Philhellene Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 (edited) I`m trying to say that we almost don`t have any sources about early Roman history besides literary ones. You don't know about Poplios Valesius of Satricum ? Here - We even don`t know if "Popliosio Valesiosio " is Roman or not. It is almost nothing. Edited January 21, 2007 by Philhellene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted January 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 (edited) I`m trying to say that we almost don`t have any sources about early Roman history besides literary ones. You don't know about Poplios Valesius of Satricum ? Here - We even don`t know if "Popliosio Valesiosio " is Roman or not. It is almost nothing. Don't be so negative , we have more than nothing ! O.K. , How ancient history is made , small example - The Publius Valerius Poplicula case - 1. According to ancient sources , one named Publius Valerius Poplicula took a great part in the events of 509 BCE (Var) . 2. These ancient sources are from the 2nd and mostly 1st century BCE , that is some 400 years after the events took place . 3. Scholars do not accept the Livian (for example) nerative about "509" because they don't have any external evidence for it . 4. Scholars do accept the notion that c. 509 there was something that ended the Tarquinian Tyrany . 5. Scholars do accept the notion that a "Valerius" played a part in the episode because they do not dismiss traditions on a regular basis . But what part ? 6. Now , we have the Lapis from Satricum dated c. 500 BCE !!! about A "Poplios Valesios" and his "Sodales" , that is his private army . 7. The date is the same , the name is the same , the concept is the same (Private armies did act in central Italy at that period) so we have 90% confirmation that Publius Valerius did exist but he was not a Roman but a Sabine from Satricum , he had a private army , he came to Rome c. 500 , he became so strong that he was accused as being a Tyrant (4 Consulships and other royalistic symbols in the tradition) and so on . Scholars took the Latin sources , combined it with the inscription and the Political situation in Rome , added a Philological insight and managed to construct a historical episode that is more correct by any standard than the childish tradition . Edited January 21, 2007 by Caesar CXXXVII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Tradition, childish or otherwise, is not to be disregarded, especially when other provable sources are absent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted January 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Tradition, childish or otherwise, is not to be disregarded, especially when other provable sources are absent. As I have said , without the tradition we have little information but Lucretia , Curiatii , Brutus , Cocles , Scaevola...it is fairy tales , childish or not . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 The date is the same , the name is the same... I think the names are different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted January 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 The date is the same , the name is the same... I think the names are different. :blowup: The name is the same !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Poplios Valesius is an archaic form for Publius Valerius , read about it before posting Enough for me . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 So prove it. Before exploding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 (edited) I`ve found it myself. I don`t know if Valesius is an archaic form of Valerius, but according to [Aur. Vict.], De vir. ill., XV, 1 Publius Valerius Publicola was "Volesi filius". So I was wrong about epigraphic material. Edited January 22, 2007 by Philhellene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted January 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 I am glad to see interest on the subject . The period c. 630 to c. 450 is elusive yet so interesting and fascinating . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spittle Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Whilst most experts agree that Caesar was born on 13th July 100 BCE a few disagree and think he was born in 101 or 102 BCE. My point is this. We know the consular name of the year of his birth BUT if some scholars disagree on the actual year of the particular consular naming how can we be certain that any are chronologically correct? Caesar137. Hats off to you! You really know your stuff when it comes to this darker age of early Roman history. I have both Cornells "Early History of Rome" and Forsythes "A Critical History of Early Rome". I'll get around to reading them when I have completed the individual biographies of the Julio-Claudian Emperors (and related characters, Mark Antony, Pompey, Livia....) so be ready for a thousand questions and requests for clarification on the era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted January 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 so be ready for a thousand questions and requests for clarification on the era. Hi , spittle We have a deal ! 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.