What really happened there in "509" ?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Reading some 5-6 books and some 15-20 articles conserning the beggining of the Roman Republic , I am still confuse !

Why Superbus was forced to leave Rome ?

Who were the initiators of the removal of Superbus ?

When Superbus was removed ?

How Superbus was removed ?

Did all the Tarquins banished from Rome ?

What Tarquinius "Collatinus" and Iunius "Brutus" (another member of the Royal family) were doing there ?

What was the part of Lars Porsena ? Who he was ?

What was the roll of the "Praetror Maximus" ? The "Magister Populi" ?

What was the part of Publius Valerius "Puplicula" ? Did he was the Poplius Velasius of Satricum ?

What was the part of the Latins and Aristodemus the Tyrant of Cumae ?

Did the Plebeians support the removal of Superbus ? What did they gain ?

And on .

 

I didn't find even two scholars with the same narrative . All of them are using Livy , Dyonisius of Hallicarnasus , Cicero and the ancient sources and all of them do not accept their narrative as a whole .

 

Will we ever know what happened there in "509" ?

 

Any comment ? New insight ?

[Segestan]

An overview of Rome from 578 -509 BC according to

[Ursus]

New insights? Nothing definite. Just speculation that tries to fit the facts. That is most likely all you will ever have given the paucity of confirmed details.

 

Christopher S. Mackay opines that around the time of Servius Tullius, the army in their form of the Centuriate Assembly seems to have usurped the powers of the older citizen's assembly (curia). If the army had forced a King on the Romans over the objections of the civilian assembly, there would have been obvious problems with that King's legitimacy.

 

Furthermore, if this king were foreign there would be other problems. That Rome passed under the Etruscan shadow is generally conceded thanks to the archaeological evidence. The last kings were thought to be Etruscans. However, in 524 BCE the Etruscans were defeated by the Greeks at Cumae, stopping Etruscan expansion. They were then on guard from militant Greeks and Latins.

 

It seems likely that the expulsion of the Etruscan king from Rome coincided with the waning of Etruscan power at the hands of the Greeks and the Latin. If furthermore that Etruscan king had legitimacy problems in Rome due to how he was elected, it is easy to see how a conspiracy of powerful Roman nobles could have persuaded the general populace to rise in revolt to expel a weak foreign king.

 

But the details are not well known and probably never will be. What we have is a charming legend about the rape of a virtuous woman, which while probably a historical fiction nonetheless tells us much about how the Romans saw themselves.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Thanks .

 

Is there anybody who could make some kind of historical narrative for this alusive period ? (That is , the fall of the Monarchy , not the Monarchy as a whole) .

I will read my sources again and will try it . Obviously there will be Lacunas . The method is to combine the Archeological evidence with philological research + criticism in one hand and open mind in the other .

 

IMHO , one can't read , or understand Rome's history without knowing its origins as good as possible .

Edited December 11, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Pantagathus]

What was the part of Lars Porsena? Who was he?

 

Lars Porsena is an interesting one

[Caesar CXXXVII]

What was the part of Lars Porsena? Who was he?

 

Lars Porsena is an interesting one

[Caesar CXXXVII]

O.K.

 

It is hard , I will try it anyway -

 

"509" - What happened there ? (try to ignore my English) - part I

 

In c. 520-510 BCE , one (later known as) Lucius Tarquinius "Superbus" took control of Rome , the richest , largest (in land and population) and strongest city in Latium Vetus in even in Central Italy .

Who was "Superbus" ? An Etruscan (from Tarquinii) and probably a son of (later known as) Lucius Tarquinius "Priscus" . In contrast to his father , "Superbus" took control of Rome not as legitimate King but as a Tyrant , that is , without the consent of the Patricians who controled the Comitia Curiata , the one and only political body thad had the power to invest the kingship . "Superbus" was not the first to take the Roman Kingship by using armed forces , he was one of many tyrants who ruled Rome in the middle of the 6th century (between them - "Servius Tullius" , Aulus Vibena , Caelius Vibena , Mastrana and maybe Gnaeus Tarquinius "Romanus") . It is possible that "Superbus" did not became "Rex" but "Magister Populi" (Mastrana=Magister as Lucomu=Lucius etc') as his antecedents to signify his aliance with the people (as represented by the Hoplite army in the Comitia Centoriata) . The aliance between the Tyrants and the people as such was confirmed by the establishment of the Comitia Centoriata by "Servius Tullius" who based his power on the Hoplite army (consisting Patricians , non Patricians but also non Plebeians but "Clientes") .

So , since c. 550-570 BCE through "Superbus" reign Rome was controled by a Tyrant who had an Aliance with the Comitia Centoriata and some kind of understanding with the Patricians of which they had monopoly on religious matters . This Political situation was firmed for decades until something , somewhere , somehow activeted a process that ended in "509" .

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

LARS Porsena of Clusium

By the Nine Gods he swore

That the great house of Tarquin

Should suffer wrong no more.

By the Nine Gods he swore it,

And named a trysting day,

And bade his messengers ride forth,

East and west and south and north,

To summon his array.

 

I know it's not quite what your looking for but i think it's a fantastic poem telling the tale of Lars Porsena's march on Rome and of the heroic Horatius who stood alone to defend his city.

 

http://www.englishverse.com/poems/horatius

 

It's quite a long poem, but give it a chance , you will not be disappointed.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Interesting . Thanks .

[Caesar CXXXVII]

"509" - What happened there ? (try to ignore my English) - Part II

 

In c. 505 BCE the successful "superbus" found himself facing an Opposition that no other Roman king faced . Tarquinius also had supporters . It is very important to understand that the movements in Rome at that moment were a part of a larger movements in whole of Latium , Etruria , Campania and beyond .

The Opposition to Tarquinius -

1. First of all - In the Palace , that is in the Tarquinian family itself represented in the tradition by "Lucius Iunius Brutus" , his sons and brothers in low , by "Egerius Collatinus Tarquinius" and his nephews and more . why ? Because the house of Tarquinius was no different than any Tyrant/King house .

2. In Rome - The Patricians led by the Cornelii , Aemilii , Fabii and more . Why ? The Patricians (as represented in the Comitia Curiata) had lost their supremacy in Rome at the end of the reign of "Priscus" to the Hoplite army (as represented in the Comitia Centuriata , See part I) . So why now ? Maybe they saw an opportunity !

3. In Rome - The poor ("Plebeians" , not to be confused with the Hoplite army , the "clientes") . Why ? Tarquinius orderd the building of the largest temple in Rome ever for Iupiter Capitolinus Optimus Maximus (at the time , the leagest building in Latium , Central Italy and maybe in all of Italy , One of the largest buildings in the Mediterranean !) and the burden fell on the poor .

4. In Latium - The latin league that was centered in Aricia . Why ? The Aricia center was the no. 1 religious center in Latium until "Servius Tullius" build his center of Diana near Rome . So why now ? Again , The Latins saw an opportunity .

5. In Latium and Etruria - The "Condotieri" (see above) . People like Lars Porsenna of Clusium (or Volcii or Veii) , Poplius Velasius of Satricum , Attus Clausus of Regilum and others who thought that they can take Rome as Kings as Tarquinius did .

 

Tarquinius allys -

1. In Rome - The hoplite Army (Comitia Centuriata) . Their situation was much more better in the Tyrani than the traditional (determined by the Patricians) kingship . The same phenomenon can be seen in ancient Greek Tyranies .

2. In Latium - The Latins who were not under the Aricia Center , mainly , Gabii and Tusculum . Gabii had a personal agremment with Tarquinius (Foedos Gabinium) and Tusculum was under the rule of Octavus (not Octavius) Mamilius , the son in low of Tarquinius .

3. In Campania - Other Tyrants led by Aristodemus of (Greek) Cumae . Aristodemus was a bitter enemy of the Etruscans and feared Poeple like Etruscan Porsenna who had strong war bands and threaten Campania .

 

 

These were , more or less , the powers who would take their part in "509" .

Edited December 17, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Just a moment - No objections ? Everybody here accept my Analysis ? Shame on me

Should I continue to part III ? Any interest ?

[votadini]

Just a moment - No objections ? Everybody here accept my Analysis ? Shame on me

Should I continue to part III ? Any interest ?

 

Please, go on.....

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Just a moment - No objections ? Everybody here accept my Analysis ? Shame on me

Should I continue to part III ? Any interest ?

 

Please, go on.....

 

 

Yesssssssssssssss !

 

I will .

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Well , for all who have interest on this important subject (and I see many viewers) - "509" - What happened there ? (try to ignore my English) - Part III

 

Note - My narrative is based on books and articles on early Rome and Latium . One scholar Said X and another said Y , the 3rd said Z and so on . There is no chance in the world that we will ever have a history for "509" as we have for the 2nd Punic war . The chronology is confused , the players are nothing more than traditional names , archaeological evidence is almost 0 . Yet , many scholars managed to construct narratives based on 200 years of research . I tried to combine the sources . It is my opinion that we should adopt the "Optimistic approach" and not Gary Forsythe's and others approach that completely Dismiss the traditions and end up with nothing !

 

 

 

It appears that there was a conspiracy/plot/intrigue , between members of the Tarquinian (led by "Brutus" , Tarquinius "Colatinus" and perhaps "Tricipitinus") family to remove "Superbus" . The leading members of the Patrician families (the Fabii , Papirii , Cornelii , Aemilii and more) saw an opportunity to gain 1 of 2 things - To become Magister Populi/Praetor Maximus themselves or to throw the Tyrani for an Oligarchy that would include them and the anti-tyrant Tarquinians . We will never know the role of the players in the plot .

 

It appears that the poor hated the Tyrant but they had no power . The Hoplite army was the Tyrant best ally , so who would stand agaisnt him in Rome ? Here the Plotters showed their wisdom , they came to an agreement with the Hoplite army ! My words -

1. "We will throw your benefactor"

2. "You will do nothing"

3. "In exchange we will Increase the Power of the Comitia Centuriata . How ? It will elect the holders of Imperium (taken from the Patrician Comitia Curiata) and it will be the court of Appeal against the holders of imperium (the future Lex Valeria Horatia) !"

 

So , one day in c. 505 BCE in a distant corner of the world , the Roman people rased thier arms against their King , it was a firce battle , Rome was on fire (literaly!!!) , "Superbus" lost and escaped (apparently to Gabi) .

 

It was a Revolution ? NO ! They throw their King and the struggle for power just begun .

 

Of course the story does not end here . "509" was a long year (I say some 10)....

Edited January 9, 2007 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Divi Filius]

All of the events are questionable. The story of Superbus and Brutus stinks of hellenistic influence. You have the recycling of the Greek theory of government: the inheritor degenerates(Superbus is the only one of the kings who inherits the throne). You also have the common association degeneracy and rape. In likelihood the story was adapted from the Athenian tale of their own rise to Democracy. The factor of Brutus could have very well come in through the tradition of the Fasti: Brutus was the first name on the scroll, therefore some kind of tale has to be told of the man.

 

I think that constructing a detailed history of the events is next to impossible. Early Roman history is like one of those stories we wrote when we were younger: you are given a sentence and have to construct an entire tale around it.