A question about early Roman history which has puzzled me for quite a long time

[Julianus]

I often hear people talking about the reign of the last three kings of Rome as the rule of the Etruscans over the Romans, as if Rome was conquered by the Etruscans. But from what I read in Livy's history, the first Tarquin merely immigrated into Rome from a Etruscan city, then he managed to win the people's favor and got elected as king when the old king died. So his and his successor's reign was by no means equal to the rule of Etruscans over Rome. And he was not even an Etruscan himsel, but a Greek, a Corinthian exile, who had little hope to gain access into Etruscan upper class despite of his huge wealth, that's why he decided to try his luck in a relatively young city named Rome. In Livy's records of the Tarquins' reign and even in their final banishment, I can see little national hatred of the Romans towards the Etruscans, they didn't seem to consider themselves ruled by a foreign people at all.
Almost all my knowledge about early Roman history comes from Livy, but as far as I know, his work is practically the only written historical material about that period, do I still miss something after all?

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

I think your version is correct, except the first Tarquinius was actually half-Greek and half-Etruscan. His father was Greek.

Both of the Tarquin kings were quite happy to fight wars against the Etruscan cities to the north of Rome, so as leaders of Rome, they obviously had no political loyalty to their Etruscan roots, although they may have observed some Etruscan religious practices.

So I think that attacking the kings' Etruscan roots was merely one of several methods used by their political opponents in Rome to try and discredit them in the eyes of the Roman people. Calling the king a 'foreigner' is a useful political tactic.

[Megas Methuselah]

Much of early Roman history is shrouded in myth. I think this is because a lot of their historical records were destroyed in a fire or a sack or something, I can't remember, I haven't read that damn book in years.

Whatever the case may be, some (many?) historians believe that Rome in that period was dominated by the Etruscans. This is because there's this belief that the old Roman historians might have played around with their earlier records to make themselves look better. Taking such written history as literal word-for-word truth might not be the best tactic to go about studying and deciphering early Rome.

I haven't studied this stuff, as I said, for years. So, please, correct me if I'm wrong in any way possible.

[mmiki]

Much of early Roman history is shrouded in myth. I think this is because a lot of their historical records were destroyed in a fire or a sack or something, I can't remember, I haven't read that damn book in years.

Whatever the case may be, some (many?) historians believe that Rome in that period was dominated by the Etruscans. This is because there's this belief that the old Roman historians might have played around with their earlier records to make themselves look better. Taking such written history as literal word-for-word truth might not be the best tactic to go about studying and deciphering early Rome.

I haven't studied this stuff, as I said, for years. So, please, correct me if I'm wrong in any way possible.

You're referring to the sack of Rome in around 387 BC. During the siege a fire started and everything went up in flames, including all of the documents, so everything before 387 BC is more myth than history. We do have the legends as the later Romans told them, and we have the archeological evidence.

There are clear Etruscan influences in Roman culture. Etruscans built their cities on hills and surrounded them by walls. There was an Etruscan line of kings. The fasces, the curule chair, influences in religion...The list is long.

Whether this extended into actual dominance is another issue. For the most of their early history the Romans waged war on their neighbors (including Etruscans), even under Etruscan kings. Apart from Lars Porsena who most probably managed to occupy the city for some period of time (no matter what stories Romans told their children), I wouldn't say that there was a distinct period of "Etruscan dominance". Furthermore, the Etruscans never had a unified state, they were a collection of city-states who most probably weren't always on the best of terms with one another.

In answer to the OP, I don't think that the aristocracy cared much that the king was Etruscan as long as he didn't do anything to seriously piss them off. Like tear down temples and rape one of their women.

[Megas Methuselah]

Cool post, bro.

Furthermore, the Etruscans never had a unified state, they were a collection of city-states who most probably weren't always on the best of terms with one another.

This doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility that any individual Etruscan city-state (or, as you said, any individual Etruscan family) could have exerted some level of dominance over Rome. Nor does a possibly Etruscan-dominated Rome fighting an Etruscan city-state preclude this, either.

It just makes the whole picture slightly more complicated. Etruria wasn't a united state, but neither was Classical Greece. But that "disunity" didn't stop the various Greek poleis from interfering amongst the affairs of non-Greek peoples, eh?

If the Roman monarchy was volountary, then I would presume the Roman patricians had something to gain by it. Perhaps their kings had connections (alliances?) with certain Etruscan city-states? Or maybe they admired Etruscan civilization so much as to imitate it, just as the later Germanic kingdoms would imitate Rome itself? (for legitimacy, perhaps) Let's take a look at the Aztecs for another example. When they migrated down south and settled on the Lake Texcoco, their ruling caste was quick to marry into the local (native) nobility. That way, they could claim more legitimacy and respect, as the local ruling elite all claimed descent from old Toltec royalty. (the Toltec being the semi-mythical civilization which pre-dated the Aztecs and which was supposedly the base upon which later Mesoamerican civilizations were built, in much the same way with the Germanic kingdoms and the old Roman Empire, I suppose) The later Aztec Empire thus had a royal family which proudly boasted of their Toltec lineage, something which they could use to legitimize their control over much of Mesoamerica, which is especially important considering their foreign, nomadic roots.

Also, let me again stress my lack of knowledge on early Rome. I'm just throwing my thoughts out there hoping to gain some enlightenment.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

The first King Tarquinius was simply very, very popular with the previous Roman king and his supporters. Simple as that really.

(The Roman kings didn't pass the crown from father to son, like most other cultures.)

[Cambyses]

The dominant culture in that part of the world at that time was the Etruscan culture. Just as the Greek culture dominated in much of Southern Italy.

I suspect a visitor to Rome would have had some difficulty differentiating between a "Roman" and an "Etruscan" while the Tarquins were in power. Many of the "differences" would have emerged a) when the Kings were kicked out and b) when the Romans started exerting a hegemony over their neighbours. Im not saying that the Romans were Etruscan, simply that there was culturally very little difference. (Although there were some differences in the language etc).

Livy, remember, was writing for Augustus and trying to present a picture of Rome as having an almost divine right to rule the world. He is in many respects a reliable historian, but I think its fair to say that when it comes to early Rome what he didnt know he invented (or at best relied on rumour). And he didnt know much.

[Megas Methuselah]

The first King Tarquinius was simply very, very popular with the previous Roman king and his supporters. Simple as that really.

As was stated earlier in the thread by mmiki, such information cannot be considered reliable.

[Julianus]

I am aware that Livy was not so reluctant to "adjust" fact to fit his theories, but his record not entirely reliable doesn't mean the opposite of his story must be true.
It is beyond any doubt that Etruscans had significant influence over the Romans in practically every respect, but is there any explicit if not decisive evidence of a period of Etruscan dominance in Rome?

[Megas Methuselah]

Nope, but that doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility that such a thing did happen. I'm especially scornful of early written Roman history because their damn records were burnt to the ground, though.