Who founded Rome? Romulus born to a prostitute, the 7 kings, Arcadians, Trojans...

Rome was most likely a small settlement made originally by Latin tribes, but it would have been quickly conquered and built up by the Etruscans into the actual city we know.

I'm not so sure that it was have been conquered. The seven kings were mythical, but some of them describe Etruscan tyrants that were invited to rule Rome. Early Rome definitely did benefit from Etruria but I don't think it was at the point of a sword.

It's a history and humanities board.

Myth > history, because the people identify with the myth and not the actual history.

To the romans the myth was their history

If gauls didnt burned libraries in sack of rome (earlier one) we could have more info. Sadly not even cicero etc. didnt had enough to write clearly about it.

Yes, that's what I just said.

What actually happened is absolutely irrelevant to the civilization, because their actual early years are pretty much irrelevant and almost unknowable anyway. It's kind of like trying to find the 'original' indo-european language.

>Who founded Rome? Romulus born to a prostitute, the 7 kings, Arcadians, Trojans? When does myth start to blend with reality and give us verifiable info?

Who specifically founded a settlement there, and what went on, is no longer information that can be recovered -- the dual founding myths the Romans had indicates that they did not know, either.

No point in worrying too much about it. What we DO have are those foundation myths, which tell us little about how Rome was founded, but tell us rather more about how the Romans liked to think of themselves and their city and their civilization.

To an extent -- but I think it would be dangerous to assume anything like "Oh, those simple ignorant people of the past, the believed all this shit." Many of them likely believed the foundation stories, some presumably did not but enjoyed them as a good story.

It doesn't matter if they believed it, it is their origin story.

Can't we make an educated guess who most likely founded the city based off early traditions such as lupercalia?

Why? For what purpose? Navel-gazing?

By your logic all of Roman history is pointless to learn about because it isn't relevant to today's modern society. He's curious about the origins and so am I. Some people (this will be mindblowing) find history i n t e r e s t i n g.

This is the quick answer.

Quasi believing in the old myths is fun though

No, that's not my logic.

It's like trying to find the precise details of the Jewish exodus, when those details aren't relevant to the their identity.

Romans identified with the myth, they traced themselves back to a figure that may or may not have existed. Their origins aren't what tribe(s) founded Rome, their origins are their mythology. Stop trying to rationalize everything you smelly Platonist.

What if Remus had killed Romulus instead of the other way around? Would it be called Reme?

Further: most 'evidence' says that the Trojan war probably didn't really happen to the degree that is recorded. This doesn't matter, because the story is one of identity and not history.

Just a bunch of hut dwelling, Latin stink farmers.

The character of their city, though, owes to numerous cultures, other than their own.

What I'd like to know is why were the Romans more successful than any of the other Latin tribes, what geographic advantage to Rome have?

>What I'd like to know is why were the Romans more successful than any of the other Latin tribes, what geographic advantage to Rome have?

they endured when everyone else came undone

Mythology should only be valued insofar as it doesn't contradict actual history.

If we took the Jewish scriptures' word, we would believe they built the pyramids as slaves. Doesn't matter if that story is central to Jewish identity, because it contradicts the reality that the pyramids were built by paid Egyptian workers.

Why? Muh feels? omg i need to systematize a culture alien to me because THAT MAKES ME UNDERSTAND IT MORE HAHA
Fuck off.

The only one arguing for "muh feels" is you.
>Who cares about the facts? They made up this story and it's cooler, fuck the evidence lmao
Cancerous retard.

No, I'm actually not. You do realize the will to truth is based on feeling, right?

Facts and evidence don't exist outside of a presupposed pragmatism.

Well rome may actually come from the Greek word for strength, rhome.

They controlled an important Tiber crossing, which gave them a lot of money especially from the salt trade. They were also strong and aggressive militarily.

>No, I'm actually not.
Yes, you actually are.

No, learn to read.

Learn how to make an intelligent post.
Your argument more or less amounts to "who cares", which doesn't contribute to the OP's question.

>intellectualism
Top kek

We really don't know who founded Rome. There is evidence that the site has been built on since at least 500BC, but Romulus is a myth. There is debatable evidence of the 7 kings, but we only start getting proper evidence of political figures about 300BC iirc

>proud of being retarded
lmao, suit yourself

I think you've answered your question.

>myths are wrong
Intellectualism is retardation. Fuck off, Platonist.

No, just ruled out Etruscans as founders.

>myths are correct because of my feelings
kys, shit for brains

>Istanbul speaks Turkish, so it rules out Greeks as founders
Not saying Etruscans founded Rome but that logic is dubious.

You're almost as bad as the proddycuck who ruins every Christianity thread.

There's archaeological evidence for settlement on the Palatine prior to 800 BC. Unfortunately, there's nothing distinctive enough to identify whether the folks involved were Latins or proto-Etruscans.

How strongly did the Romans believe in their origin myths, or were they just propaganda tools?

>Istanbul

Reddit can't read!
people i dont like are bad because it hurts my autistic need to systematize!

>Roman history ... isn't relevant to today's modern society.

I don't usually respond with "Wew lad," but...

They would have just fudged the name of which twin got killed, to keep the cooler name.

>Roma spelled backwards is Amor.

Everybody lists what advantages they had -- but, really, is the small dirt settlement three dirt settlements south had suddenly risen to prominence, THEY would be the ones we were listing advantages for.

Maybe it was just Steam Engine Time, and somebody was going to make the leap, it just happened to be the Romans.

>Mythology should only be valued insofar as it doesn't contradict actual history.

I disagree. Understanding the stories cultures tell about themselves is extremely important if you want to understand the culture.

Knowing the actual story of exactly how a settlement was founded there, and how it grew and survived until it reaches the pages oof history would be interesting. Wish we could know it.

But I'd argue it would tell us less about the Romans of the Late Republic than we learn from what they THOUGHT the story was. Because THAT's how they defined themselves, not by the true story that they didn't know either.

>>Who cares about the facts?

When the facts don;t exist anymore, it doesn't matter much how strongly you would like to care about them.

>Romulus is a myth.

Probably. Given that we don't know, there is always the chance that he was as real as George Washington, but had less luck in making it into the records due to where and when he lived. If he lived. Like Washington, he would have had myths spring up around him (chopping down those cherry trees and hurling perfectly good money across the river.) Over a longer time, with less recorded history, it would seem likely Romulus myths would grow more than Washington myths.

Can you say more about this? I was aware that the late Republicans believed there were traces of the original ancient town, I was not aware modern archaeologists had found any.

>Understanding the stories cultures tell about themselves is extremely important if you want to understand the culture.
I agree. But in the context of studying history, it should maintain limits.

Facts have never existed,

Romulus founded Rome.

In myth, sure.

Myth is truth.

In truth, too.

We can't even accurately account for the time between when Romulus "founded" Rome and when the republic started. What makes you so sure Romulus founded the city?

Wrong, it was Eneas
Get your mythology right

Because I can feel it in my DNA. I am Roman. Or, really, Italian.
Romulus was the son of Mars, and he founded Rome.

Was romulus etruscan?

Of course. Someone had to show the Latin savages the way.

>Implying jews weren't slaves, and didn't help build Egypt.

But I agree, I don't think they build the actual pyramids.

It's a myth to explain the city's name, if the city were called Reme then yes they'd tell the story the other way round.

Naaaah nigga, das Lavinium.

Rome has been a settlement since the Stone Age.
The Romulus and Remus myth are foundation myths that exist to explain away traditional ignorance.
Rome is so old, it predate language and therefore the concepts of names.
This is also true of many Greek, Turkish and Arabian sites as well.
You have to think of ancient cities in terms of evolution.
Lots of little changes over a large amount of time eventually become a city.
There was no "founding" of ancient cities, only modern ones.

>traditional ignorance.
m-m-muh science!!!

>greeks burn down troy
>trojan hero goes and founds rome
>rome conquers greece
>rome falls in the west and exists only in greece until 1453
I like this one, it's poetic

>romans oppress and persecute Christians for centuries
>now it is home to the Church, which reigns over more Christians than any other
fucking hellenophiles

>Stone Age
not really. Archaeological evidence shows settle began on capitoline hill near 750 BC which fits the historical idea that rome started at 750bc

>evidence

The Romans did some mental gymnastics to make the Trojans have Italian origins.

Why does history matter? Why does philosophy matter? And in your case, why does Oxygen matter?

LOL the pope had been reduced to a publicity stunt the day Napoleon decided to put his crown on his head by himself, and not let the Pope do it.

black people

haha people i dont like should kill themselves
g4u

A bunch of villager cunts who banded up for mutual safety around a certain bend of the Tiber.

>French
>Empire.

...

*tips chapeau*