the origin of rome

[theoldbelgian]

first things first: what I am about to post sounds a bit controversial but I want it civil (now usually this is not a problem with this forum but just a kind remind)

ok the question is: was rome a native italian setlement or was it a greek colony

I personally think it was the second

1) original phalanx based armies: before the camillan reforms the romans fought in phalanx as opposed to the javelin tactics of their direct italian neughbours( samniti etc.) which they later reformed to
also another question:is the triarii unit an anachronism as compensation for the rich and the veteran seeing they fought so long with the same technique and that you can't teach an old dog new tricks?
I am just assuming this as the fighting technique of the hastati and principes is nearly the same while that of the triarii is totally different,
now some might say that it was for balancing the composition in the army but this doesn't count seeing that all the men in the triarii where once hastatis en principes till they where old enough
and that the triarii where only used when the tide was high: the phrase "coming to the triarii": the situetion is very grave
2) their pantheon is nearly the same as that of the greeks: jupiter/zeus venus/aphrodite mars/ares
I hope someone can enlighten this all

[/Bean\]

The fact that they seem to base a lot of their culture on the Greeks does not make them a Greek colony. Rome was built when several villages joined together. I certainly think those villages housed natives.

The greatest power in the world, or at least the Mediterrainian at the time, were arguably the Greeks-at least the most influential. Their armies worked and their colonies around the Mediterrainian would ahve influenced many groups, including the Romans.

Too tired to write more.

[SwissBarbar]

you might want to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Rome

have fun ;-)

[A Very Super Market]

Not really. What about the alpine phalanxes of the celts? Surely, they weren't a greek settlement. I think it was merely greek influence everywhere that caused that.

Really, the greeks influenced everybody. And most religion back then were similar as well. Each god/goddess representing something. You saw it everywhere, the steppes, Celtland, the desert. Not uncommon.

[SwissBarbar]

When the Celts got under the influence of Roman (therefore Greek) culture, the Romans distribute the "rolls" their god had to the Celtic gods, as they deemed fit. Many peoples had their very own stuff, before Greeks and Romans forced their beliefs upon them. Actually also Roman and Greek Culture got highly influenced by other cultures. That's not avoidable.

[A Very Super Market]

Did they have single-dieties? No, they had many different gods governing different aspects of life.

[Macilrille]

The Greek-Roman-Norse (Celtic) pantheon was fairly common and is AFAICR called "The Indo-European" Pantheon or something like that, presumably for a reason.

We know in the Bronze Age the Danes worshipped the sun, but in the Iron Age they had adapted something very similar to and probably inspired by the culturally dominant powers, ideas do travel and power + cultural power tends to rub off...

Rome was just another latin citystate inspired by the Etruscans who were again influenced by Greeks, but as Rome had their own sulture as well. They just got lucky and dominated the rest, then the rest of Italy, then the Med... the fact that they later constructed a mythology making them descended from Troy was just that, a construction, and is fairly common in all cultures/nations to justify themselves in a sort of way and gain a glorious past.

Anyway, tired, sleep well all...

[Africanvs]

1) Phalanx: The phalanx was by no means a Greek invention. It has been used by many different people from east to west such as the Assyrians who used it with great success. Greek warfare lacked the phalanx until the hoplite reforms. While it is impossible to tell for sure where the Romans came from, we know from their mythology that they believed they were conquerors, not colonists. This means someone was already living in Italy when they showed up, and they had to fight for their place. We know that a lot of Roman innovations were adopted from their northern neighbors, the Etruscans, who were in turn influenced by the Greeks. The Romans no doubt adopted new fighting techniques to best combat those of their Italic neighbors.

2) Triarii: It is doubtful to me that the rich served as Triarii, and it is equally doubtful that they were armed in such a way because they couldn't figure out how to fight differently. In fact, the word "Hastati" means spearman. It is more likely that the spear was still a useful weapon, and they probably had many tactical uses. If it "came to the Triarii" that simply meant that both the Hastati and Principes had to fall back, and the Triarii would be the last chance to win the battle. Keeping your best troops for last meant that instead of the battle getting easier as the enemy went, it only got harder. Genius really. As far as the rich, I would like to think they would never serve as mere foot soldiers. A patrician would be going through the cursus honorum, an equite would be on a horse, and there were probably several ways for wealthy plebs to avoid conventional infantry service, especially later in the republic when many of the troops were poor.

3) Religion: There is a lot to say about Roman religion but the down and dirty is that Romans started out with a rural animistic tradition where they believed that everything had a spiritual presence inside called Numina. They performed magical rituals with sacred stones, and they also worshiped, in a way, their ancestors and believed they were present in the home. Indeed they had little idols of them that they would bring out on special occasions. You have to remember when considering the Romans that they were a sponge for many things. They adopted religion, technology, methods of fighting, customs, and you name it from their neighbors and those they conquered. As they spread through Italy and encountered other cities such as the Greek cities in the south, they adopted their religious attributes and combined them with their own. This was done to a more extreme degree even, once they conquered Greece and combined the Greek pantheon with their own. The Romans and Greeks simply stopped being two separate cultures at that point, and became more and more a fusion of the two cultures, hence the appearance of the Roman pantheon simply being a Greek copy. I believe it is more a testament to how good the Romans were at blending their culture with others and adopting new things. Indeed by the time to the Romans became christian, they had so many Deities from west to east, I doubt they could easily be counted. There were far more than are present in the primary Greek pantheon, but even the Greeks got much of their religious ideas from somewhere else. It is not even certain where the "Greeks" came from, and historians even argue about when they became "Greek." It is always a tricky thing with religion to determine which came first but it is quite clear that Romans admired and adopted many things Greek, but they wanted to be sure the world knew they were "other" than Greek. If they had simply been a Greek colony, there wouldn't be such a clear timeline of innovations, and the adoption of new ideas.

[Africanvs]

...the fact that they later constructed a mythology making them descended from Troy was just that, a construction, and is fairly common in all cultures/nations to justify themselves in a sort of way and gain a glorious past.

Actually, the idea that Romans came from Troy and were associated with the people of Aeneis was a Ptolemaic story. The story existed long before Virgil used it for many political aims. For example, by constructing a lineage between Julius Caesar and Aeneis, Virgil legitimized the rule of Augustus, during who's reign the story was written. It also, by using Aeneis as an example, hoped to improve the moral and ethical situation in Rome. It is true however that such stories can be used and may have been used in part to glorify Rome's past. By the time it was written they were a world power with many different people living under their control.

[ziegenpeter]

When the Celts got under the influence of Roman (therefore Greek) culture, the Romans distribute the "rolls" their god had to the Celtic gods, as they deemed fit. Many peoples had their very own stuff, before Greeks and Romans forced their beliefs upon them.

:thumbsdown: i wouldnt say so

[desert]

1) Phalanx: The phalanx was by no means a Greek invention. It has been used by many different people from east to west such as the Assyrians who used it with great success. Greek warfare lacked the phalanx until the hoplite reforms. While it is impossible to tell for sure where the Romans came from, we know from their mythology that they believed they were conquerors, not colonists. This means someone was already living in Italy when they showed up, and they had to fight for their place. We know that a lot of Roman innovations were adopted from their northern neighbors, the Etruscans, who were in turn influenced by the Greeks. The Romans no doubt adopted new fighting techniques to best combat those of their Italic neighbors.

Well, you can't really group all early Iron Age formations of massed spearmen as "phalanxes". And I've heard the argument that the Greeks were already familiar with phalanxes by the end of the Dark Ages, and the invention of the hoplite panoply was just an improvement in existing equipment for old tactics.

[antisocialmunky]

Speaking of Aeneas, don't a lot of the recent genetic and linguistic analysis indicate that the Etruscans came form N.Anatolia or about there? Kinda like a reverse Galatia.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Generally speaking the European religious Pantheon was a fairly logical structure, if you look at Germania and Rome circa 100 AD you can see that Tyr and Zues are basically fulfilling the same functions. Religion also tends to develop along fairly regular lines, it usually voils down to a monotheistic paternalism eventually, make of that what you will.

Anyway, the Trojan Ancestry of Rome is a very ancient myth which is quite plausable and impossible to verify or deny. Generally speaking, we have found Mediteranian myths to be surprisingly accurate. Modern and ancient estimates of the time of the Trojan War differ only roughly 50 years or so.

[desert]

Generally speaking, we have found Mediteranian myths to be surprisingly accurate. Modern and ancient estimates of the time of the Trojan War differ only roughly 50 years or so.

Apparently the Iliad has some elements of Mycenean culture with chariots and powerful kings and individual duels, Dark Ages warfare with descriptions of raids and hit-and-run warfare, and the early poleis with the vaguely democratic councils and armored men fighting in dense formation. What can you tell me about that?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Apparently the Iliad has some elements of Mycenean culture with chariots and powerful kings and individual duels, Dark Ages warfare with descriptions of raids and hit-and-run warfare, and the early poleis with the vaguely democratic councils and armored men fighting in dense formation. What can you tell me about that?

That's pretty general, what do you want to know about it?

I could tell you, for example, that Homer knows almost 70 ways to kill a man with spear, sword and bow, or that he records the use of writing (a letter) in the tale of Bellathoron.

[Rilder]

Actually, the idea that Romans came from Troy and were associated with the people of Aeneis was a Ptolemaic story. The story existed long before Virgil used it for many political aims. For example, by constructing a lineage between Julius Caesar and Aeneis, Virgil legitimized the rule of Augustus, during who's reign the story was written. It also, by using Aeneis as an example, hoped to improve the moral and ethical situation in Rome. It is true however that such stories can be used and may have been used in part to glorify Rome's past. By the time it was written they were a world power with many different people living under their control.


Well you gotta admit it'd be quite awesome for the Greeks to sack Troy only to be conquered by the descendants of the refugees who fled Troy. (If I have the story right) :laugh4:

[desert]

Well, what can you tell me about the amalgamation of Mycenaean, Dark Age, and polis culture in the Iliad by Homer.

[Zaknafien]

I suggest this book for you.

The Beginnings of Rome: Italy From the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (Circa 1,000 to 264 B.C.) (Routledge History of the Ancient World) by Tim Cornell

[Geticus]

Hello folks, long time lurker,

I think that Dionysios of Halikarnassos did the most diligent research into the origins of Rome, he lived during the time of Augustus and studied in Rome for over a decade, his primary thesis of his entire history was that the Roman nation was primarily composed of:

1)Bronze age Arcadian Greeks who crossed from the Peloponnese into Italy during the pre-Trojan war era
2)Bronze age Pelasgian semi-Greeks who likewise crossed the Adriatic from Thessaly/Dodonia and blended with #1 to form the "aborigines" who were the primary racial stock of the Prisci Latini
3)More Arcadian Greeks who crossed over with Euandros
4)Other Indo-European adventurers who left Herakles' army and settled in Italy
5)Trojan refugees under Aeneas who intermarried with the Prisci Latini to form the aristocracy of Alba Longa and eventually Roma which dominated the non Trojanized Latin cities. (if you don't believe this merely because it seems mythical then read Dionysios' history of Rome, Plutarch, Velleius Paterculus etc. really the Roman aristocrats were stern ancestor worshippers and many were mishellenic it is not probable that some philhellenizing clique of Roman literati could have gained over the more brutal faction of the Roman nobility and falsified Roman origins after they had already reduced the militarily despised Greeks to servitude. Why did the dictator Sulla, who conquered Athens and Pontos, reinstate the Trojan cavalry exercise of the Ludus Troiae? To curry respect with subjugated Greeks? I really doubt it.
6)Sabines during and after the kingship of Romulus, perhaps Dorian Greek origins.
7)Shepherds, rogues, runaway slaves and adventurers from Italy
8)Etruscans

So based on this I would say that yeah the Roman nation was substantially Greek or Proto-Greek but the imperial genius of Rome, the summa rerum as the Romans would say, was primarily Trojan. Don't any EB players believe in heroes wtf?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hello folks, long time lurker,

I think that Dionysios of Halikarnassos did the most diligent research into the origins of Rome, he lived during the time of Augustus and studied in Rome for over a decade, his primary thesis of his entire history was that the Roman nation was primarily composed of:

1)Bronze age Arcadian Greeks who crossed from the Peloponnese into Italy during the pre-Trojan war era
2)Bronze age Pelasgian semi-Greeks who likewise crossed the Adriatic from Thessaly/Dodonia and blended with #1 to form the "aborigines" who were the primary racial stock of the Prisci Latini
3)More Arcadian Greeks who crossed over with Euandros
4)Other Indo-European adventurers who left Herakles' army and settled in Italy
5)Trojan refugees under Aeneas who intermarried with the Prisci Latini to form the aristocracy of Alba Longa and eventually Roma which dominated the non Trojanized Latin cities. (if you don't believe this merely because it seems mythical then read Dionysios' history of Rome, Plutarch, Velleius Paterculus etc. really the Roman aristocrats were stern ancestor worshippers and many were mishellenic it is not probable that some philhellenizing clique of Roman literati could have gained over the more brutal faction of the Roman nobility and falsified Roman origins after they had already reduced the militarily despised Greeks to servitude. Why did the dictator Sulla, who conquered Athens and Pontos, reinstate the Trojan cavalry exercise of the Ludus Troiae? To curry respect with subjugated Greeks? I really doubt it.
6)Sabines during and after the kingship of Romulus, perhaps Dorian Greek origins.
7)Shepherds, rogues, runaway slaves and adventurers from Italy
8)Etruscans

So based on this I would say that yeah the Roman nation was substantially Greek or Proto-Greek but the imperial genius of Rome, the summa rerum as the Romans would say, was primarily Trojan. Don't any EB players believe in heroes wtf?

This all is patently absurd, for one thing the Romans don't speak Greek, and given the fact that the Mycenaeans clearly did, this makes little sense. Further, there was probably always Greeks in Italy, and they did not recognise the Romans as kin.

Dionysius also assumed that there were no previous inhabitants of Italy, which is also absurd.

[Macilrille]

I second that and almost choked on my coffee when I read that post. Latin is derived from Latino-Faliscan, which again is part of the Italic language tree, about as far from Greek as Ancient German was in the Indo-European language tree.

[Aurgelmir]

I think romans are aliens...they came down to us,conqerd alot of the planet to get a grip here.
Then they assimilated christianity,to control earth....And they still rule...:clown:

[machinor]

Regarding Italic native inhabitants... I somehere read, that in Antiquity lots of historians considered the Umbrians as the oldest inhabitants of Italy. Also the debate on the origin of the Etruscans was about the same as today. It is quite interesting how some scientific debates persist over such a long timespan.

[Fluvius Camillus]

Perhaps this also can be useful..

http://www.roman-empire.net

Rome from Romulus to Palaelogus

[Zaknafien]

seeing as how Romulous didnt exist that site isnt much use. genetically the latins are descended from the same indo-european stock as the rest of the continent, and, as any culture isolated (by a penninsula surrounded by mountains) developed a more unique languge and culture (villanovan?) in their isolation.

[Fluvius Camillus]

seeing as how Romulous didnt exist that site isnt much use. genetically the latins are descended from the same indo-european stock as the rest of the continent, and, as any culture isolated (by a penninsula surrounded by mountains) developed a more unique languge and culture (villanovan?) in their isolation.

Much use? I suggest you read it first before drawing any conclusions...

At least read the timeline on the left, and if you've read it, you know the site also states that the foundation of Rome is mostly guesswork with myths.

[Africanvs]

seeing as how Romulous didnt exist...

Do you have some proof that I'm not aware of or it would it be more correct to say, we're not sure that Romulus even existed?

[Zaknafien]

Much use? I suggest you read it first before drawing any conclusions...

At least read the timeline on the left, and if you've read it, you know the site also states that the foundation of Rome is mostly guesswork with myths.

if you rely on archaic writings, sure. but modern anthropological science can assist us in determining the history of the peoples of italia, both linguistically and genetically.

re: romulus, im fairly certain we can say a man raised by a she-wolf did not exist. there is undoubtedly a collection of myths surrounding a possible war-leader who existed in the archaic era that the story of romulus is based from.

[Fluvius Camillus]

if you rely on archaic writings, sure. but modern anthropological science can assist us in determining the history of the peoples of italia, both linguistically and genetically.

re: romulus, im fairly certain we can say a man raised by a she-wolf did not exist. there is undoubtedly a collection of myths surrounding a possible war-leader who existed in the archaic era that the story of romulus is based from.

I still see no sources (apart from the book mentioned earlier), please take the time to read my source, then determine at the end how reliable you think my source is, dont jump to conclusions on things you have not read. Also if you disagree to the mytical founding, that does not effect the truthfullness of the part after the founding to the fall of Constantinople.

About Romulus, I know the whole myth is not true, but you haven't proven that there was no man of reasonable importance called Romulus that time.

Also, I must inform that your signature is incorrect, I have never heard of a Seutonius, I do know that there was a man named Suetonius(in english and latin named alike) who wrote about the life of ceasar.

~Fluvius

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

Fascinating debate here. I love this community and the sheer volume of not only knowledge, but resourcefulness that is so readily accessible.

Much love to the EB community

[Zaknafien]

come on dude seriously? youre going to critique me for having a typo in my signature from 3 years ago? LOL.. nice.

anyways, the site you posted is fine, theres nothing inherently wrong with it as history for the general populace, its sleek and well designed and easy to read, but it should not be mistaken for real scholarship at a graduate level.

[Fluvius Camillus]

come on dude seriously? youre going to critique me for having a typo in my signature from 3 years ago? LOL.. nice.

anyways, the site you posted is fine, theres nothing inherently wrong with it as history for the general populace, its sleek and well designed and easy to read, but it should not be mistaken for real scholarship at a graduate level.

Haha ok, that might be overcritical... but still, you are the Romani researcher (looking at your name), so you are expected to be all knowing and as researcher you can afford no mistakes..:yes:

just correct it~;)

thank you, I used it a lot, I see it as a nice overview of the Roman time span...

As I am fond of Roman history, could you point some good roman sources out to me?:book:

[Macilrille]

What is your particular interest and what languages do you speak?

[Zaknafien]

theres not too many good websites unless you have access to JSTOR. (you can get access through most universities). I can suggest some good books but some of them are expensive.

[Macilrille]

Libraries are free and can get him all the books he wants, but we sort of need to know what he wants to know and what languages he reads. Much scholarly work on Rome is in French or German (Mommsen did not live in vain).

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

Dionysius’ primary aim is to prove that Rome is, in reality, a Greek city – a polis miscast as a civitas. Since the Romans have always lived like Greeks (bi/on (Ellhna zw~ntev, 1.90.1), “all that is good in Roman society… is attributable to Greek ideals and Greek culture” (Schultze 132-8). In other words, the historian ensures that, although Rome is ‘the’ empire, the Greeks maintain their traditional habit of appropriating others into their society (Swain 1996: 161). As Gruen (1992: 6-21) has shown via his analysis of Greek authors writing on archaic Rome, postulating a Hellenic origin for the city was not an innovation particular to Dionysius;

The most Greek of authors, Homer, sings a few words on the subject as well.38 Dionysius himself, in fact (as well as Plutarch, Festus, and Servius) collected many accounts of earlier Greek authors writing the ‘Greek’ history of Rome (Bickerman 1952: 65).39 Like other pro-Rome authors, however (for example, Aelius Aristides and his 26th oration), Dionysius’ reasoning is that Romans are Romans, and thus necessarily better than their predecessors.

A common topos that Dionysius uses to prove the Greek origins of Roman society is the similarity of many Roman political and social institutions to their Hellenic prototypes. Beginning with Romulus, who himself maintains Greek-inspired marriage laws (2.24-25), the Roman people as depicted in the Roman Antiquities uphold a very ‘Greek’ set of civic and ethical standards (6.83-6, 8.5-8; Gabba 1991: 203). Dionysius asserts that political and social institutions such as clientship (2.9.2), the Senate , the dictatorship (5.73-4), and ovatio (5.47.2) all have their origins in Greece, and links Roman magistrates to their Greek equivalents (5.73.3). The historian also notes the similarity between Roman and Spartan kings (2.14.2), namely that neither had arbitrary power (Hill: 1969: 89).

Religion, too, is a frequent topic in the Roman Antiquities, and a facet of Roman society which Dionysius identifies, along with politics and society, as Greek in origin. To point out a few examples: Numa invented a story concerning Egeria (emulating the examples of Minos of Crete and Lycurgus of Sparta) in order that the people would be fear the gods (2.61.1-2), and instituted a temple to the Greek god Faith (2.75); the rites of the goddess Vesta were originally brought to the city by Romulus’ Greek ancestors (2.65.1-2); Dionysius remarks that Greek Sibylline oracles are among Rome’s most prized possessions (4.62). The ancient rites of Hercules, still performed in Dionysius’ time, are even more explicitly the product of ‘Greek Romans.’ Hercules and the Epeans erected an altar to Saturn o\v( e)/ti kai\ nu=n diame/nei para\ th=| r(i/zh| tou= lo/fou kata\ th\n a)\nodon th\n a_po t=hv a_gora=v fe/rousan ei)v to\ Kapitw/lion (‘which remains to this day at the foot of the hill near the ascent that leads from the forum to the Capitol,’ 1.34). In other words, the Romans are so Greek that even the religious rituals of the fabled Hellenic heroes, of whom Hercules was one of the most distinguished, have their roots in the heart of Rome itself.

Being a good and pious citizen –a requirement of a healthy city, state, or empire (Dionysius singles out Romulus, 2.18) – is an essential part of the Roman (and Greek) identity. This need for piety is, in effect, a need to acknowledge the Greek origins of Rome’s religious rites. To those who question his hypothesis, the historian argues that, if Romans were not Greeks but barbarians, tosou/tou a\)n e de/hsan au)toi\ ta\ patrw|~a i(era\ kai\ tou\v e)pixwri/ouv e)qismou\v a)pomaqei~n, di ) ou(\v ei)v tosau/thn proh~lqon e)daimoni/an, w#ste kai\ toi~v a@lloiv a#pasin, w}n h}rxon, e)n kalw~| kate/sthsan tou\v qeou\v toi~v sfete/roiv tima~n nomi/moiv: kai\ ou)qe\n a#pan e)kbebarbarw~sqai to\ (Ellhniko\n u(po\ (Rwmai/wn e(bdo/mhn h)/dh kratou/menon u(p ) au)tw~n genea/n, ei@per h}san
ba/rbaroi. (7.70)
They would have been so far from forgetting their ancestral rites and the established customs of their country, by which they had attained to so great prosperity, that they would even have made it to the interest of all their subjects as well to honour the gods according to the customary Roman ceremonies; and nothing could have hindered the whole Greek world, which is now subject to the Romans for already the seventh generation, from being barbarized if the Romans had indeed been barbarians.
In other words, had Rome not been a Hellenic city in origin, when it took over the Greek world it would have converted all of the native religious customs to ‘barbarous’ Roman rites. Since, as Dionysius reasons, the current Greek rites are the same as they have always been – and just happen to be the same as the ones the Romans practice – then they must be the same culture. Otherwise, the current state of religious affairs in Rome would be such that the city would have forgotten all of its native rites. Similarly, when discussing why he believes the Tyrrhenians were not a Lydian colony, Dionysius cites as his primary evidence that Tyrrehenians ou!te… qeou\v Ludoi~v tou\v au)tou\v nomi/zousin ou!te no/moiv ou!t ) e)pithdeu/masi ke/xrhntai paraplhsi/oiv (‘neither worship the same
gods as the Lydians nor make use of similar laws or institutions,’ 1.30) – the same criteria the historian uses to argue for Rome’s Hellenic roots. Since the Tyrrhenians are not Lydian because they do not have the same religious customs or laws, so the Romans are Greeks because they do observe the same rites, speak a language derived from a mixture of Greek and foreign tongues (ba/rbarov – ‘barbarian,’ to use Dionysius’ language), and utilize a similar legal system (1.89-90).
In ascribing Rome’s political, social, and religious customs to the Greeks, Dionysius is essentially arguing that the Hellenization of Rome in modern (for Dionysius) times – of which he himself, as a Greek author writing about, and partaking in, the empire, is a part – began in a “prehistoric stage,”41 before “the more recent cultural influences of the Hellenistic period” (Gabba 1991: 11) embodied by men such as Cicero who took an active interest in the ins-and-outs of Greek culture. The prominent presence of Hellenization in the Roman Antiquities, however, does not rob the Romans of all of their unique, non-Greek qualities. Dionysius may identify the Greekness of the Romans, but he is firm in pointing out their political superiority to the old Athenian and Spartan constitutions, especially concerning “the Roman capacity to assimilate other populations” via citizenship, which was the basis for their rightful (so the historian believes) hegemony and moral magnanimity (Gabba 1991: 87). In other words, while the majority of their institutions may be Greek, the Romans’ ability to use these institutions (along with the citizenship policy, an innovation of the new city) to build their empire propels them beyond their roots. This, in turn, makes them worthy of being, as fellow pundit Aelius
Aristides would say much later, the universal country.

[Geticus]

This all is patently absurd, for one thing the Romans don't speak Greek, and given the fact that the Mycenaeans clearly did, this makes little sense. Further, there was probably always Greeks in Italy, and they did not recognise the Romans as kin.

Dionysius also assumed that there were no previous inhabitants of Italy, which is also absurd.

According to Cicero Hellenic words were much more common in the Latin tongue during the early republican era, as to why pronunciation and orthographic changes away from more obviously Hellenic or Hellenic-related forms occured during the Republican era, I have no opinion. How familiar are you with Latin and ancient Greek? To say that Latin is not like Greek is like saying that you don't study both languages. As to there always being Greeks in Italy and them not recognizing the Romans, who are you referring to? Magna Graecia? They were Dorians. Dionysios refers to pre-Mycenaen era Arcadian immigrants, later modified by later Bronze-Pelasgian immigrants forming the primary stratum of the aboriginal Latins. What sort of proto-indo European language Arcadian Greeks and Pelasgians were using prior to the golden age of Mycenae is anyones guess.

Dionysios did assume there were prior inhabitants in Italy, the Siceli to name one group, who eventually were largely expelled from the peninsula into Sicily by the Pelasgians. But that probably seems to mythical for your credence as well. Oh well to each there own when it comes to history.

[Rilder]

seeing as how Romulous didnt exist

Isn't this statement sort of bounding into telling someone's religion is false though, basicly like going up to a christian and saying "Jesus" didn't exist and that their religion is false.

[Geticus]

Dionysius’ primary aim is to prove that Rome is, in reality, a Greek city – a polis miscast as a civitas. Since the Romans have always lived like Greeks (bi/on (Ellhna zw~ntev, 1.90.1), “all that is good in Roman society… is attributable to Greek ideals and Greek culture” (Schultze 132-8). In other words, the historian ensures that, although Rome is ‘the’ empire, the Greeks maintain their traditional habit of appropriating others into their society (Swain 1996: 161). As Gruen (1992: 6-21) has shown via his analysis of Greek authors writing on archaic Rome, postulating a Hellenic origin for the city was not an innovation particular to Dionysius;

The most Greek of authors, Homer, sings a few words on the subject as well.38 Dionysius himself, in fact (as well as Plutarch, Festus, and Servius) collected many accounts of earlier Greek authors writing the ‘Greek’ history of Rome (Bickerman 1952: 65).39 Like other pro-Rome authors, however (for example, Aelius Aristides and his 26th oration), Dionysius’ reasoning is that Romans are Romans, and thus necessarily better than their predecessors.

A common topos that Dionysius uses to prove the Greek origins of Roman society is the similarity of many Roman political and social institutions to their Hellenic prototypes. Beginning with Romulus, who himself maintains Greek-inspired marriage laws (2.24-25), the Roman people as depicted in the Roman Antiquities uphold a very ‘Greek’ set of civic and ethical standards (6.83-6, 8.5-8; Gabba 1991: 203). Dionysius asserts that political and social institutions such as clientship (2.9.2), the Senate , the dictatorship (5.73-4), and ovatio (5.47.2) all have their origins in Greece, and links Roman magistrates to their Greek equivalents (5.73.3). The historian also notes the similarity between Roman and Spartan kings (2.14.2), namely that neither had arbitrary power (Hill: 1969: 89).

Religion, too, is a frequent topic in the Roman Antiquities, and a facet of Roman society which Dionysius identifies, along with politics and society, as Greek in origin. To point out a few examples: Numa invented a story concerning Egeria (emulating the examples of Minos of Crete and Lycurgus of Sparta) in order that the people would be fear the gods (2.61.1-2), and instituted a temple to the Greek god Faith (2.75); the rites of the goddess Vesta were originally brought to the city by Romulus’ Greek ancestors (2.65.1-2); Dionysius remarks that Greek Sibylline oracles are among Rome’s most prized possessions (4.62). The ancient rites of Hercules, still performed in Dionysius’ time, are even more explicitly the product of ‘Greek Romans.’ Hercules and the Epeans erected an altar to Saturn o\v( e)/ti kai\ nu=n diame/nei para\ th=| r(i/zh| tou= lo/fou kata\ th\n a)\nodon th\n a_po t=hv a_gora=v fe/rousan ei)v to\ Kapitw/lion (‘which remains to this day at the foot of the hill near the ascent that leads from the forum to the Capitol,’ 1.34). In other words, the Romans are so Greek that even the religious rituals of the fabled Hellenic heroes, of whom Hercules was one of the most distinguished, have their roots in the heart of Rome itself.

Being a good and pious citizen –a requirement of a healthy city, state, or empire (Dionysius singles out Romulus, 2.18) – is an essential part of the Roman (and Greek) identity. This need for piety is, in effect, a need to acknowledge the Greek origins of Rome’s religious rites. To those who question his hypothesis, the historian argues that, if Romans were not Greeks but barbarians, tosou/tou a\)n e de/hsan au)toi\ ta\ patrw|~a i(era\ kai\ tou\v e)pixwri/ouv e)qismou\v a)pomaqei~n, di ) ou(\v ei)v tosau/thn proh~lqon e)daimoni/an, w#ste kai\ toi~v a@lloiv a#pasin, w}n h}rxon, e)n kalw~| kate/sthsan tou\v qeou\v toi~v sfete/roiv tima~n nomi/moiv: kai\ ou)qe\n a#pan e)kbebarbarw~sqai to\ (Ellhniko\n u(po\ (Rwmai/wn e(bdo/mhn h)/dh kratou/menon u(p ) au)tw~n genea/n, ei@per h}san
ba/rbaroi. (7.70)
They would have been so far from forgetting their ancestral rites and the established customs of their country, by which they had attained to so great prosperity, that they would even have made it to the interest of all their subjects as well to honour the gods according to the customary Roman ceremonies; and nothing could have hindered the whole Greek world, which is now subject to the Romans for already the seventh generation, from being barbarized if the Romans had indeed been barbarians.
In other words, had Rome not been a Hellenic city in origin, when it took over the Greek world it would have converted all of the native religious customs to ‘barbarous’ Roman rites. Since, as Dionysius reasons, the current Greek rites are the same as they have always been – and just happen to be the same as the ones the Romans practice – then they must be the same culture. Otherwise, the current state of religious affairs in Rome would be such that the city would have forgotten all of its native rites. Similarly, when discussing why he believes the Tyrrhenians were not a Lydian colony, Dionysius cites as his primary evidence that Tyrrehenians ou!te… qeou\v Ludoi~v tou\v au)tou\v nomi/zousin ou!te no/moiv ou!t ) e)pithdeu/masi ke/xrhntai paraplhsi/oiv (‘neither worship the same
gods as the Lydians nor make use of similar laws or institutions,’ 1.30) – the same criteria the historian uses to argue for Rome’s Hellenic roots. Since the Tyrrhenians are not Lydian because they do not have the same religious customs or laws, so the Romans are Greeks because they do observe the same rites, speak a language derived from a mixture of Greek and foreign tongues (ba/rbarov – ‘barbarian,’ to use Dionysius’ language), and utilize a similar legal system (1.89-90).
In ascribing Rome’s political, social, and religious customs to the Greeks, Dionysius is essentially arguing that the Hellenization of Rome in modern (for Dionysius) times – of which he himself, as a Greek author writing about, and partaking in, the empire, is a part – began in a “prehistoric stage,”41 before “the more recent cultural influences of the Hellenistic period” (Gabba 1991: 11) embodied by men such as Cicero who took an active interest in the ins-and-outs of Greek culture. The prominent presence of Hellenization in the Roman Antiquities, however, does not rob the Romans of all of their unique, non-Greek qualities. Dionysius may identify the Greekness of the Romans, but he is firm in pointing out their political superiority to the old Athenian and Spartan constitutions, especially concerning “the Roman capacity to assimilate other populations” via citizenship, which was the basis for their rightful (so the historian believes) hegemony and moral magnanimity (Gabba 1991: 87). In other words, while the majority of their institutions may be Greek, the Romans’ ability to use these institutions (along with the citizenship policy, an innovation of the new city) to build their empire propels them beyond their roots. This, in turn, makes them worthy of being, as fellow pundit Aelius
Aristides would say much later, the universal country.

I agree in large part, though to assume that all things Hellenistic in Rome necessarily came from Hellas is to deny the possibility of an proto-Hellenistic culture that contained much of later Greek religious rituals and basic beliefs, without being totally limited to the Greeks. This would explain how Trojan refugees in Sicily and Rome (not to mention Briton lol) would in later times merge with the arising greater Classical culture. Granted, I find Dionysios' research largely cogent, but at the same time I am somewhat allergic to the academic tendency towards Hellenocentrism and philatticism.

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

I agree in large part, though to assume that all things Hellenistic in Rome necessarily came from Hellas is to deny the possibility of an proto-Hellenistic culture that contained much of later Greek religious rituals and basic beliefs, without being totally limited to the Greeks. This would explain how Trojan refugees in Sicily and Rome (not to mention Briton lol) would in later times merge with the arising greater Classical culture. Granted, I find Dionysios' research largely cogent, but at the same time I am somewhat allergic to the academic tendency towards Hellenocentrism and philatticism.

I agree. Rome was probably influenced by a proto-Hellenistic culture.

[SwissBarbar]

Southern Italy was Hellenic, therefore most likely the Romans did be influenced by Greek culture. Later Roman gods have been equaled with greek gods, f.e. see Mars, who once also was an agricultural god and then became the equivalent of Ares, or Neptun, who once was the god of flowing waters and then became the equivalent of Poseidon and therefore god of the sea.

Later the Romans did the same thing otherwise round with other cultures, f.e. the Celts, whose own gods became equivalents of Roman gods and thereby changed their abilities a bit.

But in my opinion the origin of Roman culture was Italic/Etruscan/even Celtic (compare the similarity of Celtic and Latin grammar) and not Greek from the first moment on.

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

Southern Italy was Hellenic, therefore most likely the Romans did be influenced by Greek culture. Later Roman gods have been equaled with greek gods, f.e. see Mars, who once also was an agricultural god and then became the equivalent of Ares, or Neptun, who once was the god of flowing waters and then became the equivalent of Poseidon and therefore god of the sea.

Later the Romans did the same thing otherwise round with other cultures, f.e. the Celts, whose own gods became equivalents of Roman gods and thereby changed their abilities a bit.

But in my opinion the origin of Roman culture was Italic/Etruscan/even Celtic (compare the similarity of Celtic and Latin grammar) and not Greek from the first moment on.



The city’s “cultural melting pot,” as Woolf calls it, extends back to its Greek, Etruscan, and Italian roots, not to mention influences from the many cultures it was assimilating constantly (Dench 1995: 219; Woolf 1998: 7-20).

[Zaknafien]

Isn't this statement sort of bounding into telling someone's religion is false though, basicly like going up to a christian and saying "Jesus" didn't exist and that their religion is false.

well sure. Jesus didn't exist either but thats beside the point. :laugh4:

The Latins were simply Italics that descended from ice age invaders of Europe who spoke the Centum branch of the language, and are more closely related to Celts. Their culture was much more influenced by the Etruscans than by Greeks.

[Africanvs]

well sure. Jesus didn't exist either but thats beside the point. :laugh4:

The Latins were simply Italics that descended from ice age invaders of Europe who spoke the Centum branch of the language, and are more closely related to Celts. Their culture was much more influenced by the Etruscans than by Greeks.

1) Jesus ~ Nothing to do with this thread.

2) Romulus ~ Disagreeing with certain details in the myth doesn't mean the character of Romulus never existed. This is jumping to conclusions. The most important thing about the Romulus myth, and any myth, is what the Romans want other people to know about them. They want us to know they came from somewhere else, that they're conquerors, etc. The Romulus myth is basically your typical baby in a basket myth. While putting babies in a basket and sending them down the Tiber might be strange to us today, it was relatively common to expose a child in those days. Reason being, it was a sacriledge to kill a blood relative and the Romans had bunches of gods who would punish you for this. That being the case, people would expose children therefore placing the fate of the children in the hands of the gods. As far as Romulus and Remus being suckled by a she-wolf, the word for she-wolf in latin, lupa, also means prostitute as the short for lupanar, the word for brothel. Take out the she-wolf part and the myth becomes rather mundane. Would it be so hard to imagine that Romulus was raised by a prostitute, then took his rightful place and founded a city? In killing his brother, the Romans are showing us that nothing is more important to them than Rome, not even the family. I find it futile to spend too much time trying to disprove a myth. Myths are ambiguous and their purpose is not to be history, but to define their people and culture. Many of them are passed down verbally over many years before ever being written down.

3) Latins ~ What you say is quite possible, but there is a case for the other side of the arguement. As a matter of fact when researching I came across this. Very interesting, I recommend anyone interested in this topic read it in full. It makes several intelligent points. It seems to be credible, written by a professor, and has a full list of sources. Clickety. (http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.21.en.the_ethnic_cleaning_of_roman_history.01.htm)

[artavazd]

Speaking of Aeneas, don't a lot of the recent genetic and linguistic analysis indicate that the Etruscans came form N.Anatolia or about there? Kinda like a reverse Galatia.

They had good trading contacts with the Armenian kingdom of Urartu, and yes they came from the area close to historic Armenia.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree in large part, though to assume that all things Hellenistic in Rome necessarily came from Hellas is to deny the possibility of an proto-Hellenistic culture that contained much of later Greek religious rituals and basic beliefs, without being totally limited to the Greeks. This would explain how Trojan refugees in Sicily and Rome (not to mention Briton lol) would in later times merge with the arising greater Classical culture. Granted, I find Dionysios' research largely cogent, but at the same time I am somewhat allergic to the academic tendency towards Hellenocentrism and philatticism.

Ok, you are joking, right? Trojan refugees in Britain?

EVERYONE wanted to be decended from Troy because Rome claimed descent from Troy, and they won the war. Not to mention that in the post-Roman medieval period claims to Roman ancestry were necessary in order to become "Roman Emperor".

[Geticus]

Southern Italy was Hellenic, therefore most likely the Romans did be influenced by Greek culture. Later Roman gods have been equaled with greek gods, f.e. see Mars, who once also was an agricultural god and then became the equivalent of Ares, or Neptun, who once was the god of flowing waters and then became the equivalent of Poseidon and therefore god of the sea.

Later the Romans did the same thing otherwise round with other cultures, f.e. the Celts, whose own gods became equivalents of Roman gods and thereby changed their abilities a bit.

But in my opinion the origin of Roman culture was Italic/Etruscan/even Celtic (compare the similarity of Celtic and Latin grammar) and not Greek from the first moment on.

Archaic Greek commonly placed a digamma (pronounced like an english "w") at the beginning of words that would later in the classical period drop the digamma and just begin with a vowel. Add the digamma to Ares and you get archaic Wares. Wares and Mars both begin with labials, it is not much of a sound change from one to the other, especially factoring in over a thousand years from the later Bronze age to the classical era when the orthographies became more standardized. Also bear in mind that Romans had at least three pronunciations for the god of war: Mars, Mavors (pronounces "Mawors", and Mamers (hence the Mamertines). Again Mavors is phonologically close to Wares/Ares, so the two deities may have been identical from the beginning and only varying in the reflex of the name over 1,000 years.

[Zaknafien]

Phillip, of course, is right. Sure, the Romans wanted everyone to think they were "special" "different" "not of this land" etc, etc etc, but so did every other ancient culture. The Jews wanted people to believe they were held in captivity in Egypt for generations, but all that was made up too, they are the same as other Semites. Hitler wanted Germans to believe they were descended from Atlantis, and George Bush wanted Americans to believe we were "chosen by God". Its the same in every culture on earth, delusions of grandeur, so to speak. In reality, the truth is almost always more boring. The science and arts of anthropology and history is to look at facts, data, and use science to determine (to the best of our ability) the truth behind the claims.

[Geticus]

Ok, you are joking, right? Trojan refugees in Britain?

EVERYONE wanted to be decended from Troy because Rome claimed descent from Troy, and they won the war. Not to mention that in the post-Roman medieval period claims to Roman ancestry were necessary in order to become "Roman Emperor".

Well regarding Britonic claims to Trojan-Greek ancestry I am agnostic. But the question of Trojan ancestry of the Iulii Caesares and of Romans in general is very much a matter of interest to me and I am definitely serious. From my viewpoint the naysayers are primarily reflecting either of two biases, the Judaeo-Christian and modern objectivist scientific. Judaeo-Christians want to deny divine origins of any traditions not their own, so Romans claims of descent from deified heroes like Aeneas and Romulus are dismissed as demonic fantasies while the peculiar beliefs of christianity etc. go unchallenged. Scientists on the other hand suffer from the dogma that experimental findings must be reproducable by multiple, this requirement makes it very difficult to verify unique events, i.e. singularities. But the reality of history is that some of the most unique persons and events are among the most important, so scienctifically inclined historians tend to strip history of extraordinary content rendering everything mundane. To my mind it is basically a question of differing types of vision.

I see several weaknesses in the view that the Trojan descent myth was a fallatious tool of imperial statescraft.
Many Roman nobles despised or partially despised the Greek nation as verbose and martially enfeebled. Claudius Marcellus sacked Syracuse. Lucius Mummius sacked Corinth. the Dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla who reinstated the Trojan cavalry exercises of the ludus Troiae sacked Athens. I believe the great military reformer and so called third founder of Rome Gaius Marius was generally critical of Greeks, he certainly is responsible for butchering in the streets a large portion of the philhellenic and oratorical elitist portion of the Roman nobility of his day. Furthermore Greek achievements during the classical era of Athens and Sparta nonetheless paled in comparison to the overall conquests of the Romans. So how would the more brutal and mishellenic portion of the Roman nobility have possibly allowed a group of philhellenic literary men to fictionalize Roman origins and say that Romans were descended from Trojan losers who were vanquished by the oft-despised Greeks? The authors of the fiction would have been publicly vilified.

If the Romans wanted to lend fictitious dignity to their origins they would have claimed descent not from the losing nation but rather from the victors of the Trojan War, and thereby claimed descent from Argive Herakles who already had altars in the city of Rome from the earliest times, or from Diomedes who allegedly migrated into Italy. In Homer Diomedes wounds the god of war Ares in hand to hand combat, so there is no need to claim descent from the lesser champion of Troy Aeneas who is an inferior hero. There is no reason for Romans to claim descent from Trojan losers if they want to lend their name false mythical luster, just claim bloodline descent from Herakles like Marc Antony did. So personally I see no reason for the Romans, who worshipped their ancestors with religious cult, and who used to make public speeches on the virtues of their ancestors whenever one of their patres familias died, would have en masse accepted a fictitious origin myth of their city claiming descent from a Trojan loser and refugee when more flattering options were available.

The same weakness is in the typical contemporary dismissals of the Romulus myth. People who dismiss the Romulus myth need to read all the material in Dionysios especially, alongside Plutarch and Livy etc. The Romulus myth is confused and not very flattering. Romulus killed his own brother to found the city, and ordered the Sabine women to be violently seized and hauled off at a holy festival dedicated to Neptune in total treachery and violation of good faith and divine law. If this is a Homeric fiction than where is the lightning bolt striking Romulus down and the earthquake manifesting Poseidon's divine nemesis after the holy festival was defiled by a broken treaty? If it is a phil-Athenian conceit then why doesn't Romulus get conquered in war and fall from grace like Theseus, the founder of Athens, after the Theseus kidnapped and raped Hellen? As to Romulus' military career, it consisted of comparatively modest and mediocre victories over his immediate neighbors in central Italy, this is no Alexander, Cyrus or King David. If the Romans wanted to lend great glory to their founder they could have granted him a far greater victory than marching against his uncle and beating a small force of bodyguards of Alba Longa with a ragtag army of shepherds, hunters and runaway slaves. So in short the Romulus myth is not glorious enough to justify the alergic reaction of academia against it. The main reason it is dismissed out of hand is the claim of Romulus' divine descent from Venus and Mars, and this is chiefly a Judaeo-christian and scientific based allergy. Strip away the demigod thing and the accounts of Romulus appear modest, lacking the gross license of much myth and lacking the glory of the historically certain achievements of men like Phillip and Alexander of Macedon, Cyrus the Great, William the Conqueror, Genghis Khan etc.

[Zaknafien]

your dismissal of science is ludicrous. the science of history and social anthroplogy has numerous tools as its disposal, perhaps the most imporant of which now is DNA. with genetic sequencing the origins of peoples and cultures is fairly easy to determine.

[Geticus]

See if you can get a research grant to test Julius Caesar's DNA to verify if he was in fact Trojan. I'll be all ears:laugh4:

[Ibrahim]

See if you can get a research grant to test Julius Caesar's DNA to verify if he was in fact Trojan. I'll be all ears:laugh4:

aren't you pushing it a bit there?:inquisitive:
EDIT: as in, provoking the above person.

[Zaknafien]

Theres hardly anything that would lead us to place credence in a Greek origin for the Romans. The Greeks, of course, had a very Hellenocentric view of meditteranean pre-history. this approach aimed to reconstruct the events of prehistoric times by rationalizing the myths and legends of the greek heroic age. by the hellenistic period, greek historical writing about the remote past could be defined as 'the study of genealogies, foundations of cities, and relatonships between peoples'--(Polybius)

THe method was hellenocentric because the greeks connected the origins of non-greek peoples with the activities of greek heroes, and thus incorporated them into their world-view. for example, they believed that india was colonized by dionysus and heracles, that the persians were descended from perseus, and the celts were the product of a union between polyphemus and galatea. we dont take these claims seriously either, obviously.

lets just say that shards of broken pottery are not enough to prove or disprove a specific story, but skepticism must prevail based on the fact that the hellenoentric prehistory was the product of conjecture by hellenic scholars in athens and alexandria, not a body of broad popular myth. these versions of the roman prehistory are based not on evidence but on cultural prejudice. there is nothing in the archaeological record of the italic bronze and iron ages that proves, or even suggests any major invasions or mass migrations between 1800 and 800 BCE.

[cmacq]

There may be more here about wolves, Rome, Italics, Tusci, Anatolia, and the LBA Sea Peoples, that might first meet the eye of the casual observer. Not that I’m a great fan of the much vaunted DNA study, yet a team of geneticists from Italy and Spain recently conducted the first genetic study of the ancient Tuscans based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). From a sample of 80 human bones that had been recovered from tombs dating from the seventh century to the third century BC in Etruria, this study found that this particular population was more closely related internally than it is to the general population of modern Italy. Interestingly, the study suggests a noticeable afflation with a Near East population.

Another genetic study by the University of Turin linked the Etruscans to Turkey. The team compared DNA sequences from men in modern Turkey, northern Italy, the Greek Lemnos, the Italian Sicily and Sardinia, and the southern Balkans. They found that the sequences of modern Tuscan men varied significantly from those of men in the surrounding Italian districts, and that the men from Murlo and Volterra were the most closely related to men in northern Turkey. In Murlo in particular, one genetic variant was a very close match with the Turkish population.

There also is an ancient Tuscan bovine DNA bone study that found similar results.

There are several other lines of evidence that suggests an Anatolia connection and now we know that some Roman families were actually descended from Tusci, rather than Italics. So what does all this mean??? I, for one don't know, as wolves, Rome, and Italics may have been a completely different story.

CmacQ

[delablake]

well sure. Jesus didn't exist either but thats beside the point. :laugh4:

The Latins were simply Italics that descended from ice age invaders of Europe who spoke the Centum branch of the language, and are more closely related to Celts. Their culture was much more influenced by the Etruscans than by Greeks.

Summing it all up in a concise way! And I fully agree...

[Zaknafien]

There may be more here about wolves, Rome, Italics, Tusci, Anatolia, and the LBA Sea Peoples, that might first meet the eye of the casual observer. Not that I’m a great fan of the much vaunted DNA study, yet a team of geneticists from Italy and Spain recently conducted the first genetic study of the ancient Tuscians based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). From a sample of 80 human bones that had been recovered from tombs dating from the seventh century to the third century BC in Etruria, this study found that this particular population was more closely related internally than it is to the general population of modern Italy. Interestingly, the study suggests a noticeable afflation with a Near East population.

Another genetic study by the University of Turin linked the Etruscans to Turkey. The team compared DNA sequences from men in modern Turkey, northern Italy, the Greek Lemnos, the Italian Sicily and Sardinia, and the southern Balkans. They found that the sequences of modern Tuscan men varied significantly from those of men in the surrounding Italian districts, and that the men from Murlo and Volterra were the most closely related to men in northern Turkey. In Murlo in particular, one genetic variant was a very close match with the Turkish population.

There also is an ancient Tuscan bovine DNA bone study that found similar results.

There are several other lines of evidence that suggests an Anatolia connection and now we know that some Roman families were actually descended from Tusci, rather than Italics. So what does all this mean??? I, for one don't know, as wolves, Rome, and Italics may have been a completely different story.

CmacQ

I would say thats more because practically EVERYONE that lives in northern europe came from turkey. Indo-Europeans and all you know. That would be like claiming "wow, the Romans are descended from Africans!":beam:

[cmacq]

I would say thats more because practically EVERYONE that lives in northern europe came from turkey. Indo-Europeans and all you know. That would be like claiming "wow, the Romans are descended from Africans!":beam:

Zak, please read again.

The study I cited above found the mtDNA sample of Tusci bone was more closely related internally than it was to the general population of modern Italy, and was more closely related to an undetermined Near Eastern population group.

If as was said, 'everyone that lives in northern Europe came from turkey,' then there should be little or no such distinction between the ancient Tusci and the general population of modern Italy. Yet, the findings of the first study seem to be reinforced by the University of Turin study that compared modern populations. Here 'modern Tuscan men varied significantly from those of men in the surrounding Italian districts,' yet were 'most closely related to men in northern Turkey.'

I for one do not trust in DNA studies, yet in roughly the same time frame of the EIA we have mass naval migrations of populations from the Levant to Tunisia and Greeks as far west as Spain, for example. Plus in the LBA we have the vast upheavals that accompanied the movements of Sea People, of whom the Tusci may have been an element. Thus, the naval migration of an Anatolian population to west central Italy, a local like Tunisia as a critical maritime cough point with abundant material resources close-at-hand, is well within the realm of possibility and should not be dismissed out-of-hand.


CmacQ

[Zaknafien]

Fair enough, to an extent. But the language fragmentation of Italy in this time period suggests great isolation, not common seafaring exchange. I mean, there are numerous language subsets within the penninsula, just look at the tiny area in which Latin was spoken originally (Latium).

I will grant that Etruscans are a problem, their language is NOT indo-european, and could very well have an altogether different origin.

[cmacq]

Fair enough, to an extent. But the language fragmentation of Italy in this time period suggests great isolation, not common seafaring exchange. I mean, there are numerous language subsets within the penninsula, just look at the tiny area in which Latin was spoken originally (Latium).

I will grant that Etruscans are a problem, their language is NOT indo-european, and could very well have an altogether different origin.




Right,

another problem is the nature of Italian archaeology; it’s coverage is very haphazard and extremely regional. Of course the Romans represented a composite rural and urban city-state population, based on the Truscan and not Greek model, that was associated with the Latin tribal group, which was part of the Italic ethnos. In turn, the Italics seem to have entered Italy sometime in the European LBA, as a variant of the Urnfield Culture. This means they could not have departed the middle Danube basin before 1200 BC. This is why Latin and what we have of other Italic languages are so similar to eastern Celtic and western Baltic. It seems that the Italics initially occupied much of central Italy. Thus, the origin of the Italic Roman seems far removed to that of the Tusci.

However, it seems that in the area of modern Tuscany, the Tusci adopted some elements of the Italic Culture and the Italics some elements of the Tusci culture. I believe what the mtDNA studies may demonstrate is that the Italics arrived first in Tuscany, although in relatively small numbers, as this is a very hilly area. For the horse-bound Italics, easer and far more lucrative pickings could have been found along the eastern coastal plain and to the south. Then soon thereafter a much larger Tusci population entered by sea, and over an extended period, gained political and linguistic dominance in Tuscany while assimilating the established Italic and earlier demographic stratums. But I could very well be incorrect, as there is not enough data, at this pont on which to tailor a well-rounded theory.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that the Trojan/Roman myth is valid. Rather this was the official understanding of the Roman State in the 1st century BC and a manner of explaining a very complex issue that related to certain prominent families that clamed descent from important LBA Anatolian nobility. We also may want to consider that the late Republican Romans' perception of their early history was a bit incomplete, as many if not all records written prior to 390 BC had been destroyed when the Gauls sacked, burned, and held Rome for ransom. In other words, they many have had part of a bare-bones outline of what happened and used Homer to put on some meat and muscle to provide a reason, ‘Why We Fight,’ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrwT2K3SwGk) the Greeks.



CmacQ

[SwissBarbar]

Archaic Greek commonly placed a digamma (pronounced like an english "w") at the beginning of words that would later in the classical period drop the digamma and just begin with a vowel. Add the digamma to Ares and you get archaic Wares. Wares and Mars both begin with labials, it is not much of a sound change from one to the other, especially factoring in over a thousand years from the later Bronze age to the classical era when the orthographies became more standardized. Also bear in mind that Romans had at least three pronunciations for the god of war: Mars, Mavors (pronounces "Mawors", and Mamers (hence the Mamertines). Again Mavors is phonologically close to Wares/Ares, so the two deities may have been identical from the beginning and only varying in the reflex of the name over 1,000 years.

"Phonological archeology" in my opinion is very slippy terrain to step on. It could have been identical, but also could be a coincidence and this and that... Though I very much respect your knowledge, I'm still not quite convinced. You also could deem the Helvetii bear-goddess "Artio" as similar to the Greek war god. "artos" means bear in Celtic. "Ares" .. "artos"... Or compare the Celtic god "Esus" with "Jesus". Also 1000 years between...

[cmacq]

"Phonological archeology" in my opinion is very slippy terrain to step on.

I'm not sure what Phonological archeology is, but if its what I think it is, I agree with you.


CmacQ

[Zaknafien]

lets not discount linguistics though, they are a very effective scientific area of concentration.

[cmacq]

lets not discount linguistics though, they are a very effective scientific area of concentration.

Right, but I've witnessed it very quickly turn into SF. As for the Tuscan language, in summary, some have proposed that it was related to the Indo-European family, particularly as Woudhuizen suggests the Anatolian group. He revived an earlier theory that the Tusci came from Anatolia, claiming they were Lydians driven out by Cimmerian raids that were conduced throughout Anatolia in the early Iron Age, with a date range he provides between 750-675 BC. He makes a number of comparisons to Luwian and asserts that Truscan is a variant thereof, and suggests non-Luwian elements were a result of an embedded Mysian substratum. Overall Woudhuizen, proposed that fleeing Lydian refuges colonized Lemnos and then the Latins in Italy, while they brought their language and alphabet from Anatolia.

Personally, I find Beekes reconstruction a bit more convincing. He offers that a basal population occupied northwestern Anatolia, which was driven out by the Phrygian migration into Anatolia from southeast Europe around 1200 BC. He further suggests that as a result of this dislocation, two major ethnic groups formed with one shifting southwest to become the historic Lydians, and the other the Tyrsenoi. Of course the Tyrsenoi are found on Lemnos and later appear as the Tusci in Italy. He therefore proposes that the Truscan language was related to Lydian.

Both the Beekes and Woudhuizen theories are based on Herodotus Book 1, chapter 94, which discusses the Lydian origin of the Tusci. Interestingly, Dionysius Book 1, rejected this account of the people he referred to as Tyrrhenians, partly based on Xanthus, a Lydian historian who claimed no knowledge of the Herodotus story. Dionysius also decided that the languages, laws and religions of the two ethnos were too different to be related.

However, I might suggest that the origin of the Tusci, as well as the Sardini, and Sicani were all tied to western and northwestern Anatolia and the Sea Peoples of the LBA.


CmacQ

[Publio Cornelio Escipión Africano Mayor]

I would read the first chapter of the first book from Theodor Mommsen's History of Rome. Yes, it is a very old book, but his ideas are very good in my humble opinion.
Cheers

[Iraklis]

After spending a lot of time reading this thread i think i realise that we all are loosing a very significant point. All cultures derive from somewhere else, be that other culture or place. Trying to monopolise the background of a city as Rome for instance of beeing Greek or Celtic or Etruskan or "what ever" kind of takes us away from the one single fact all these evidence arayed here give us. The fact that every single culture in the world has influensed / been influensed by those it traded, conquered or been conquered from. Romes history as a city, much like the history of most other ppl in the world, can not be trased to a single person or a single culture, but rather in a series of influeses and diferent types of ppl. Many of the threads here have very good ideas of what could or could not be the ansestors of Rome, but non of them "where" Rome. Rome is not greek, is not celtic and is not Etruskan, cause as soon as the ppl who made the city called them selfs Romans they made there own, unic on its way, culture.
However, i will agree that Rome used "some" myths to make its coquering "justyfied", but as one on a previus post stated, what empire in history did not?

On a side note. I would not realy put too much trust on historians writing for an empire they live in and saying things from a "third person point of view" Lets not forget that empires dont realy promote the idea of free thinking and talking and also the fact that even historians are some times prone on using history as a way for political advancement rather than a science.

P.S. Sorry for the typos, but not only i aint english speeking, i am also dislexic.
P.S. You can freely flame me, i like good arguments and get excited with ppl talking dirty to me :P

[Rilder]

As they say, history is written by the Victors.

[SwissBarbar]

I'm not sure what Phonological archeology is, but if its what I think it is, I agree with you.


CmacQ

That's an expression I just had invented and therefore put in " " ^^