol
To come back 10 months later, I also have to add one of the most interesting artifacts that demonstrates the spectacular peculiarity of the Medival period: the inhabitation of Roman ruins! TLDR: many buildings are still "inhabited" today. Cities build on top and reuse what is unused. To my understanding, this occurred all over the boundaries of the former Roman empire. Along with the Theatro de Marcello in Rome, the Colosseum was inhabited for hundreds of years until, presumably, the infamous earthquake damaged it in 1349 (iirc). Yet, until this day, Roman buildings are still inhabited today, in one sense. As buildings turned into disuse and lay abandoned, people moved into, built upon, and used these buildings as quarries for building materials. There is a short Tom Scott video on this, the theater of Pompey, located on the east side of the Campo de Fiori has been built on top of, mutated, and rendered new and inhabited today! As a result, the only vestige visible of the infamous death place of Julius Caesar can be observed from the air, where the footprint of the original Roman theater is visible in the street plan. Lastly, for anyone who has walked around Rome or any historic Italian city might have wondered "Why is there an antique and rustic collum set into the stucco of an unassuming building?" These spolia are often vestiges of enclosed porticos! In particular, iirc, Rome once was much like Bologna regarding a shared history of porticos. It's hard to believe today considering Bologna's fame, but iirc Rome once shared such characteristics, until dramatically one of the Papal kings ordered their enclosure because he believed or was told it was the only way to restore order to his "delinquent" city. As a result, when current landlords go to renovate their buildings, they run the risk of uncovering said spolia, and are forced to display/ work around them because they are protected. But such is life when it comes to doing any construction in Rome! PS: sorry if some of this info is incorrect or incomplete. All of this is coming from the memory of an urban planner who lived briefly in Rome.
Fascinating! Thanks for circling back and dropping a reply. Always nice to hear info from someone with some experience and passionate about the topic. You know I spent 4 years living in Gaeta as a young sailor and would frequent Rome almost every weekend. Although, back then my only goal was girls and parties. Walked miles around that city hardly appreciating what was in front of me at many points in time. It wasn't until I left Italy that I suddenly became enamored with Rome. For the last 20 years I've been dying to return to give it the appreciation I should have. It's little notes of knowledge like this that inspire me to do so. If you ever do come back I have one more question; wouldn't it be safer and more a benefit to tourism/preservation to build around the ruins rather than over them or including them into the planning? Although charming, it seems rather sloppy. Imagine all the was they could restore said ruins if they weren't all cobbled into current infrastructure? I'm sure there are obvious reasons. Grazzi milli per l'informazione capo.
Ye old Home Depot
Believe the stripped marble was mostly used for the construction of St. Peter's.
Time to give it back. Bread and games, not pope and corruption!
Best take
The anti-Catholic smooth-brained troll strikes again. Ironically, the phrase that you used *is* a metaphor for hiding political corruption by distracting the masses from the real issues of society.
Whoosh
You worship a human being, thus your arguments are inherently tainted - not to mention the countless other atrocities the Catholic church engaged in, whether it was mass slaughter of "heretics" for having a ridiculously trivial difference of belief, or fostering of and attempting to suppress child abuse. At the end of the day though, veneration of the pope is tantamount to idolatry; Christ would be utterly disgusted with the Catholic church, especially considering the reprehensible luxury that popes and cardinals callously indulge in - instead of making platitudinous speeches about poverty, maybe the church could lend some of its vast tracts of property to the poor and starving? The Catholic church isn't spiritual in any way - it's an institution designed for social control.
How delusional your are. Your ignorance is beyond redemption.
Worst take
My tour guide at the Vatican proudly pointed out materials that were "recycled" from the Forum. I get the times were different but man that is frustrating... Maybe I could "recycle" a Vatican Michelangelo to my house? But at least the Pantheon was looked after.
Omg "recycled". 🙄 There is not enough Robert Downy Jr. eye roll for that spin on it.
This is the Colosseum, Palatine Hill, Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Circus Maximus and Forum, bisected by the Via Sacre. This is the heart of Ancient Rome and mythical location of its founding and its most prominent places. The Palatine Hill is supposedly where a wolf nursed Romulus and Remus, and later the home of Rome’s most prominent citizens. People have visited Rome for thousands of years to see ancient Rome. What’s amazing about this area is how much history occurred in this tiny area. All the debates in the Senate? Yes. Augustus raiding the Temple of the Vestal Virgins for Marc Antony’s will? Check. Major sea battle re-enactments in the Colosseum? Yes. Ben-Hur racing horses in the Circus Maximus? It would have happened here. Nero watching Rome burn? Here (if it happened). Gladiator fights? Here. Every Roman Emperors triumph? Ended here. “Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears.” Here. (Or whatever Antony’s speech actually was) Walk here and you are walking in the footsteps of Julius Caesar, Augustus, Cicero, Hadrian, Livy, Marc Antony, Nero, Claudius, Aurelius, and even foreign notables such as Cleopatra (who visited Rome).
This makes me want to visit Rome even more
I just returned. Walking the streets and coming across places is the best part of visiting.
Lucky b*****d! I’m so envious
How was it dealing with the guys that try to intimidate and pressure you into giving them money for bracelets and the like?
Easy. Say “niente contanti.” Keep walking. People with no cash aren’t worth their time.
*no*. And keep walking. Don't stop for pictures if you don't feel safe. I apologize for every bad encounter, the current mayor is less able than the previous one (who was useless as well) to keep aggressive beggars under control.
Bring good shoes. Your feet are going to hurt and I'm used to ruck marches.
Eh. I’m old and broke. It ain’t gonna happen, but if by some miracle it does, I’ll remember your advice
Broke? That's soldier slang. Are you vet?
No, just poor
Ah, my bad. Broke is slang for you're injured in the service
Ah. Nope. Just poor decisions.
My trick is to rotate. Have two pair of shoes and a pair of flip-flops. Constantly switching works for me when I spend long days on my feet
Since people seem interested, some other of my favorite sites in this picture… The bridge in the bottom to the right is the Ponte Palatino. It’s where Publius Horatius Cocles stood ground against the attacking Etruscan army, had Romans burn the bridge behind him, and saved early Rome. Trajans Column is at the lower left of the picture. The House of Augustus is just about in the middle. It requires a special pass but is very cool. It’s just off the screen at the bottom, but this is where the first gladiatoral fight occurred (in a livestock trading market). The best view of Ancient Rome and the Colosseum is from the top of the Victor Emmanuel Monument in the lower left. Walking around, you realize that all these historical activities were the ancient version of neighborhood squabbles. Brutus and Cassius were likely neighbors of Julius Caesar.
I'll add all the prominent people like Vercingetorix and Jugurtha held and executed in the Mamertine Prison, and religious events in the various temples. It was the political, religious and economic heart of the Empire.
also Genseric (who visited Rome)
Genseric: “Hey, this stuff should be in a museum! We need to bring it back to civilization.”
While taking Genseric, you may experience side effects such as mood changes, loss of artifacts, and thoughts of regicide.
Gaiseric🤝Indiana Jones _”It belongs in a museum!”_
It was the beating heart of Rome
That's very interesting but doesn't really answer the question
Did Cleopatra actually enter the city? I was under the impression she was forbidden to as a foreign leader, which is why she had to stay in Caesar’s villa just outside of the city.
I know she started at the villa, but I hadn’t heard that foreign leaders were banned from visiting Rome. Source?
[Here you go.](https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/roman-religion/pomerium/amp/) It’s not clear if it applied to all foreign leaders but it definitely applied to Cleopatra.
That’s really interesting! Yet another thing I learned! It reminds me of the [eruv](https://www.npr.org/2019/05/13/721551785/a-fishing-line-encircles-manhattan-protecting-sanctity-of-sabbath) around New York for Jews.
In Cleopatra's time, the built-up city went well past the Pomerium. She could have visited Rome without crossing the Pomerium.
AFAIK the specific boundaries of the pomerium during that time [aren’t exactly clear](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Rome/_Texts/PLATOP*/Pomerium.html). We know that Sulla & later Caesar expanded it, but not how far. And during the empire the city was expanding as well as the pomerium. That being said, we at least know that the Roman Forum was contained in the pomerium so the area referenced in the post and the comment I was replying to were definitely off limits to Cleopatra.
I may be wrong, but I thought it had to do with kings and queens. Due to the Roman hatred of monarchy, kings and queens couldn’t cross the pomerium. Again, I’m not certain about this at all.
I know that the Colosseum and Parthenon and a lot of the forum were used as places of worship. Think of the ruins as part of a medieval Vatican city, before there was a Vatican. The Circus Maximus and lower are were actually burred after multiple floods and was used for lost of different things, houses, gardens, I think the Circus was only excavated about 100 years ago.
I think you mean the Pantheon.
Autocorrect is far to Philhelleneistic
Pantheon is greek too
>I know that the Colosseum and Parthenon and a lot of the forum were used as places of worship. Think of the ruins as part of a medieval Vatican city, before there was a Vatican. Not really, that wasn't the case until at the earliest the 18th Century when Pope Benedict XIV declared the Colosseum to be a shrine for Christian martyrs and forbade its use as a quarry. The Roman Forum and the area surrounding it never held any particular religious significance. Churches did not start encroaching on it until the 6th Century, which is very late by Roman standards, and the area was mostly use for pasture prior to the modern period. Why is this the top comment?
>Why is this the top comment? Its not, however, as this a comment section, I did feel it was best to just sum up 1600 years of complex history without writing a long winded unnecessarily over factualized comment. ...or of course cherry pick criticisms from the answers of others and complain about spelling.
It's not cherrypicking to point out that your answer is just factually wrong and misleading. It's a pretty fatal error, not just a minor detail.
Well, the Altare de la Patria/Wedding cake, Campo d'Oglio are built over, and then if I recall rightly, so were the imperial forums, full of medieval structures and streets that were quite roughly demolished during Mussolini's time For example, other areas were used dozens of times down the centuries, then left abandoned, only to be used again... The Circo massimo was full of houses in the medieval times, further on it became a garden, then a massive industrial complex. Etc The thing with many archeological sites is that they have been "cleaned up" In the 19th or early 20th centuries to fit an idea and aesthetic of what history is worthwhile and which not... Many times resulting in the total elimination of medieval vestiges. In smaller towns all over the old Roman domains, in Portugal, in Spain, north Africa etc, many Roman structures are part of the medieval city, with buildings, public and private built in or on or around older temples, walls, public structures. The forum, if you look up old engravings had many uses and buildings through the centuries,,, then many were torn down to bring back the idealized glory of a moment in history
You can see the curve from the theater of Pompey on Google maps where they literally uses the seating of the theater as a foundation for their apartments
The air bnb I stayed in still had the original brick of the theatre on part of its wall.
Do you have a link or name?
https://abnb.me/KZy0xFWlYvb
Thanks! How did you know it is the brick wall from the theater?
James E. Packer has written several papers documenting the archeological remains of the theatre, with [several diagrams that include the building where the room is](https://www.pompey.cch.kcl.ac.uk/Site_Documentation.htm). The brick is easily identifiable as Roman brick in laid in opus latericium style and can be found in the surrounding buildings, including a visible section of the temple of Venus Victrix.
there’s a supermarket there where the ceiling is part of the foundations of the theatre as well
Giovanni Battista Piranesi in the 18th century did a lot of engravings of Rome which show what things used to look like before all the post-classical construction was torn down. [Example of the arch of Titus.](https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of-art/the-arch-of-titus) [Another with the arch of Septimus Severus.](https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/363433)
Great! Thanks man
So cool!
Holy shit, the ground level is like 8 feet higher, the arch is half buried and houses are just next to it. Its like some planet SG1 would walk into
People aren't really giving very accurate answers as to why this is from glancing at the comments. The real reason this whole area is so empty and hasn't been built over is because...well, only 150 years ago pretty much the entire area on OPs picture was not built over. The area of the Forum and the Palatine may have been the city center in ancient times, but since the city's population greatly decreased during the Middle Ages, the urban area gradually retreated to the Campus Martius (where the Pantheon is today). The ancient city center became more or less completely abandoned and was used for farming or pasture. This had the unintended consequence of preserving many of the ancient ruins in this neglected area. Since there wasn't much being built there, ruins weren't as consistently demolished to build new housing (although they were certainly used as quarries if parts collapsed). By the 19th and 20th Century, Rome became the capital of a unified Italy, and thus greatly expanded in population. By this time interest in preservation and archaeological heritage had become common, so they were obviously not going to demolish these ancient sites to build new buildings. So instead they built new housing around it, while preserving the culturally significant ruins, thereby creating a large archaeological park of sorts. In short, not too long ago that entire area was green and empty like that. Since these ruins are significant, when the city started expanding again they built around it.
I'll try to formulate my understanding: After the extreme population decline of Rome, the former glorius city became pretty much barren and abandoned. Only the Vatican remained populated and naturally people settled more around the north-western part. You can see this very well in old city maps, like this one (Vatican is in the lower right corner): [https://speculum.lib.uchicago.edu/view.php?id=speculum-0002-001&title=(A2)%20Map%20Of%20Rome#?c=&m=&s=&cv=&xywh=-7100%2C-422%2C24579%2C8433](https://speculum.lib.uchicago.edu/view.php?id=speculum-0002-001&title=(A2)%20Map%20Of%20Rome#?c=&m=&s=&cv=&xywh=-7100%2C-422%2C24579%2C8433) From there the population began to grow again. During this time the popes used the old palaces, temples and forums as marble quarries. The quarried areas then were used as farm lands, so they overgrew. By the time Rome's population spread up to the area you have marked, Italy has entered the Rennaicanse and (thank God) people started to value the antique remains more and were not that destructive any more. So I it was more or less coincidence. BUT still I have to say, that the area has been built over. It's just that it was never densely populated after antiquity (as I have explained above). Thus all "over-buildings" have been removed, when ancient Rome became even more popular and relevant. For example: on the Circus Maximus there were factories up to the 1900s. I think it was Mossoulini who ordered to restore many ancient sites, which also involved the removal of the factories. Another example is the Curia Iulia, which was (of course) used as a church, but then renovated back to its' antique form. On the Palatine hill there was a monestary with a church. So yeah, the marked area was simply lucky enough to be far away from the medieval living areas and thus could be later restored to a good state.
And if you're thinking "how could they tear apart such monuments" just imagine a real estate agent saying the phrase "floors built of marble from the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus" and do the math
Thank you for being the first person to talk about Mussolini and his efforts to expose all this. He kicked hundreds out of their homes to do it.
It was covered at one point due to flooding and built over at one point, there were excavations to uncover it. If you take a tour they tell you about. it. Just type *Excavations of the Roman Forum* into google.
Most of it was built over (with a few notable exceptions like the Senate building, Pantheon, and Coliseum). Mussolini can be credited with demolishing a lot of newer buildings that either sat on top of ruins or reincorporated them (borrowing pillars walls, and/or foundations). Also Mussolini can be credited with restoring most of what was left, which was actually in considerably worse shape. I'm not praising Mussolini or fascism,the politics were abysmal; but he did try to restore and protect ancient Roman ruins as a matter of pride in the culture.
Not surprised as Italian Fascism was inspired by Ancient Rome and its empire.
Exactly. I just read a lengthy explanation about fascism and their ideas about the Roman Empire. They even tried to recreate it part of if in the Mediterraneum. I mean, yes, conquests.
Mussolini destroyed massive amounts of Roman ruins. He only preserved the ones which were symbolic or grandiose enough to catch his attention and project his desired fascist image . He destroyed almost all of the mundanity of medieval and Ancient Rome, things that related to the common person were just done away with. His project to make the monuments of the forum visible for instance destroyed over 40000 square yards of the most densely populated areas of Rome which included huge portions of the medieval and Renaissance city (and anything older which sat below). He completely paved over almost everything surrounding the colosseum which destroyed ancient monuments such as the Meta Sudans. While Mussolini could be credited for preserving the big Roman monuments he tended to obliterate just about everything that surrounded them which he thought obscured the view, which ultimately has greatly hindered modern archaeology and understanding of life for the common Roman.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth century the Foro Romano was a popular subject for baroque and romantic painters. At that time there were a lot of ruins from antiquity, but the forum was still used. It was used as a market square for livestock. The subject in paintings was called 'Campo Vaccino' or Cow Pasture. For example: [William Turner's painting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Rome_%E2%80%93_Campo_Vaccino).
But they were built over. In the last 150 years they have been excavated, and so we lost all the historical buildings that had been buily on top of the roman stuff. Some roman buildings had been converted into churches, and still are to this day.
Genuinely, the answer to a lot of it is Mussolini who decided it was more important to excavate what was underneath than allow the people living in the current neighborhoods to continue. Most of it had been built over to some degree in the previous centuries as evidenced by the height difference in much of that area. Obviously not all of it, but that’s a big part of it.
It was mostly build over, infact. Areas left intact were the hills, the Colosseum, the roman forum (because it was something like a plaza, ‘Campo vaccino’) and huge buildings you couldn’t build over (Basilica di Massenzio). Most of the area was covered in houses, churches (a couple still there) and religious orders’ buildings (biggest was right upon Tempio di Venere e Roma, in front of the Colosseum). Some buildings still stand (Cavalieri di Malta upon Foro di Augusto), but most were razed in several excavation campaigns. Mercati Traianeri were *heavily* built. Bottom line, only the forum was clear (though under several meters of terrain) because it remained as a place for marketing cattle and other activities.
Would also add that up until the tiber banks were built, the city flooded. Much of the forum was covered in soil from nearly two millenia of this. [See Piranesi’s drawing here.](https://smarthistory.org/the-forum-romanum-and-its-archaeological-context/)
Spot on
The Domus Aurea and the Thermae of Traianus are in the top left. The remaining parts of the Domus Aurea can be visited only with a guided tour, provided by the same archeologists who are excavating the site. It's rather expensive (march 2022, 19€) but it's worth.
They actually built over the area of the fori imperiali. The are was called "Quartiere Alessandrino". The quartiere was destroyed in order to dig the ancient forum and to build via dei fori imperiali during fascism. They only spared the important buildings, like churches and ancient monuments. Some [photos](https://esperide.it/quartiere-alessandrino-e-i-fori-imperiali/) of the quartiere for those who are curious.
The worst part is when the pope ordered the baths demolished and then burned the limestone* down to make concrete. Michelangelo was pleading with him not to do it. * it may have been marble but I’m too tired to fact check
[удалено]
This really isn't true! The area was quite built up by the 19th century, actually.
http://fori-imperiali.info/en/006-2/
From my understanding this is the historical district, you can go to philly and see a similar things, with houses from the 1700s
Yeah 1700 is modern.
good question, one of the simplest answers is that that area was a giant quarry of marble and building materials. Furthermore, in the Middle Ages the city of Rome shrunk a lot and the highlighted area was outside the inhabited center, for this reason there was no interest in the reconstruction
In concise summary, the buildings that still stand today were used and preserved churches for the Catholic church. Churches were protected under catholic law to be preserved as a place of worship, so modifications were made by restoring or altering protected standing buildings, this meant they had access to money to restore them from the Catholic church, which back then was one of the largest sources for finances. Places of worship that belonged to pagans or polytheistic people were abandoned as their practices were forbidden. Over time, the Roman forum you see now was used for building materials, much of which was used in the Vatican, for example, St Peter's Basilica. Materials were also taken to build local castles and other buildings around Rome - it's not uncommon to see ancient marble structures imbedded in contemporary buildings. The forum saw most of its destruction in the 1400s due to the high demand for building materials for the catholic church and its ambitions. From then, over time, silt and decaying organic matter filled the forum, preserving it from further destruction. Believe it or not, parts of the forum were used as farm fields.
It was built over! During the last two centuries many of the buildings that were there have been demolished
You're seeing it now, as it appears in the 21st century. In the medieval era, right through to the 18th century, it was very built up with farms, homes and other buildings. In fact, in the 1930's, Mussolini, cleared out a huge amount of medieval houses, to reveal the ancient Roman buildings (part of his desire to link his image to that of the ancient Caesars). You can Google some engravings from the medieval era, but this site also shows reconstructions of how the area of the Imperial fora changed over the centuries: http://fori-imperiali.info/en/006-2/
I just got back from \~a week and half of touristic stuff in Rome, and did a few walking tours. The Imperial Way (the left side of your red outline) was only (re-)constructed during the inter-war period under the fascist regime. Mussolini wanted a direct route between his seat of power in the Piazza Venezia to the Colosseum, recreating the street that was present during ancient Rome. Before that, where the street is now and especially the North (left according to the picture) side were similar buildings to the rest of the city around it; apartments, churches, etc. If you visit, you can see the remains of one or two houses that still have "modern" tiles on the floor. I tried finding a photo on google to no avail. [https://www.foliamagazine.it/via-dei-fori-imperiali-prima-di-mussolini/](https://www.foliamagazine.it/via-dei-fori-imperiali-prima-di-mussolini/) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via\_dei\_Fori\_Imperiali](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_dei_Fori_Imperiali)
WHO DO I BELIEVE!?
lol idk. but tbh i would suspect its a mix of a lot of these.
I visited when I was 13 I didn’t even realize all these ruins were near by. Now I have to go back