How Did it All Really Begin?

[omoplata]

I am just having such a hard time understanding how the Roman Empire's long and colorful story could have started. When one reads the removal of the king and the oath taken to never allow anyone to become king again, one can clearly see the mentality and the courage as well as determination that would have given rise to the values later seen in the Republic and the Empire.

 

But how about before then? What was there really at the very beginning? Do we really know or did the Romans, with their myths of the wolf feeding the two brothers and all obscure this part of the history to much? I recall reading some "out there" theories, perhaps not accepted by the mainstream historians, that the start if the Romans was not at all what we are told and that there was actually mass migration and all, but I would be curious to hear the views of the more knowledgeable members here....

 

Thanks to all

[M. Porcius Cato]

If you're fishing for informed speculation, I'll bite.

 

My sense is that the founding of the Rome known to earliest historians -- like the unification of Roman Italy itself -- was the unintended outcome of competition among groups that never foresaw the benefits of any sort of unification at all. These groups were initially largely independent and definable by their settlements among the seven hills of Rome. Among these were three principal groups: (1) the salt traders and drovers centered on the Aventine, (2) the outlaws and bandits centered on the Palatine and Caelian hills, and (3) the relatives of the Sabines on the Quirinal, Esquiline, and Viminal hills.

 

The legend of Romulus and Remus was based on some truths. Probably some prostitute ('she-wolf') on the Palatine had one or two boys who grew up to lead other Palatine bandits to construct a fortification of the Palatine against enraged victims from the surrounding hills. This walled hill offered a superlative site of defense, as well as a perfect base for their criminal attacks. To reduce these attacks, the Sabines in the northern hills accepted some kind of treaty with the dregs of Romulus ('the rape of the Sabine women'), leaving the poor traders of the Aventine to face the brunt of the Palatine gang's attacks on their own until they had been terrorized into submission. In this is the probable origin of the divide between patricians -- the families of the elders ('senate') who supported the Palatine leader ('Romulus') -- and the plebs, the larger group on the Aventine (and other hills) whose position was like that of the merchants who pay protection-money to mob bosses.

 

Against this uneasy alliance of "Roman" patricians and plebeians were arrayed all the forces of Italy, some much older and more civilized (such as the Etruscans) and others less civilized (such as the Samnites). Thus, after the deaths of the earliest leaders ("kings") of these patrician gang-lords ("senators"), foreign intervention came often and with unsuccessful resistance, until finally the non-Palatine "kings" of the Tarquinii were ejected once and for all by local patricians, who founded their own thing (the "res publica"). From here, there were a series of accommodations made with the plebs of the surrounding hills (detailed in Livy inter alia), which resulted in a recognizably republican system of laws and government.

 

This is all speculation, but you asked for it. I'd be happy to follow up with the archaeological and textual support for my reconstruction, but I can't promise that it will be totally convincing.

[Ursus]

http://www.unrv.com/book-review/remus.php

 

One author's spin on the origin mystery is presented above. However, as my review indicates, I was left unconvinced.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Ursus

[Segestan]

Charles Rollin did what I believe was the best retelling of Roman history........ http://www.archive.org/stream/romanhistory...age/n9/mode/2up

[Maty]

I've argued elsewhere, that how far one buys into the Romulus myth is a matter of individual taste. (Even the Romans were dubious, if Plutarch is any guide).

 

Nevertheless, it seems unlikely to me that Rome gradually coalesced from a series of villages. This is because Rome sat directly across a major crossroads - the head of navigation of the Tiber and the via Salaria from Ostia. That the Etruscans at Veii or the nearby Sabines would allow the gradual growth of a city that dominated these points seems improbable. The legend suggests a fait accompli - and one in which the building of walls preceded all other activity.

 

This is also consistent with what we know of the growth of cities in antiquity - with the exception of Athens (where villages were unified under the rule of Theseus) almost every city was founded by colonists from a mother city. This was the case with Mesopotamia (where in the time of Cyrus the great the hobby of a rival king was archaeology to establish city foundation dates), in Greece, where most cities outside the mainland were founded around 1000 BC, and in Phoenicia, with Carthage being the prime example. The habit continued well into the historical period, with the latest and greatest foundation being Constantinople.

 

In short, it may not have been Romulus and his merry band of shepherd boys who founded Rome, but it is probable that someone did. Whether or not we accept April 21 753 BC at 11am in the morning as the very precise foundation time, or not, the fact that the Romans counted years AUC (ab urbe condida - from the foundation of the city) means that the date was some time around there, and any error may be more due to the wretched Roman calendar than an inability to count.

 

Finally mounting archaeological evidence - even if one does not accept all of Carandini's conclusions - makes the heroic defence of Wiseman and his fellow ultra-skeptics of their theories begin to resemble the legendary defence of Horatius. And, as is often pointed out, those opposing the 'foundation myth' have no evidence of their own to offer beyond deconstruction of legend and their own 'common sense'. However, that common sense is based on patterns of urban formation in England and the US where towns do indeed evolve into cities - under a central authority which eighth-century central Italy lacked.

 

And that's my tuppence worth.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Maty

[omoplata]

Cato,

 

Well written, thanks a lot. I also just read Ursus' review of the book in his link and that was also very well done. I did find the book -based on the review- to contain plausible assertions, but indeed some theories are take a little too far. It does overlap with some of what Cato has written above, so there is a little bit of a base there I guess.

 

If Cato can elaborate as he suggested he could, that would be much appreciated...

 

Thanks much Gentlemen

[Ursus]

All I can say is that myth of divine twins is fairly widespread throughout Indo-European societies. Somewhat less widespread, but still present, is the idea of a primordial murder/sacrifice responsible for creation/foundation.

 

I think it is more plausible to say that existing myths, half remembered by the Italians after they broke off from the Indo-Europeans, were molded to fit whatever historical reality transpired (rather than new myths being created wholesale in the historical period, as per Wiseman).

 

As to whatever historically happened, I guess we'll never know entirely. I do like Maty's idea of colonization from a mother city .... but then who is the mother city? Alba Longa?

[M. Porcius Cato]

I do like Maty's idea of colonization from a mother city .... but then who is the mother city? Alba Longa?

 

Maybe Troy... Again, this is all just speculation, and I do take Maty's point that many (maybe most) cities of the ancient world were colonies of some other city rather than evolving from their surroundings as happened in Athens (and in modern US and English cities). I guess what I like about the Wiseman-type story isn't just that it fits with our modern experience and Athens; rather, it also explains the origins of the senate, the origins of the very strange patrician/plebeian divide (which isn't the same as Marxist classes, as Ursus' review seems to imply), the placement of the temples of Ceres and Jupiter Optimus Maximus, and so on. In short, it's a simple explanation for many explananda -- which (of course) isn't the same as saying the explanation is necessarily true.

[omoplata]

Thank you so much Gentlemen,

 

I also agree -with my insignificant knowledge- that it looks improbable Rome has slowly emerged as a result of a gradual coalescence of nearby cities/tribes.

 

But if it all did indeed begin with a migration/colonization from another city, why would the Romans no acknowledge that? If this is how they emerged, their existing (own) historical accounts seem to almost wish to hide this fact, no? Was there hostility perhaps? A forced evacuation of some kind or anything else they'd rather forget?

[Maty]

Thank you so much Gentlemen,

 

I also agree -with my insignificant knowledge- that it looks improbable Rome has slowly emerged as a result of a gradual coalescence of nearby cities/tribes.

 

But if it all did indeed begin with a migration/colonization from another city, why would the Romans no acknowledge that? If this is how they emerged, their existing (own) historical accounts seem to almost wish to hide this fact, no? Was there hostility perhaps? A forced evacuation of some kind or anything else they'd rather forget?

 

 

First of all, I think most people are sceptical about the Roman 'mother city' being Alba Longa - though if we ever find the darned place there will be a lot of rethinking required.

 

My own thoughts on the matter are based on the Ver Sacra - the sacred spring. This was an ancient Latin rite when, in a time of scarcity (and sometimes as thanks for a year of plenty), the young men of a particular year were dedicated to Mars and more or less turfed out of town to find their own way in the world. These may be the original band of Romulus. There's just enough hooks to the legend to make it credible - and it would account for Rome's desperate manpower (and womanpower) shortage in the early years while allowing for abundant fighting men.

 

I'd also guess that the original settlers took any later arrivals who had military potential and a pulse. But the by now established settlers exploited the poorer new arrivals - and therein we might find the division between patricians and plebs - somewhat like Athenians and metics, though Rome was more inclusive.

[Kosmo]

It can be both ways. Local villages are conquered and unified by a group/army of colonists that became the ruling elite - patricians, while the conquered become the plebs.

The colonialist theory must take into account that good, strategic positions were always prized so new foundations were rarely on empty land. For example Constantinople was "founded" in Byzantium a significant greek colony that was already 1000 years old and Byzantium itself was preceded by another settlement.

[M. Porcius Cato]

It can be both ways. Local villages are conquered and unified by a group/army of colonists that became the ruling elite - patricians, while the conquered become the plebs.

The colonialist theory must take into account that good, strategic positions were always prized so new foundations were rarely on empty land. For example Constantinople was "founded" in Byzantium a significant greek colony that was already 1000 years old and Byzantium itself was preceded by another settlement.

 

That's a good point.

[Virgil61]

I think Gary Forsythe's Critical History of Early Rome calls into question quite a bit of early Roman mythology linking a large portion of it to corresponding myths shared by--or more often--predated by other cultures. His footnotes contain a lot of decent sources on this if I remember correctly [and try to blow the cobwebs out of the Roman history portion of my cranium.]

[Skywatcher]

I found this footnote from an to be very interesting.

 

Accustomed as we are to the self-serving notion of our own superiority, modern readers, being told here that there was an eclipse of the sun at the birth of Romulus and one at his death, may well dismiss them as fables.

 

Not so fast. Dio tells us Romulus was in his eighteenth year (i.e., 17) when he founded Rome, and that he ruled for 37 years. Those two eclipses, therefore, would have been 54 years apart. Now wouldn't you know it, there were in fact two total eclipses of the sun visible in or near Rome in the 8c B.C.

[omoplata]

Absolutely fascinating... To even think that someone might have re-written history armed with the dates of the prior eclipses... amazing really