The Roman Kings - a reconstruction

[Caesar CXXXVII]

"...Romans lacked information about their early past after the Gauls burnt all their historical records in 390 BC, when they sacked the city. Is there any truth in these ideas?"

 

 

Hi all ,

How we can know what the Sennones burnt at c. 385 bce ?

According to Cornell and "his school" the sack of Rome was not a disaster but only a setback . The Sennones wanted booty (and they took it) , they had nothing to gain from burning buildings or killing Romans . Cornell pointed to the fact that the political position of Rome after the "sack" did not change dramatically and that is to strengthen his stand . If I am not worng , there is no evidance for (?) fire in the beginning of the 4th century in contrast with the evidance about a "big fire" at the last decade of the 6th century (taken by all to be a proof for a violent removal of the "Tyrants"/Superbus) .

 

To sum up (?) - we have the traditional story about 7 Kings and the 753-509 problem and we have archeological evidance about a "Rex" , a Regia , several buildings , some kind of a wall etcw .

The skeptics dismiss almost anything about the early history of Rome (an easy task that brings us to nothing but a big black Lacuna of nearly 300 years...) . The "optimists" like Momigliano and many others (including little me )preffer to combine the tradition (with criticism) with the scant evidance and to create some kind of a narrative . That is the whole story .

 

By the way , you can see this exact Dilemma in the most prestigious History book about the subject , the Cambridge Ancient History vol. VII-2 , 2nd edition .

Edited November 1, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII

[M. Porcius Cato]

we have the traditional story about 7 Kings and the 753-509 problem and we have archeological evidance about a "Rex" , a Regia , several buildings , some kind of a wall etcw .

The skeptics dismiss almost anything about the early history of Rome (an easy task that brings us to nothing but a big black Lacuna of nearly 300 years...) . The "optimists" like Momigliano and many others (including little me )preffer to combine the tradition (with criticism) with the scant evidance and to create some kind of a narrative.

 

Reconstructing the events of 753-509 will be a work of tremendous historical imagination, but I agree that it's better to critically evaluate alternative reconstructions than to throw up one's hands. What secondary sources would you recommend as providing the best reconstructions of the regal period?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

You can start from The Rise of Rome to 220 B. C. by F. W. Walbank; A. E. Astin; M. W. Frederiksen; R. M. Ogilvie and more in CAH vol. VII-2 , 2nd edition

 

For the "Optimists" point of view -

 

*Perizonius, Niebuhr and the Character of Early Roman Tradition by Arnaldo Momigliano in The Journal of Roman Studies 1957

*Some Observations on the 'Origo Gentis Romanae' by Arnaldo Momigliano in The Journal of Roman Studies 1958

*An Interim Report on the Origins of Rome by Arnaldo Momigliano in The Journal of Roman Studies 1963

*La grande Roma dei Tarquini by M. Cristofani

*Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries by Rodolfo Lanciani

*The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (C. 1000-264 BC) by T. J. Cornell

 

For the "Skeptics' point of view (some of them created a new Roman history from their educated minds) -

 

*The Origins of Rome by Raymond Bloch

*Early Rome. I: Stratigraphical Researches in the Forum Romanum and along the Sacra Via by Einar Gjerstad

*Early Rome and the Latins by Andrew Alf

[spittle]

"For the skeptics point of view (some of them created a new Roman history from their educated minds)-"

 

Is that to say they dismiss other scholars theories, due to lack of solid evidence, and then create their own theories based on the same, similarly scarce, known facts?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

An example -

 

The "Optimist" is saying - "The ancient sources are talking about a King , named Servius Tullius Who did this and that . The archeologists found leftovers of buildings that attributed to the same King . So my conclusion is that Servius Tullius is a historical figure , who ruled in the middle of the 6th century and we have some kind of proof that he did this and that..."

 

"Sceptic 1" will say (according to some of the books mentioned above) - "We have some kind of a legend about some kind of a King Who did this and that . The archeologists did not find any proof of his existance . So my conclusion is that there was no Servius Tullius !"

 

"Sceptic 2" will say (again , according to some of the books mentoined above) - "No . Servius Tullius did exists , we can't just ignore the sources and the archeological evidance . But , according to my analysis he ruled in the middle of the 5th century and did other things ..."

 

Now , anyone can add anything at the end of "Sceptic 2" last sentence .

 

So , until the 19th century everybody took the stories about the 7 Kings of Rome as truth , than a criticism emerged , than no one who took himself seriously belived the stories to be historical , than an opposite phenomenon took place and so on .

 

As I said , I prefer the "Optimists" point of view because of its ability to provide some kind of a narrative that combines the ancient sources (without them we have nothing) with archeological findings and without the urge to create a new history .

Edited November 5, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII

[spittle]

So on the available evidence some will dismiss it outright, others will modify it to variuos degree's?

 

I also enjoy optimistic accounts. The only pessimistic writing I really enjoy are the rare occasions when the writer can dismiss (or change) an event that has become accepted as truth just by the sheer amount of time and retelling it has undergone. I cannot think of an example concrerning ancient Rome as I am new to the subject but my other interest of organised crime has had several sacred cows blown to pieces recently due to serious historians starting to research an area that was previously the domain of failed fiction authors and scandal rag journalist's.

[phil25]

There is a lot one can do in regard to legends, historical fact and the extrapolation of evidence.

 

Until the C19th - and this is the reason for the continuing attraction of myths for some - there was no real interest in history and certainly no historical sense. In England. Shakespeare was taught as "fact", but until the first quarter of the century, historical plays were all performed in a sort of mock Tudor style. Shakespeare himself would not have thought it necessary for a play about Rome to go to the lengths of costume and set research that (say) the recent series ROME did. What was important was the past as a source of lessons and models for present behaviour.

 

Schliemann was ridiculed for wanting to give the Trojan war a basis in fact, for believing in it as an historical event.

 

As recently as 30 years ago, the historian and literary scholar, AL Rowse, defended the "black legend" of Richard III as being better than revisionist history since it gave Richard a better claim to fame than his real deeds.

 

Now. limited new major information about Richard has come to light in recent decades, but MUCH research has been done in the minutiae of his period and that has thrown a huge amount of light on the situation at the time. We UNDERSTAND the period better, even if we can neither "prove" nor "disprove" a legend.

 

So turning to Rome:

 

The seven kings (and there were seven hills, maybe the number is symbolic in some way) may well be a distortion. The Romans may have sought to cover-over periods of foreign domination, or made bigger the role and longer the reign of a king perceived as "good". Historically characters can become absorbed into others, so one king might be an amalgam of two or more actual rulers.

 

But what does this matter. Archaeology will gradually provide us with a better understanding of the period. Inscriptions may emerge that prove the reality of certain kings, or provide names that we currently do not know. But it is UNDERSTANDING and insight that is crucial - proving or disproving legends takes us nowhere. It is akin to the old question, "Are you still beating your wife?" - the starting point is already established.

 

It is this obsession with seeking to PROVE the historicity of the Bible that has bedevilled biblical archaeology for so long. It starts from the wrong premise. If archaeology throws light on literature, so well and good, but as schliemann found, assumptions about a period can lead you to overlook or even destroy what is important actually. (Schliemann practically destroyed much of what was left of the likely city of the Trojan war, because in his estimation that layer of the site was "too late".

 

 

Someone or some group started Rome - they probably had a leader. Let's call him Romulus. the Romans did. They even had an idea of where he lived and postholes for huts of the right period have been found.

 

Tarquinius Superbus may represent several Etruscan kings (perhaps conquerors) but his supposed character may accurately reflect their arrogance and the way in which those rulers were regarded by the Romans. Archaeology will never tell us.

 

But excavation may well, in future, tell us much about the area, and expansion of the ancient setlement, its customs and life-style, its trade and other relations, even whether it was dominated by an external power for a period.

 

I see no reason for a rivalry between "pessimists" or "optimists", buta need for open minds to consider and think intelligently about what we know. Entrenched positions are seldom right.

 

We need to be prepared to pull down outworn assumptions and loosen our grip on fancy (however much we might treasure it). In doing so, we may find that those same fancies actually do have a relevance and even a solid basis in reality,and that we can re-adopt them with greater certainty and confidence.

 

Purely my own musings, of course and as ever,

 

Phil

[spittle]

I find your mention of religous 'bedevilling' of historic research particularly relevant as I have just watched a documentary concerning the race to decipher the Rosetta stone. Jean Francois Champollion went to his grave with the secret that civilisations were older than the vaticans estimate of the age of the earth. Even in the early 1800s this was dangerously forbidden knowledge.

 

A Roman equivalent of the Rosetta stone, detailing much of its early history, would be fantastic. This is a flight of fancy and I am fully aware that this portion of history is a ten million piece jig-saw with nine million pieces missing. How many will be found? Hoewever many it is sure to be slow, painstaking work with virtually every archaeologist having their own theory.

[phil25]

But over time, and with debate and discussion the area of our knowledge and the concensus will develop and evolve, Paul.

 

We have an interesting "rosetta stone" already - the engraved stump found under the Lapis niger. It comes from a fascinating spot in the Forum Romanum, not far from the site of the Curia Hostilia (note the name) yet we have not a clue to what it really means!!

 

How much time is spent debating this object or using common sense and knowledge to puzzle out its implications?

 

Early Roman history is an arcane area of study, yet the materials rest under the streets of modern Rome, just awaiting thespade and the intellect.

 

Phil