Remus And Romulus

[Rameses the Great]

I have curious questions about the pre-Roman area. Remus was killed by Romulus and then we have Rome, well we all know the story. Before that however were their just said 'Romans' around the area living in the hills? Is that why Greece easily conquered parts of Itlay and referred to them as 'barbarians?' Did they have a unified area like Athens?

 

Could you say the same for Greece? They were taught by Egypt correct and became a power. Did the same thing happen with Rome?

[Q Valerius Scerio]

Well, sorry to burst ya bubble, but Romulus and Remus were also myths. Rome was likely founded around 1000 BCE, but before that you had the Latins and the Etruscans in the immediate area, as well as the Oscans, Umbrians, Campanians, etc...

[phil25]

The Romans themselves had oddly differing myths of Romulus - he was also Quirinius (hence the synonym for Romans "Quirites!") - and may have been murdered by Senators.

 

I'm not sure that I wholly dismiss a real person behind the myth - like Arthur, it makes sense for there to be an individual who brought "Rome" together. Equally the story of the Sabine women may enshrine some real event.

 

But QVS is right to be cautious about accepting legends as fact. There is every indication of Etruscan influence over early Rome which lasted a long time, and the 753BC foundation date and the seven kings are probably later embellishments.

 

My recollection (and early Rome is not my period at all) is that there may have been groups living on various hills at an early date - Palatine and Capitoline especially - taking advantage of rome's strategic position on the salt route and the navigable river. These groups used the marshy lowland that later became the Forum Romanum, as a common market and graveyard.

 

These people lived in thatched huts, two of which (one on the Capitol, one near the House of Augustus on the Palatine) were "preserved" down to late antinquity as houses of Romulus. Terracotta models of them have also been found.

 

By the way - was Greece (whatever that means in the period in question) really "taught by Egypt correct and became a power"?

 

I know that New kingdom Egypt was active in the Mycenaean world and Minoan (so-called) Crete. I am aware that Herodotus visited Egypt and wrote about it. But what precisely are you referring to Rameses?

 

Finally, as to Italy - the Greeks were very active in the south (Campania, Sicily) as shown by their temples at places like Paestum. But is there any evidence that they made their way as far north as the Tiber? I am sure the odd Greek traveller/trader did - but I am speaking of influence as inferred by Rameses.

 

Phil

[Q Valerius Scerio]

The Romans themselves had oddly differing myths of Romulus - he was also Quirinius (hence the synonym for Romans "Quirites!") - and may have been murdered by Senators.

 

I'm not sure that I wholly dismiss a real person behind the myth - like Arthur, it makes sense for there to be an individual who brought "Rome" together. Equally the story of the Sabine women may enshrine some real event.

There may have been a Quirinius who became infused with the Romulus legends, but I find the idea that Romulus himself was a real person very unlikely. Both the stories of Romulus and the Sabines appear to be old traditions that probably reflect some legend - perhaps the latter symbolizes a war. But its doubtful that any of it really happened.

 

But QVS is right to be cautious about accepting legends as fact. There is every indication of Etruscan influence over early Rome which lasted a long time, and the 753BC foundation date and the seven kings are probably later embellishments.

They did just find 10th century BCE woman buried in Rome, so certainly it was in place long before 753 BCE. Moreover, 753 wasn't even that common until Varro. Ennius and others places Romulus much later. We don't, can't, in fact, know what really happened, but it certainly wasn't as Livy told it.

 

By the way - was Greece (whatever that means in the period in question) really "taught by Egypt correct and became a power"?

Probably not. I think it would be attributing too much to Egypt. Perhaps indirectly, but its safer to just say no.

 

Finally, as to Italy - the Greeks were very active in the south (Campania, Sicily) as shown by their temples at places like Paestum. But is there any evidence that they made their way as far north as the Tiber? I am sure the odd Greek traveller/trader did - but I am speaking of influence as inferred by Rameses.

Not that I'm aware of. Cumae or Capua would be the closest (major) Greek colonies to Rome on the peninsula. The Latins and other tribes blocked off the Greeks to the north.

[Kosmo]

There was a lot of greek influence on the etruscans. The presence of greeks in Etruria and of etruscans in Greece it's very strong.

As Rome was on the road between Tuscany and Camapania (another area where greeks and etruscans meet) and under etruscan rule for sure the greek influence was deeply felt from very early.

And greeks played a political role in the rise of Rome by defeating the etruscans.

[phil25]

Kosmo, can you actually provide references for your statements. I'd be very interested to know on what you base what you say.

 

Thanks

 

Phil

[Q Valerius Scerio]

Greek influence on the Etruscans should be obvious - but to what extent, and by what means is disputed. Certainly, there weren't any Greek colonies that far north - unless you have a reference I'm lacking?

[Pantagathus]

Could you say the same for Greece? They were taught by Egypt correct and became a power.

 

You could never in your wildest imagination say that with any veracity...

 

Anyway, what period of 'Greece' are looking at them being "taught". Before the Mycaenean Age? During? Or the trigger of the end of the Greek 'Dark Ages'?

 

Finally, as to Italy - the Greeks were very active in the south (Campania, Sicily) as shown by their temples at places like Paestum. But is there any evidence that they made their way as far north as the Tiber? I am sure the odd Greek traveller/trader did - but I am speaking of influence as inferred by Rameses.

 

Cumae played a very important part of the orientalizing of the Etruscans and Latins.

[Gaius Octavius]

Then there was Aeneas. Does that bring Carthage into the question? Am I getting the proper impression here, i.e., that the inate qualities of the Romans had little to do with their success? Should one conclude that if it weren't for Egypt via Greece and Greece itself, that Rome wouldn't have come about? Some claim that the original Romans were a bunch of run away slaves and bandits.

[Kosmo]

Phil, I'm not sure at which statement you refer. I have a book somwhere on etruscans, but I cannot quote it now.

 

From the http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com

about greeks

 

http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/sea.html - greek sanctuaries and merchants in Etruria

http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/lifestyle.html - fashion

http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/language.html#alpha -alphabet

http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/history.html- about the etruscans in Lemnos and Lemnos Stele

http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/history4.html- conflicts with greeks

 

The wars between etruscans and greeks for control of Campania, Corsica and trade in Adriatica are well documented and arheolgical finds unearthed large numbers of greek ceramics in Tuscany and Po valley.

Most likely the ones that spread greek luxury ceramics in Central and Northern Europe are the etruscans.

 

I know that this are not proper references, bit it's all I can do now.

[Gaius Octavius]

Because one finds trade goods in an area, it does not follow that these goods or their makers had a critical influence on the people of that area. Here, I am referring to the mind set of the people. The Romans had a critical, essential, obvious and lasting effect on the peoples of Europe - even on those nations that they did not conquer. We don't have to guess at that.

[Pantagathus]

In reference to my last post in my Chalcidian-Hippobotae thread, it is quite clear that for one, the people of the Italian pennisula got the alphabet from the Chalcidian Greeks of Cumae.

 

From this point of view alone it can be deduced that the Chalcidian Greeks had a critical influence on people surrounding them.

[Rameses the Great]

For the explanation of how Egypt influenced Greece, please refer to this:

Actually a lot of the Greek religious and mathematical ideas came frome Egypt, to Greece, to Rome, to Europe. The Egyptian trinity of Isis, Osiris, and Horus were represented in Greece by Demeter, Dionysos, and Apollo respectively. Pythagoras was a pupil of the Egyptian priests, where he learned mathematics and religion.

 

Greek mercanaries and emigrants swayed Egypt more in the way of Greece. I think Egypt gave Greece the foundation of math and science, and the Greeks beeing very clever expanded. For example the mathematical equation of Π was described in Egypt as 3.16 later corrected by Greece as 3.14.

 

Here are some sites that prove it:

Egyptian Numerals to Greek

Egyptian Heiroglyphs Influence Latin and Geek

Greece probably would have been a power, not like the same Greece we know of though. Many mythical and foundations of astronomy, mathematics, and medicine first started there. The first Greek philosophers were said to be taught by Egyptian priest that acted like teachers.

 

Anyways, I'd like to talk about the issue at hand. Did the Romans live like Celts? In which way were they different than the other European tribal groups? What were their mythical beliefs? Was their infrastructure just a bunch of hut houses?

 

Sorry, just full of questions here. ^_^

 

By the way Q. Valeris Scerio, I am not about to believe that Remus and Romulus are the only explanation. I actually find them taking on legendary status also. Again, I'm here to learn and if anyone can help me I much aprecitate it. I'd like to think another thing started Rome, something believable.

 

I feel kind of stupid talking about Rome while not exactly knowing how it got there.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Rameses the Great

[Gaius Octavius]

In reference to my last post in my Chalcidian-Hippobotae thread, it is quite clear that for one, the people of the Italian pennisula got the alphabet from the Chalcidian Greeks of Cumae.

 

From this point of view alone it can be deduced that the Chalcidian Greeks had a critical influence on people surrounding them.

 

I don't mean to be thick, but how did this effect the 'mind set' of the Romans, i.e., the will to build, conquer, etc.

[Pantagathus]

I don't mean to be thick, but how did this effect the 'mind set' of the Romans, i.e., the will to build, conquer, etc.

 

This happened in such an early period, I don't think that can be sufficiently answered. For one however, it would give them and the others the faster track ability to learn about the greater world beyond travellers' tales of wonder and to begin documenting their own experiences.

 

I will suggest to Rameses that the answers to his inquiry might be better sought in the mythical history of Rome's 2nd King: Numa Pompilius (as mainly told by Plutarch) instead of worrrying about R&R and the wolf's tit.

 

Numa was the first culture hero of Rome and one should consider the claims of his Pythagorean philosophy (though perhaps chronological rubbish) as a further indication of eastern influences on the early acculturation of the Romans.