The Horatii and the Curatii brothers

[Numa Pompilius]

Before I tell you who the Horatii and the Curatii are, I am going to tell why these brothers were a major part of roman history. During Tullus Hostilius' reign he encountered a problem with the Albans; the town of Alba were stealling cattle all along the border of Roman territory. Tullus sent an envoy to Gaius Cluilius (king of Alba at the time,) their mission was to ask for the return of the stolen property; Cluilius refused which gave Tullus a good reason to go to war. The Albans made the first move, they went straight into Roman territory and dug a trench called Cluilius's Trench (which supposedly lasted for a few centuries afterward); during the time the Albans were entrenched Cluilius died and the power was given to Mettius Fufetius.

The second move was made by Tullus, by the cover of darkness he and his army went unoticed into Alban territory. When Mettius reallized what had happened he sent a envoy to Tullus asking for a conference, Tullus accepted the offer.

Mettius said the first word "Our king Cluilius" he said "told me, if I remember, that we were about to fight over a matter of brigandage and the refusal to restore stolen property in accordance with our treaty; and I have no doubt that you, Tullus, are prepared to retort in similar terms. So be it. If, however, we let specious arguments go and tell each other the truth, we should admit that our two nations, close neighbors and blood relations as we are, have a deeper reason for going to war: I mean, ambition and love of power. Whether rightly or wrongly I will not venture to say, for that is a question decided, no doubt , by him who undertook to wage this war. As for me, I am only the man of the Albans chose to conduct it. But what i would suggest to you, Tullus, is this: you know the strength of Etruscans who threaten to encircle us, and you know it is even better than we, as you are closer to them. They are strong on land, and at sea very strong indeed. Do not forget, when you give the signal for battle, that they will be watching us, ready, when we have worn each other out, to attack us both, victor and vanquished alike. Surley, therefore, unless both our countires are condemned to peridition, we should be able to find a better solution. The assurance of liberty is not, it seems, enough for us, and we are about to gamble for empire or slavery; nevertheless, can we not find some means of deciding the issue between us which, however the fight may go on, will at least avoid crippling losses either to you or to ourselves?" Tullus took this proposition into consideration even though he knew that he could beat them in battle. A plan was made, in both armies there were three brothers who were of a young age and very active, the brothers name for the Albans was the Curatii and the Romans were the Horatii. The brothers would fight three against three the victorious would gain controll over the vanquished. Both Commanders accepted the plan and prepared their champions for the fight.

The fight started and as the fight went on both sides were cheering for their champions knowing that if they lost, they would become servants to the other country. Then after a long fight blood began to flow, all three of Albas chanpions were injured and one of the Romans had fallen, then another. The Albans began to cheer even louder as their champions began to win the fight. The last brother for the Romans was left fighting three, noticing that all three albans were injured and he was unhurt he ran untill the Albans were spaced out enough for him to fight them one on one. He killed one and the other two Albans ran toward him. Another fell to the Horatii's sword; it looked as if the Romans still had a chance after all. Finally the last Alban cought up to him and was struck down. The Horatii had won the day which meant that Rome claimed all Alban territory.

If the Horatii brothers had lost this battle Rome would have never existed. So all ancient Roman fans should be thanking them to this day.

Edited November 19, 2006 by Numa Pompilius

[Aurelianus]

Hmm, i doubt that a country/city state would just hand over its teritory because one of its people lost a personal combat. Naturaly it is a myth, or possably legend, but befor ridiculing your statement "If the Horatii brothers had lost this battle Rome would have never existed. So all ancient Roman fans should be thanking them to this day." I will agree with it in kind.

even if this alone didnt get them alban teritory, it cast a mould for later Romans to emulate. legends like this and Horatius at the bridge, were created (or exagerated) to give an ideal that should be lived up to, and can be seen in the junior commanders of the republic, and in the case of Metellus a general.

All nations need to have these Hheroic ancestors to look up to and emulate, its what formes their culture. Horatius refuses to give up after his brothers have fallen, rome dose not surrender to carthage after her armies have been beaten. its the mentality of rome that made her grate, and this legend (amongst others) illustrated it for them.

[Numa Pompilius]

Yes I am sure that most of it is a myth but i still like the story.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Hmm, i doubt that a country/city state would just hand over its teritory because one of its people lost a personal combat. Naturaly it is a myth

 

Why do you think this sort of 'battle' is reported so very often, from the time of Homer to the time of Livy, and across so many different societies?

[Horatius]

"It stands in the Comitium

Plain for all folk to see;

Horatius in his harness,

Halting upon one knee:

And underneath is written,

In letters all of gold,

How valiantly he kept the bridge

In the brave days of old. " What 's not to believe? http://www.killgrove.org/etruria.html

Edited November 21, 2006 by Horatius

[Pantagathus]

Why do you think this sort of 'battle' is reported so very often, from the time of Homer to the time of Livy, and across so many different societies?

Exactly, even into the period of historical documentation the Celtic peoples were known to settle inter-tribal disputes in single combat.

 

Archaic Rome and certainly Alba weren't very densely populated places. My guess is you may just have ~2000 men on either side of fighting age. If you were king, you let them all whack each other and loose your ability to be productive come harvest time? Nope.

 

Single or limited combat is an extremely sensible alternative. Even if it means you loose your territory if your man looses.

[Numa Pompilius]

Single or limited combat is an extremely sensible alternative. Even if it means you loose your territory if your man looses

.

 

After Rome took controll of Alba they left mettius in command of his army. And if Tullus ever needed help when fighting he could call on mettius' army (he did use mettius in a battle once.)

Edited November 22, 2006 by Numa Pompilius

[Divi Filius]

Why do you think this sort of 'battle' is reported so very often, from the time of Homer to the time of Livy, and across so many different societies?

 

Or maybe it could be Livy emulating something from Homer and Greek mythology? Livy's early books are filled with this; this is not different.

 

I would say this kind of warfare is believable in terms of the traditional Hellenic city-state mentality. The short-supply of manpower in the ancient cities of Greece meant that people had to think as conservatively as possible. Imagine being an independent city of 20-30,000 citizens and losing 1-3,000 men in a single battle. An alternative had to be considered since these cities were in a state of almost constant feud and warfare. The single battle between the two cities could be a way of settling small territorial disputes which could otherwise errupt into a disaster.

 

Think of how disasterous it was for Athens to lose in it's Sicilian expedition, which is considered to have destroyed it's hegemony. Yet when we look at how man men were lost, approximately 34,000 men, they pale in comparison to the overall losses which the Romans sustained in the first and second punic war.

 

However, while Livy may have adopted it - that is not say that it did not come from Fabius - for the Homeric theme, to me it seems rather unroman. In the end it was Rome's willingness to shed it's blood to the very last drop that brought Hannibal to his eventual defeat. Polybius himself gave away the belief that if Hannibal had not fought Rome he could very well have replicated Alexander's conquest. Not to mention the fact that's views on war had a far more "scientific" theme to it. Rather then heroic battles, the main attraction is the mechanics of war.

 

but enough ranting..

 

Edited November 22, 2006 by Divi Filius

[Aurelianus]

Why do you think this sort of 'battle' is reported so very often, from the time of Homer to the time of Livy, and across so many different societies?

 

Like I said, its a heroic "ideal". do writers today make stories on commonplace and uninteresting people on a regular basis? I'm not saying this single combat deciding of disputes didn't take place, but they were exagerated and multiplyed in their telling for greater effect.

 

Exactly, even into the period of historical documentation the Celtic peoples were known to settle inter-tribal disputes in single combat.

 

Archaic Rome and certainly Alba weren't very densely populated places. My guess is you may just have ~2000 men on either side of fighting age. If you were king, you let them all whack each other and loose your ability to be productive come harvest time? Nope.

 

Single or limited combat is an extremely sensible alternative. Even if it means you loose your territory if your man looses.

 

I agree, it is more sensable, and probably did hapen. but I doubt that it would have been fought over an entire teritory. The Albans, once they have lost the single comat would have had a choice - lose everything or fight and possibly lose everything/gain rome. Human nature dictates they would choose the later, which leads to my saying that it is not due to the Horatii brothers that saved Rome.

[Pantagathus]

...for the Homeric theme, to me it seems rather unroman. In the end it was Rome's willingness to shed it's blood to the very last drop that brought Hannibal to his eventual defeat.

Divi,

 

Rome and the character of the Roman people of the 7th Century BC was/were vastly different from the hardened Rome of the 3rd Century BC.

 

Roman aristocrats were still being buried with charoits at this point for heavens sake.

[Kosmo]

I think that this kind of duels are very likely to have happened. Pyrhhus asked Antigonas Gonatas to fight men against men shortly before he died. Before the battle of Varna between Ottomans and "crusaders" a turnir like duel was fought.

Of course what happened to the defeated was probably better then if he lost the war. Not like 'OK! my man won so all of you and your wifes surrender weapons and march to the slave market"

Duel as a proof of divine favor was used thruout Europe to settle law suites in court from the time of german invasions almost to the french revolution. God used to pick the one who was right by giving them victory in duel. Other evidence for proving god favor were walking on fire and drinking poison.

[Divi Filius]

Rome and the character of the Roman people of the 7th Century BC was/were vastly different from the hardened Rome of the 3rd Century BC.

 

Yea but the themes are from a 1c BC writer... Considering his sources, there is nothing out there that tells me that Roman memory from the 6th century could have been that detailed considering no real narrative survived.

 

Such battles could very likely have taken place in a more hellenistic early Rome. However, Livy did not place the story simply to tell the tale...

[CiceroD]

Arent we missing somthing in this discussion?

 

What are the odds that these two tiny city-states produced two sets of male triplets and the odds that all six of them would survive past childhood?

 

This is the most convincing reason, to me, why to disbelieve the myth.

[Dominus Rex]

Arent we missing somthing in this discussion?

 

What are the odds that these two tiny city-states produced two sets of male triplets and the odds that all six of them would survive past childhood?

 

This is the most convincing reason, to me, why to disbelieve the myth.

 

 

Well, what was the population of both city-states at the time. I personally have no idea. But I am sure that if they were atleast large enough, then it is probable that triplets could happen.

[M. Porcius Cato]

What are the odds that these two tiny city-states produced two sets of male triplets and the odds that all six of them would survive past childhood?

 

In the US today, 1 in 8000 births result in triplets, with a disproportionate number of them being born preterm. The odds that one would have triplet brothers ("trigemini fratres", Livy 1.24) today should be a little more than 1 in 16000 (because more than 1/2 of all children born are male). As a rule of thumb, the probability of triplets is the square of the probability of twins (Benirschke, K, Kim, CK. Multiple pregnancy. 1. N Engl J Med 1973; 288:1276).

 

What population would have been necessary for these two city-states to have had 32000 live births per year? It depends on the "crude birth rate" (i.e., the number of births per 1000). As a rough comparison, the poor in the state of Kerala in India, for example, had a crude birth rate of 31.6. At this rate, the population of the Romans and Albans should have been 1,012,658 to produce the 32000 births per year that would have generated a matched pair of male triplets in every year.

 

Of course, if all triplets survived past childhood, they wouldn't have needed a matched pair every single year, but given infant mortality then, it's probably safe to say that they would have needed a population of around 1 million to produce a pair of male triplets. Given that the population of Rome at its height was only 1 million, it's damned unlikely that the Romans and Albans would have produced two sets of male triplets in the regal period. I don't know what the population then was, but the story in Livy has the sister of one of the Horatii being betrothed to one of the Curatii triplets, which suggests we're either in the realm of total fantasy (pretty likely), or the population of the people was relatively small, or both.

 

(BTW one might quibble that the translation of trigemini fratres admits of more than a literal translation, but I can't say anything about that--my math is better than my Latin.)