Divers discover Roman mosaic
smithsonianmag.com
smithsonianmag.com
Most importantly though, since the city was abandoned at roughly the same time, it's still an intact city, so you see how everything was connected, rather than just a ruin here and a temple there. You see it as a complete entity.
You can also take the Roma-Lido train. It's a quicker ride and more comfortable than a bus.
How would this happen in such a uniform way, such that the precise configuration (and the flatness!) of the floor is preserved? Wouldn't this have been an uneven process that would have broken the floor apart?
It seems more plausible that this floor being underwater now is the result of a rise in sea levels. Can a geologist explain how a floor remains flat and a mosaic remains largely intact while sinking into the ocean?
Seems like a very slow process that happens on a wide scale and deep underground.
> caused by the filling or emptying of an underground magma chamber
In this case, the magma chamber underlies the entire area of the Phlegraean Fields. As more or less magma enters the chamber, the ground in the area slowly moves up or down.
Different phenomenon, but there's a bunch of hills in wales that have "island" names because they used to be islands in a bay. All the land in the bay was reclaimed in the early 19th century.
And the famous city of Ephesus moved several times because the port kept silting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrXd7UCuxsk, before it eventually became just completely landlocked and abandoned.
It's obviously possible, but hard to understand how the tensions would be spread evenly as the level raised up and down.
What I’d like to know is how long of a process was it really to lose a city into the bay. It would have happened while people were around, so is there some kind of historical record?
Ah yes, the "it must be climate change" response. We've been "boogey booed" into thinking that is the first and most likely cause any time we see an environment change... to the point where some people are unwilling or unable to accept the world is a constantly changing environment, even without human intervention.
Is it really hard to believe if a significant sized piece of land sinks, that things on top might just sink in-place too? You can look at concrete pads and foundations to see this in practice every day. We can also see more sudden and dramatic examples with sinkholes (caused by underground erosion of limestone and similar).
It's crazy to think that there's a whole geologic strata of Roman artifacts.
Caesar didn't rule in “late” Roman Empire — in fact, he didn't get to see the empire at all, since the first emperor was his successor, Augustus.
The full quote is this:
>During the late Roman Empire, rulers like Julius Caesar and Nero owned homes in the town, which was known as a destination that aristocrats flocked to for drinking, parties and general hedonism.
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus (aka Octavian) not only gained his great uncle's original property, but he invested quite heavily into property and other public works in Baiae with other emperors doing the same. Baiae was very much an "imperial city" and it definitely kicked off with Octavian.
The city gained much of its notoriety (or negative connotation for extravagance) as time went on.
And the sentence says "like", as in "hey reader, here are these two pretty familiar names who are not only relevant to the city itself, but also can give you an idea of the type of elite class we're talking about." It's a pretty succinct way of putting it and while reinforcing multiple points at once.
So it's not wrong. If you're going to be pedantic, at least be correct.
The article is well constructed for its intended audience without getting into largely irrelevant details about the story.
It's accurate and purposeful. It's certainly not incorrect by any measure.
edit: as someone else observed, none of these were part of the late Roman Empire. Octavian and Nero lived in the early Roman Empire, and Caesar lived during the last years of the Republic.
Unfortunately you don't get to flip a switch arbitrarily and choose when to be pedantic to make an irrelevant point.
>The article is well constructed for its intended audience without getting into largely irrelevant details about the story.
Fun fact to whip out at parties but not applicable here
Julius Caesar has refused the title "imperator", for reasons of public image, even if de facto he had the same power as an "imperator", i.e. the power to give commands that must be obeyed by anyone else.
All his successors possessed the title of "imperator", so they are correctly referred as Roman "emperors".
> During the late Roman Empire, rulers like Julius Caesar and Nero
Nero died in 68 AD: early Roman Empire. In fact he was only the 5th Roman emperor.