Did The Trojans build Rome

[emperor]

I read this book called the tale of troy and it sayed that aeneas a trojan who was set free and a bunch of other trojans were told buy a prophet that they had to bulid a city in italy and that in future years it wouild conquer the world and be known as rome. when the trojans came to italy they found a river called tiber and thats were they built rome. I know this is probally not true but what do u think?

Edited November 29, 2005 by emperor

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I regard it as a myth that possibly never happened. Just Hellenistic influences of Augustus time. But it might be true. Correct me anyone?

[Germanicus]

Just Hellenistic influences of Augustus time. But it might be true. Correct me anyone?

 

 

I agree that the idea is almost certainly a myth, but the myth goes well back before Augustus.

[Sextus Roscius]

I agree. The myth dates back way before Agustus. I regard it purely as myth. But, if the Aneid is true then that might provide proof for why he chose the to settle in Italy. Likely hood though is that the Aneid is just an epic and the Romans used it.

[backfire22]

The myth of the founding of Rome by the descendents of Aeneas was meant to invigorate the Roman people with a sense of national pride, martial spirit, and to link Rome with the ancient Olympian gods. There was no truth to it although its possible that some Greek colonists that settled in the south of Italy migrated into Rome during its founding.

[Pantagathus]

The myth of the founding of Rome by the descendents of Aeneas was meant to invigorate the Roman people with a sense of national pride, martial spirit, and to link Rome with the ancient Olympian gods. There was no truth to it although its possible that some Greek colonists that settled in the south of Italy migrated into Rome during its founding.

 

I caution those who treat 'myth' the same a 'fairytale'. Ancient Myth is often based on histical events that predate written records and therefore get documented in various story form that is easily remembered and passed down. So just because Aeneas is most likely a literary fabrication, doesn't mean there is no truth to those potential roots for Roman civilization.

 

That there was an ancient 'Pelasgian' population that settled on the west coast of Italy and south of Rome (Ardea as one civic example) during the Bronze Age seems evident but grossly overlooked. Further, the Etruscans seem to have come originally from Asia Minor though at a much earlier period.

 

So from many different points of view, it is not wholly incorrect that archaic populations from Asia Minor had a hand in the establishment of Rome...

[M. Porcius Cato]

So just because Aeneas is most likely a literary fabrication, doesn't mean there is no truth to those potential roots for Roman civilization....

Etruscans seem to have come originally from Asia Minor though at a much earlier period.

 

When? And based on what evidence?

[Virgil61]

So just because Aeneas is most likely a literary fabrication, doesn't mean there is no truth to those potential roots for Roman civilization....

Etruscans seem to have come originally from Asia Minor though at a much earlier period.

 

When? And based on what evidence?

 

Cato, it's been awhile so I can't answer exactly when or what evidence but I can concur that I've read contemporary archeologists and historians give the theory of an eastern source--either Asia Minor or the eastern Med--for Etruscans some credence. If I remember correctly it's partly based on linguistics and partly on ancient sources besides Herodutus in agreement with archeological timelines.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I assume this is where Virgil got his source or something related. It says Herodotus says that the Etruscanscame from Lydia, then on to that scholars believe that they from Asian Minor. Just read it.introduction.

Edited December 12, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Virgil61]

I assume this is where Virgil got his source or something related. It says Herodotus says that the Etruscanscame from Lydia, then on to that scholars believe that they from Asian Minor. Just read it.introduction.

 

No, but thanks for the link, interesting reading. Like I said I recall reading the theory being put forth by several scholars, but nothing this recent and certainly no one being this determined and specific about their origins.

[Pantagathus]

When? And based on what evidence?

 

Cato,

 

I have posted some stuff in the past under the Etruscan & Pelasgian threads in the Forum Perengrini but the 'Reader's Digest' is that sometime between the end of the 4th Millennia BC & the beginning of the 3rd there was a severe drought & long arrid period in Asia Minor. This is evident from geologic studies that have been conducted recently arround Lake Van in eastern Turkey and some other places in the west.

 

This has been supposed as the mythical drought that is recounted in Herodotus' story of the Lydian origins of the Etruscans. The evidence points to conditions that were so severe that it appears to have caused a diaspora of settlers over to Greece, onto outlying islands, through (what would become) Thrace & Macedonia and over to the north of Italy in search of good land.

 

As Virgil said, liguistics studies are pointing towards links between Lydian (Hittite) & Etruscan.

 

However, the true clincher recently (in my eyes at least) comes from genetic studies of Etruscan burials which show an undoubtable genetic affinity between the Ancient Etruscans and modern Turkish populations. The genetic marker in thes case being Y-Chromosome haplotype J2e if I remember correctly.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Wow! I'm glad I asked. Thanks for the update. When last I was in school, the Herodotus theory was treated as seriously as there being a real ancient city of Troy.

[Roman bl00d]

Wow! I'm glad I asked. Thanks for the update. When last I was in school, the Herodotus theory was treated as seriously as there being a real ancient city of Troy.

 

 

There is many theories on weather Troy exsited or not... although the majority now regard it as pure myth.. there is a possibility of great truth to it.

 

However i have read the Aenied and Virgil suggests that (im a litttle fuzzy on the details) Saturn (Cronos in greek myths) gave local law and order and the name of Latium to Italy/future Rome. There was a golden age. From there the Italians travelled to Troy starting a Metropolis and later Aeneas travelled to Rome. Aeneas however only founded the location of the city plus traditions, culture and the local language (latin) to appease Juno (Hera), it was then Romulus that founded Rome, the city itself and named it after himself.

 

Therefore in myth.. the Italians and Trojans are 1

Edited January 24, 2006 by Roman bl00d

[Neos Dionysos]

Wow! I'm glad I asked. Thanks for the update. When last I was in school, the Herodotus theory was treated as seriously as there being a real ancient city of Troy.

 

 

There is many theories on weather Troy exsited or not... although the majority now regard it as pure myth.. there is a possibility of great truth to it.

 

 

Troy did exist, now if Troy was the same as described by Homer when as in level VIIa of Troy is another matter altogether. Lower foundations, (I think level 5 or 6), show a massive and very large city that fits the descriptions of Homer, but the 7a one is the only settlement on the spot that is around the period of the Illiad, (or rather when it was supposed to have taken place), and there have been found dead soldiers in the streets, some decapatated etc. showing that the site was taken by force. Though, this particularly level of Troy seemed more to be a fort than a city, since you had kitchens and barracks in the walls, etc.

[Eterna]

The myth of the founding of Rome by the descendents of Aeneas was meant to invigorate the Roman people with a sense of national pride, martial spirit, and to link Rome with the ancient Olympian gods. There was no truth to it although its possible that some Greek colonists that settled in the south of Italy migrated into Rome during its founding.

 

I caution those who treat 'myth' the same a 'fairytale'. Ancient Myth is often based on histical events that predate written records and therefore get documented in various story form that is easily remembered and passed down. So just because Aeneas is most likely a literary fabrication, doesn't mean there is no truth to those potential roots for Roman civilization.

 

That there was an ancient 'Pelasgian' population that settled on the west coast of Italy and south of Rome (Ardea as one civic example) during the Bronze Age seems evident but grossly overlooked. Further, the Etruscans seem to have come originally from Asia Minor though at a much earlier period.

 

So from many different points of view, it is not wholly incorrect that archaic populations from Asia Minor had a hand in the establishment of Rome...