The formation of Rome and the Regal Period
Introduction:
If one was asked about Rome, they would probably bring up the likes of Julius Caesar or Marc Antony. Thanks to Shakespeare, among others, those two men have been immortalized and will forever be studied. However, Rome span for over a millennia and even longer if one is considering the Byzantine Empire. Before the time of Caesar and Antony, there is a plethora of events that are enticing to study that piqued my interest after reading Mary beards SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome. This essay will present the often-overlooked formation of Rome and its Regal period while attempting to decipher the fact from the fiction.
Formation:
Rome was founded at some point in 753 BCE usually placed on the 21stof April. The myth regarding the founders, Romulus and Remus, is ubiquitous. Consequently, most know about Romulus and Remus suckling on a mother wolf. However, that is not the start of the tale. The myth begins with Aeneas, the protagonist of the aptly named Aeneid, who travelled to Italy after losing the Trojan War (1184 BCE). From him sprung a line of kings. Later down this line, a king called Numitor was usurped by his brother: Amulius. Amulius forced his brother’s daughter to become a vestal virgin so her offspring would be unable to challenge Amulius. This daughter, Rhea Silvia, was supposedly raped by Mars – the God of War. From that she gave birth to Romulus and Remus.
The twins were exiled by Amulius and sent down the river Tiber. They somehow lived this ordeal in a way that parallels the story of Moses. They were found by local shepherds beneath a tree near the Palatine hill. Suckling at the breast of a wolf with an apparent woodpecker feeding them. Both animals are symbolic of Mars. This aspect of the tale is the most akin to fiction. It is improbable that both animals were feeding two infants. If there is any truth to this tale at all, it is most reasonable to assume that when found; the shepherds may have seen a wolf nearby.
Furthermore, it would be remiss to not question every part of this tale so far. Aeneas may not have been real at all. The Aeneid was written by Virgil as a response to Homer’s Odyssey, which depicts Odysseus on his arduous journey home (Ithaca) after being victorious at Troy. Both stories feature two heroic protagonists and fit the demands required to be considered an Epic. However, someone did found Rome. The line of Kings produced from Aeneas may not have occurred but there must have been some ruler over the small colonies (as democracy was unfathomable at the time). Perhaps this ruler did have a daughter who became a Vestal Virgin and she used the excuse of rape to cover her promiscuity. This is all hypothesizing based on the recorded fable. Perhaps her offspring were banished and found by shepherds, perhaps.
Romulus and Remus grew up as the leaders of their cohort of shepherds. Both like the God of war in their vigour. The two returned to their birth city and murdered Amulius and placed their grandfather back on the throne. With their revenge accomplished, they set off to form a new city. Romulus chose to form his city on the Palatine hill, Remus on the Aventine after a quarrelsome debate. Remus then decided to jump the wall that Romulus had erected. Romulus contemptuously killed him. Rome was supposedly founded on fratricide. Perhaps to the Romans, this was a sign of strength. The supposed son of Mars had killed his brother for stepping out of line, showing himself as the apex. Therefore, this could be fiction created to instil vigour and strength into the mind of the average Roman. Today this is nothing less than barbaric and makes us question whether Rome could have survived with a mythical foundation such as this.
The whole tale may have been fantasised. There is too little data and available sources around this tale to prove (or disprove) anything. There were remnants of a battlefield found where Troy was allegedly formed yet that in no way confirms the existence of Aeneas. As aforementioned, the tale may have been concocted to create this idea of a powerful state that expects its citizen to reciprocate its values.
Romulus needed to expand his colony. He organised a mass rape of Sabine women (around thirty were kidnapped and taken) to increase his population. Forty or so years later he apparently disappeared into a thunderstorm. Was this notion of increasing the population made to reflect his intelligence and altruistic goal of expanding Rome? Or did it happen? Like the whole of this tale, it is impossible to put anyone event down to fact or to guarantee it into the realms of fiction.
Regal period:
Rome Supposedly had seven kings. Much like the founding of Rome, none of this has irrefutable evidence to back it up. The first of these Kings was Romulus who set up a senate of around 300 members, as well as founding Rome. This inchoate senate was responsible for picking a new King when the old one passed away, whether it was into a thunderstorm or not. This would later be reflected in the Roman Empire. The successor of the Emperor was not necessarily his son. It was whoever he chose to adopt, with the senate’s approval. If the chosen successor was killed or deemed unfit then the senate would decide themselves, hence Claudius being chosen when he believed himself a dead man. The only time that a successor was a child of a previous Emperor was in the case of Constantine. Who is remembered as one of the worst Emperors in Roman history due to his over-indulgent nature, among many faults.
For Rome, the system of choosing a King worked. For a while. Six of the seven kings expanded, what was more of a colony, Rome to greater than it was before. The sixth King was even the son of a slave proving that the patrician and plebeian divide was not as jarring as it would later become. This sixth king reigned for 44 years supposedly. All the king’s reigns lasted between ~30-45 years which is closer to improbable than not. The poor hygiene that defined the late bronze age (1200 – 500 BCE) and the chance of disease make those consistently extensive reigns nigh on impossible. Those years rival that of medieval Kings which, albeit, were not hygienic by today’s standards, but they would have had more resources at their disposal than the Kings of Rome; who came two millennia before them.
The last of these Kings was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. He killed his predecessor, who was his father in law, along with his wife. This defined his rule. He was known for his use of violence and intimidation to control Rome. He disrespected the Senate and customs. Due to the distaste that Rome later had of this man, he made the word for king, rex, hold a negative connotation. While he was akin to a modern-day dictator, another pejorative term reflecting a leader, he was no the reason why the regal period ended. His son was. Sextus Tarquinius raped Lucretia who was a wife and a daughter to powerful Roman nobles. Lucretia killed herself to avoid the dishonour of the attack. Before her undue suicide, she told her relatives about what had happened. Lucius Junius Brutus along with three other men deposed and expelled Tarquinius and his family from Rome in 509 BCE. This ended the Roman Kingdom and gave birth to the Republic with Brutus taking on the mantel of consul, the first in history.
Coincidentally, this Brutus is of the same family as the one that killed Julius Caesar in the senate. History repeating itself to end a Regal period and to set up the end a Republic. To end a King and a self-appointed deity. This coincidence makes one question whether this happened. It is much more feasible than the story of Romulus and Remus yet still holds many uncertainties. There may have been more Kings than recorded and as the Romans could not find any, they just filled in the blanks.
To conclude, Romulus was lionized after his death in the same way that Caesar was. His mythical story can not be validated but it is plausible that the founder of Rome truly was a fratricidal man called Romulus. The tales may have been concocted to inspire Romans to follow in his steps and be vigorous like the God of War. There may have been more Kings than recorded. They may have combined a collection of Kings into one to remove the complexity in the same way that Ragnar Lodbrok, a Viking legend, is the combination of many warriors and myths. The lack of knowledge that we have obtained on this archaic period is what makes it so enticing. Separating fact from fiction would need a large surplus of evidence, which makes the hypothesizing all that more interesting proving why this period of Roman history deserves more attention.
Freddie Pacey, Year 12.