Caesar CXXXVII Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 Almost until recently most of the historians could not offer an alternative structure for the Roman Kings list (and dating) and were satisfied with the traditional one . Today , some scholars managed to reconstruct the list or to offer a more "scientific" one . The first period (c. 625 bce to c. 570 bce) "the priest kings" Romulus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 Ave Caesar CXXXVII, When you say 'some scholars', whom are you refering to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spittle Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 "Today some scholars managed...." Could you direct me to your source/s then I can read how these names/dates have been arrived at. (From my memory) the usual story lists only seven kings, the fifth and last both being called Tarquin. The facts are rare and there is as much myth as history in the accounts I have read. All of the seven kings had very long reigns, which is another indication of the inaccuracy of this version of early Roman monarchy. Although seven successive kings could have each had very long terms, it is highly improbable and suggests myth rather than fact. That is why I am interested in looking a little deeper into the subject of your new thread . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 Almost until recently most of the historians could not offer an alternative structure for the Roman Kings list (and dating) and were satisfied with the traditional one . Today , some scholars managed to reconstruct the list or to offer a more "scientific" one . I'm afraid that most reputable scholars admit that the foundations of Rome are mythical at best. A revelation of new data would be a huge archaeological news. Who are these scholars and what is this scientific criteria? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted October 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 (edited) About the dating - "c. 625 to c. 570...to c. 510...to c. 500" , so no 753 to 509 About the number - I listed between 10 to 13 "kings" at least , so no 7 About the source(s) - the great scholar T.G. cornell in "The beginning of Rome and Italy..." (1996) . he based his reconstruction on the even greater Italian scholar Arnaldo Momigliano . Cornell have a bibliography to rely on . Some examples About the evidance - the Curia Hostilia was attributed (by Livius and Dyonisius) to Tulus Hostilius . The Archeologists dated this building to the Middle of the 6th century . The Regia was attributed (by Livius and other ancients) to Numa Pompilius . the Archeologists dated this building to the beginning of the 6th century or to the last years of the 7th . The famous painting from Vulci about the Vipinas brothers (6 th century) , the Gabii treaty (late 6th century) , the inscription about popilius Valesius (late 6th century) , Emperor Claudius speech about Mastrana (in Tacitus annales) , the leftovers of some kind of wall North of Rome dated by Archeologists to the Middle of the 6th century (the Servian wall) and on and on (sorry about my English) Edited October 31, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 About the dating - "c. 625 to c. 570...to c. 510...to c. 500" , so no 753 to 509About the number - I listed between 10 to 13 "kings" at least , so no 7 About the source(s) - the great scholar T.G. cornell in "The beginning of Rome and Italy..." (1996) . he based his reconstruction on the even greater Italian scholar Arnaldo Momigliano . Cornell have a bibliography to rely on . Ahh yes, I've read Cornell's book (though several years ago). As I recall, his evidence is based on quite a bit of conjecture... though he was quite thorough in the process. I'd wager that there are many scholars who disagree with some of his theories. I am not trying to suggest that the 7 kings theory is an accurate representation of the regal period, only that the evidence to fill in the gaps of the myths/legends is fairly scant. Regardless, this is interesting and I might have to take another look at "Beginnings of Rome". (sorry about my English) No worries about that. welcome to the forum.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spittle Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 Instead of re-reading Cornell why not try Gary Forsythe's 'A Critical History of Early Rome'. Much of it is devoted to questioning the theories put forward in 'The Beginnings of Rome' and the decade worth of archaeological evidence (Forsythe was published ten years after Cornell) have thrown a litle more light on the subject. I have both books but tend to use them for reference/additional reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 Instead of re-reading Cornell why not try Gary Forsythe's 'A Critical History of Early Rome'. Much of it is devoted to questioning the theories put forward in 'The Beginnings of Rome' and the decade worth of archaeological evidence (Forsythe was published ten years after Cornell) have thrown a litle more light on the subject. I have both books but tend to use them for reference/additional reading. Ahh, thanks. I haven't read Forsythe's book (there simply needs to be more time in a day), but doing so might save me the trouble of banging my head against some of Cornell's assertions again. (not that Cornell should be dismissed by any stretch, only that I recall some of his work was as subjective as the ancient sources he often criticized.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil25 Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 The initial post seems a little "definite" for my taste, though I am perectly happy (as an non-expert) to accept some of the conjecture (as just that, conjecture). I had understood for many years that there was evidence 9how strong I know not) that Rome was under Etruscan rule for a time, and that Lars Porsean of Clusium (I love Macauley's Lays) did conquer rome for a time (pace Livy). is that a position still taken? Whether Romulus himself existed - who can say. But I see no reason why the story of two brothers might not have some (slender) basis in fact. After all, Rome had to have a beginning. I have always thought that the tangled legend of Quirinius (the alternative name for Romulus) - who seems to have been murdered by Senators - also seems to have some credibility. Let's not forget that 753 (compared to Egypt, Troy, Ur, Ugarit, Mycenae etc etc) is NOT THAT ancient. Why should not the surviving legends incorporate some element of truth? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecimusCaesar Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 I read that the 'official' date for the founding of Rome was agreed upon by Roman historians to be 753 BC, after several discussions about when the city was founded, they agreed upon this date. According to what else that I have read, the Romans lacked information about their early past after the Gauls burnt all their historical records in 390 BC, when they sacked the city. Is there any truth in these ideas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiceroD Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 Lars Porsena as a king of Rome? I read somthing about this in I Claudius but as its Robert Graves I wasnt too sure of its accuracy This would then make the entire Horatius and the Bridge myth impossible right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil25 Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 And you thought it was true? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatius Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 I think this is an interesting thread also. This site suggests a possible burial site for a very real Romulus http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gaze...lsen*/2/17.html Perhaps there will be other discoveries like the Lapis Niger, this guy thinks he has found one http://www.atrium-media.com/rogueclassicis...s/00000308.html. Seven Kings with an average of 40 years rule is improbable but not impossible if they were 'appointed' young. http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/history2.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiceroD Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 well yeah Phil it sounded really ridiculuos three men against an army but while the history of the time blurs into legend, Id still expect the Romans to remember if they had made someone their king! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spittle Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 The official date for the founding of the city of 753BC. I know that the Romans considered this to be fact but I thought modern scholars debated the accuracy of this date? Knowing what the Romans believed about their ealiest history actually seems to be of extremely limited use at best and a hinderance at worse. Unless of course you agree that Caesar was a decendent of the god Venus! So I'm guessing that the lost records of 390BC would have been of limited value except in the context of knowing what the Romans themselves believed. My son believes in Father Christmas and future generations would know this from reading the extortionate lists of gifts he starts writing around this time of year BUT they would only know that my son believes in Father Christmas. If they inferred from this that F.C actually existed then they would be taking a huge leap of faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.