Etruscans in Rome

[Quintus]

Just thought I would throw the question out, did the Etruscans occupy Rome at one time or another early on?

 

Oops, just noticed the misspelling of Etruscans, sorry about that. I don't know how to change it.

Edited December 27, 2006 by Quintus

[DecimusCaesar]

The Etruscans did dominate Northern Italy for a few centuries, and would have occupied Rome for a period. There were Etruscan monarchs who ruled Rome the last being the King Tarquinius Superbus. After he was expelled and the Republic founded, the Etruscan control of Rome came to an end.

[Gaius Octavius]

Just thought I would throw the this question out,: did the Etruscans occupy Rome at one time or another early on?

 

Oops, just noticed the misspelling of Etruscans, (might look at your previous spelling!) sorry about that. I don't know how to change it.

 

And you are an administrator on that Latin site! Oh!, Ye gods help us!

 

[Quintus]

I knew I wouldn't get away with that!

 

Thanks, Gaius. Fortunately my Latin grammar is better than my English.

 

The Etruscans did dominate Northern Italy for a few centuries, and would have occupied Rome for a period. There were Etruscan monarchs who ruled Rome the last being the King Tarquinius Superbus. After he was expelled and the Republic founded, the Etruscan control of Rome came to an end.

 

For the sake of argument, most of the history books I've read seem to take the tale of the kings as myths, and archaeology finds very few Etruscan artifacts in Latium. I'm not saying that this says that the Etruscans were never in Rome, I'm just laying out the facts I've been able to unearth. If some one had something a bit more persuasive...

 

P.S. Ha! caught a spelling mistake. That was for you, Gaius.

Edited December 28, 2006 by Quintus

[Rameses the Great]

The Etruscans founded Rome, but slowly the Etruscan monarchy was thrown off and then Rome became its own power.

[caldrail]

Please remember that although the etruscans dominated early Rome, the kings were voted for by the romans. It was a similar process to the dark age english if you like. There's a lot that doesn't add up about early roman history but do we have any better reference? Even the romans didn't, and creatively filled the blank space. Also remember that not all the kings of rome were etruscan. At least one was latin but I don't remember which one. Dig out 'Chronicle of the Roman Republic' which has some good information on this subject.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Of course , our current knowledge on early Rome (c. 1000 BCE to c. 500 BCE and even 300 BCE) is based on some 200 years of scholarship . This knowledge/scholarship is made of Archeological evidence (some 10 %) , Latin sources (some 40 %) , Philology (some 20 %) and speculations (some 30 %) .

 

So , we are left with N theories (N=Number of scholars) .

This is , in short (very very very short) the 2 main theories -

 

1. "Rome" (actually a confederation of villages) was conquered by the "Etruscans" (they never acted as such but as independent cities) in c. 600 BCE and ruled by them until c. 500 BCE .

2. "Rome" (actually a confederation of villages) was by c. 625 BCE an independent city-state that was ruled by foreign Kings nominated by the Patrician Comitia Curiata . In c. 570 an Etruscan King was nominated and Rome was still independent ! But under strong Etruscan influence as the whole of central Italy until c. 500 BCE .

 

IMHO the second theory is the better .

[adelyn]

According to Livy, Dionysius and the other Annalists there were seven kings: Romulus, Numa Pompilius, Tullus Hostilius, Ancus Marcius, Lucomo Tarquinius, Servius Tullius and finally Tarquinius Superbus. Only the two Tarquins were Etruscan - the others were all Latins (Romulus and Hostilius being Romans proper and Numa and Ancus being Sabines with Servius probably being a Roman but with some legends claiming him to be a freedman). Also, the tradition has Lucomo coming to Rome as a wealthy Etruscan merchant who befriended Ancus rather than as an Etruscan invader or heir to an already Etruscan throne, and as the Roman throne was elected not inherited this does not appear to break with the idea of a 'free' Rome. Tarquinius Superbus, however, did take the throne violently, legitimating his succession through his grandfather Lucomo and his marriage to Servius' daughter. The violence at the dawn of his era and the Etruscan reaction to his ousting would suggest temporary Etruscan dominance of Rome, but this is a relatively small period of Rome's regal history.

 

There are two very interesting articles on this topic in the Cambridge Ancient History Series volume 7 by H Last

[spittle]

I have read Sejanus and Maecenas described as Etruscan.

 

What does it mean in this context?

[Ursus]

I have read Sejanus and Maecenas described as Etruscan.

 

What does it mean in this context?

 

 

Simply that their families were ethnically Etruscan. But the Etruscans had been so culturally Romanized by the time of the early empire that their native language and culture were not much in evidence.

[Pantagathus]

The Etruscans founded Rome, but slowly the Etruscan monarchy was thrown off and then Rome became its own power.

I really wish (for your sake not mine) that you would learn to double check readily available facts before you post erroneous balderdash as if it was a definitive maxim. It does the poster(s) asking the question(s) a tremendous disservice...

 

If the Etruscans

[Maladict]

I have read Sejanus and Maecenas described as Etruscan.

 

What does it mean in this context?

 

It probably just an epithet for the region they came from (Etruria or Tuscia, both names corresponding more or less to modern Tuscany). It doesn't necessarily have to refer to culture.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Maladict

[Gaius Octavius]

I can't say where, but once I read that the Etruscans were (might have been) a Semitic people.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Pantagathus]

I can't say where, but once I read that the Etruscans were (might have been) a Semitic people.

'Semitic' usually implies the linguistic connection between peoples of the Near East whose languages are all in the same Afro-Asiatic family (Hebrew, Aramaic, Akkadian, Phoenician, etc...). Etruscan language of course (in so much as can be told) is not Semitic language.

 

Now... that being said, there is new(ish) evidence based on ancient DNA taken from Etruscan tombs that indicate that they may have been a part of the greater Y-Chromosome Haplogroup "J" which is indeed the haplogroup that represents the original "Neolithic Farmers" who were the catalyst for the spread of agriculture out of the Fertile Cresent & Near East and is the most associated with 'Semitic' populations.

 

The particular haplogroups found in modern North-Central Italy and in the Etruscan tombs (J2e1 or J2f, J2f1) are subgroups of the J2 that spread from Anatolia through the Balkins to Italy (J2e1) or by neolithic seafaring communities who island hopped westward from Anatolia (J2f & J2f1) and are quaintly associated with the "Maritime Troia Culture"

 

I could go on & on but I'm already off-topic enough...

[Gaius Octavius]

:notworthy:

 

I may have read that before DNA was invented. This is also my way of saying that I didn't understand what you wrote.