The precise geographic and ethnic origins of the Etruscans remain unknown, despite many decades of determined research on the part of historians, archeologists, and anthropologists. This ambiguity is further complicated by the presence of various cultural influences all throughout the vast canon of Etruscan art and architecture, as well as the far-flung international trade networks cultivated by the Etruscans. We do know that the Etruscans frequently traded with both the ancient Phoenicians and Greeks and their artwork bears traces of Mediterranean, Asian, and Grecian styles and techniques. While historians have recently attempted to solve this enduring mystery by testing the DNA of various unearthed Etruscan bodies, unfortunately all DNA tests have so far proved inconclusive.

In the late seventh century BCE, the Etruscans, as the undisputed top power on the Italian Peninsula, consolidated their control over the region around the fledgling city of Rome. They remained in control here until 509 BCE, when the early Romans rose up in rebellion and toppled their Etruscan overlords. After having secured their freedom, the Romans set about erecting their own system of government: the famous Roman Republic, which lasted until the outbreak of civil warfare in 100 BCE. The Republic was governed by two consuls, who were elected by the Senate each year; power was further divided between the Senate and a larger assembly, which was intended to represent all citizens and was organized on the basis of tribal (later familial) affiliation.

The Assemblies of the Roman Republic were accorded many important powers in their first early centuries. The members of the Assemblies were selected from each of the various familial and/or ethnic tribes and possessed an assortment of powers, including: the power to conduct trials and carry out executions, the power to declare war and peace, and the power to elect various city officials.

In 82 CE, the Emperor Domitian commissioned the construction of the Arch of Titus – curiously enough, the Arch is named after the previous emperor, Titus, who was also Domitian’s elder brother and who had perished the previous year. The Arch commemorates the Roman Army’s subjugation of the Hebrew cities of Judea and Jerusalem, who had long been resisting Roman control. The Arch also memorialized the Roman Army’s sacking of the Temple of Jerusalem, which the Romans saw as an important public statement meant to inform the Jewish citizens of that city of the apparent wisdom of compliance with their new overlords. Titus, the Arch’s namesake, was the first to instigate the campaign against Jerusalem and Judea and so perhaps this is why the Arch bears his name rather than that of his brother.

Over an intermittent period between 264 to 146 BCE, Rome and the city of Carthage battled each other for supremacy in a series of contests which became known as the Three Punic Wars. The city of Carthage lay at the heart of the wealthy and sophisticated Carthaginian civilization, situated along the coast of Northern Africa, with a prosperous far-flung trading network and impressive territorial ambitions. It seems somewhat inevitable that these two vying civilizations would clash, given Rome’s wide-ranging imperialism and Carthage’s resistance to subjugation. The struggle was indeed bitter, so much so that periods of cessation had to be instituted because the two sides had fought each other to an exhausted standstill. For a time, it seemed that Carthage was destined to be victorious, thanks to the brilliant campaigns waged by its top general, the infamous Hannibal. But eventually, the Roman Empire triumphed – in 146 BCE, the Roman Army captured Carthage and razed the entire city to the ground. The Carthaginians never recovered.

The years between 100 and 31 BCE witnessed the long, slow death throes of the Roman Republic. These years were wracked by intermittent civil warfare, continual social unrest, and a succession of temporary leaders, all jockeying for power. Ultimately, the Republic’s demise was hastened by a multitude of social conflicts which sprang up amongst the Republic’s various collections of peoples – often, these conflicts intersected with and exacerbated one another. Roman citizens sought to deny the extension of citizenship to noncitizens, fearing a loss of prestige and benefits, while noncitizens battled mightily to gain Roman citizenship, as well as all the attendant rights that came with it. Class warfare also broke out between the optimates (the wealthy and landed nobles) and the popularis (the poor majority). The popularis in particular felt that they had been deprived of their rightful share of political power, while the wealthier optimates, who had long maintained an iron grip on the Republic’s governmental controls, had no intention of surrendering one iota of their accumulated influence. In the meantime, the city of Rome was itself a hotbed of political scheming, as the city’s leaders strove to keep the high-ranking members of the military (whom they regarded as their social and intellectual inferiors) from gaining positions of social and/or political prominence. The military leadership, in turn, felt that their victories in battle had entitled them to some say in how their great city functioned and they were determined not be denied. But perhaps the most dangerous threat was posed by the rise of factionalism – specifically, ambitious and charismatic individuals who drew crowds of fiercely loyal followers and who sought to propel themselves into positions of high power, regardless of the mechanisms by which they might ascend. Often, these individuals faced off against each other, sometimes on the Senate floor and other times on the battlefield, but violence increasingly became common. Some of the most influential of these ruthless individualists were: Cicero, Marc Antony, Crassus, Octavian, Pompey, and Julius Caesar.

After the Roman Republic finally collapsed, and in the midst of the following transitional period into the early Empire era, Lucius Cornelius Sulla seized power in 82 BCE as dictator. Most often referred to as Sulla, he brought back the lapsed practice of dictatorship, which hadn’t been practiced in Rome for over several centuries. Before becoming dictator, Sulla first made a name for himself as a successful military general and a twice-elected consul. Like so many others, Sulla saw the chaotic situation of the Republic’s era of civil warfare as the perfect opportunity to seize power for himself. Using the popularity he’d earned among the Roman soldiers as a long-serving general, he put together a massive army and marched into the city of Rome – a flagrant violation of laws banning the presence of armies within the city limits. Once inside Rome, he and his forces were confronted by another equally ambitious challenger, Marius, and his forces, but Sulla quickly defeated this new threat and installed himself as dictator. The Senate had no choice but to issue an edict “appointing” him as the official dictator. Many historians speculate that Julius Caesar (Rome’s most infamous dictator) was inspired by Sulla’s actions and explicitly mimicked his pattern during his own later seizure of power.

Julius Caesar, among his many accomplishments, is credited with starting and/or popularizing the artistic style known as Verism. Verism was most often used in portraiture, sculpture, paintings, murals, and even death masks. The movement’s most defining characteristic is its passionate embrace of realism – subjects were shown in a manner that was accurate as possible; no wrinkle or wart or other physical “imperfection” was spared. Additionally, historical and mythical themes were shunned in favor of more every-day, ordinary settings and scenes. As is perhaps only natural, some of the best examples of Verist artwork portray Julius Caesar, including many full-bodied statues and busts. In these images, true to Verist form, Caesar is shown in his natural state, with lines around his mouth and eyes, facial blemishes, and a steely, flinty stare. Many historians view Caesar’s link to Verism as a logical extension of his typical style of self-promotion: he favored direct, unflinching, even overt interactions, with a sort of aggressive understanding of the real conditions of the world and his own place in it.