Talk:Roman Kingdom

(afterwards inserted heading)

(This old comment deserves a heading, so that it doesn't disturb this talk page. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

This page doesn't seem to make enough (if any) distinction between what is myth or legend (e.g., founding of Rome by Romulus in 753 B.C.) and what is generally accepted as historical fact.Scrutchfield

There is a historiographical problem with this name. The kings may not exactly belong in a Republic, but no one (at all) refers to a Roman Kingdom. Maybe the entry should be called 'Foundation of Rome' or 'Kings of Rome,' or 'City of Rome, early history'.

I don't mind them being in a separate entry, but if we are trying to make this searchable, no one will ever search for this here!

MichaelTinkler

I have never read about this topic in English, so I didn't know. What do you recommend? IIRC it's sometimes called (translated) 'Roman Kings' in German. --Yooden +  
 

I'm really at a loss. In English it's usually just an early chapter called something like 'The Kings of Rome' in histories of the Republic.

It will eventually be found through the link on Roman Republic, so it can keep the name until someone comes along with a better name. --Yooden

Yep --MichaelTinkler

I think Roman Kingdom is probably reasonable. You might not have heard of it (at least by name) since it is very early in the history of Rome at an almost legendary time. Rome is much better known (at least popularly) towards the end of the republican era and during the empire.

I've removed the totally misleading map, and added "In legend" to the intro. This still needs a lot of work - it's presenting the legends as fact in the body. Morwen - Talk 10:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC) +

Should there be a "Roman" portal?

Hi folks, I'm contemplating the possibility of creating a portal for Ancient Rome, to replace Roman, which is a disambiguation page and has nearly 400 links pointing to it from articles (not counting the ones from Talk or Wikipedia pages).

If I was to go ahead with this, I would need help from other people on the content, as I don't know too much about the subject matter - my motivation for doing this is because it seems to be needed, and I believe I can figure out the technical aspects of making it happen.

Some possible issues:

1. It needs a suitable name. I'm thinking "Ancient Rome", but there may be other options. My intention would be to redirect Romans to the portal so that every vague reference and accidental linkage to "the Romans" would end up in a suitable place.
2. I think it would be appropriate to include Byzantium, and maybe Ancient Greece if it doesn't already have a "home".
3. Other uses of the word Roman currently listed on Roman would probably be moved to Roman (disambiguation), which is currently a redirect.
4. I would not like to become the sole maintainer. I would be willing to continue doing technical stuff, but selection of featured articles and suchlike should be done by somebody who can tell whether or not the content is accurate.

For examples of existing portals, see Portal:Egyptology, Portal:Star Trek, and many more are listed at Category:Portals.

I am interested in opinions on this idea, and I invite discussion on the topic at my test page User:LesleyW/RomePortal. Please feel free to copy this notice to other places where it might be noticed by knowledgeable people. I will be away for the next few days, and will pick up discussions early next week at the latest. LesleyW 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm currently taking Latin 2 and this site has really helped me with extra credit and understanding Romian myth and history.-Pelican, 12/14/2005

Timezone in infobox?

The timezone entry in the infobox seems really out of place. Remove it, I say.

Roman kingdom

I am suggesting a name change. It is almost never called this in any sources I have seen. Would it be possible to change the name to Rome: The Regal Period. This is what it is referred to in the Encyclopedia Brittanca which is a pretty definitive source. TarquiniusWikipedius 07:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with the present name; but the replacement is not a proper name, which is WP style for articles. It could go to WP:RM without specifying a replacement.... Septentrionalis 04:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Pre-republican Rome"? It needs to be changed, that's what matters. I can only imagine delinquent secondary students all over the world writing about the Roman Kingdom because they read about it on Wiki... Fearwig 08:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello everybody. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with kingdom. It translates the Latin word, which is regnum, and was used to refer to the state under the kings. I just looked that up now in Cassell's and I am sure if I bothered with Andrews', White's or the big French one, Gaffiot's, it would be the same story. As for the Encyclopedia Britannica, they use monarchy more than anything else. There is no standard term, you see. If you have not yet seen kingdom, that is because you have not looked extensively. I have before me a book at random from my collection, which I used in college, A History of Rome to A.D. 565 by Boak and Sinnigen. This was a standard text. It uses monarchy and has no confusion about that at all.

We need a word parallel to Republic and Empire. These are sovereign states with a specific form of government. "Pre-republican", "Early", "Regal Period", and all the other indirect terms, are not the same at all and just don't do it. The fact that someone else may have used them reflects individualism in writing history and not standard practice at all. There is the principatus, then there is the res publica, then there is the regnum. There is no doubt at all concerning whether it was a regnum, that it had a beginning, and an end, even though there were interreges. The very word interreges takes its meaning from the reges. What shall we say a regnum is? I don't see any "early" or any "period" or any "pre" this or "pre-" that in the word at all. English pretty much gives us two choices. We can use a word related to monarch or one related to king, but it must mean the state associated with the form of government. I don't really care whether someone else on the Internet is currently using kingdom. Someone has used, does use, or will use it I am sure. There is nothing confusing, original, obscure, or inappropriate about it. There were many "Roman kingdom"s later in Italy I assure you.

Well if you are challenged by Latin and have not read much history and find kingdom terribly in error and upsetting I suggest we go with monarchy, which is actually the more common in the printed encyclopedias, especially Britannica. The Britannica online ready reference won't do it, you know? It's only a ready reference, an invitation to buy the real thing.

Excuse me if I seem emphatic but I don't see any confusion here at all and certainly not an error being promulgated among the children of the English-speaking world. Well, if dissatisfaction continues I will rename it to Roman monarchy, but there is no need, really. Everything is set up for kingdom, all the links, everything. I remember when I took classics we used to talk about the Roman kingdom all the time. If you were going to discuss mediaeval and modern times too then you would have to specify which kingdom.Dave 15:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup suggestions

This is something of an amalgam of things said above, plus some additional complaints I feel are valid.

• Grammar
  • Capitalization was in a terrible state, and I've done everything I can to clean it up. Every instance of the word "King" was capitalized, as well as every other Roman office, as well as most any Latin term (note that offices should not be capitalized while institutions should be, with exceptions). I recognize there will probably be some argument over a few of the capitalization edits, and I probably haven't even been totally consistent. I had to make at least fifty edits for capitalization, though it felt like more, and I hope someone with good knowledge of the matter can help distinguish such issues as whether the "Roman forum" might be more correctly the "Roman Forum" in this context.
  • One of the original editors made some exceptionally tangled and repetetive phrases ("The boy found his dog who went with the boy to the home of his boy and his dog..."), some of which I have tried to correct.
• Content
  • POV is abundant, and I was more concerned with grammar in my edit, but here's an example: "Unlike any other King before him, Tarquinius used violence, murder, and terrorism to maintain control over Rome. He repealed many of the earlier constitutional reforms set down by his predecessors. The only thing of any real good he did for Rome was the completion of the temple to Jupiter started by his father Priscus." I don't know much about this matter, but I know it's not encyclopedic to say this. My edit isn't much better, but it takes out anything absolutely blatantly POV. ("More than other king before him, Tarquinius used violence, murder, and terrorism to maintain control over Rome. He repealed many of the earlier constitutional reforms set down by his predecessors.") If anyone knows more about this, it would be wonderful to see it written appropriately.
  • Legend/Myth. Of course, all the ancient secondaries we can work with are tainted with myth, but we need to express that fact in the phrasing of the article. If we can reverify some of the material here we can make citations. It's much better to say "Historius wrote that the boy was cruel to his dog" than "The boy was evil and terrorized his dog daily."
  • The title has been indicated as highly unusual, and I (in my limited experience with the topic) have not heard this period called the Roman Kingdom either. I suggested "Pre-republican Rome" somewhere on this talk page, and I think something to that general effect would be better, if no absolutely proper term can be found.

Hope we can turn it around, Fearwig 09:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

2008.5: yes. The article still needs "mythification", the seven kings are partially legendary kings. The Tarquinii might be historically attested from Etruscan sources, and so actually existant, but "Romulus" is obviously an [INSERTME] for a long historical development. I would prefer that the article describe those kings as symbolic examples, representing a certain qual of the Roman thinking. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New suggestions

Just read the article and been thinking about it for a couple of days. My first ideas are: 1) Title - Standard in English historical literature is "Regal period" (cfr. Enc. Britannica, Cambridge Hist. Ancient World, Gary-Scullard). This is because a latin Rex is a title strongly related to its religious function, while at present the English usage for King is basically synonymous to Sovereign, a term related to a single person holding the power but not to his religious or supernatural attributes. 2) Myth - Here the problem is that we have VERY few primary sources, and most of them are disputed in value and date. Moreover the people who lived in that era recorded events mainly in a mythological form (cfr. the Iliad and the Odyssey, probably(?) written in Greece in the same period of the founding of Rome). The main accounts on the period are from secondary sources of the late republic - early empire era, when legitimation of the new imperial state and the recalls to "the old republican virtues against the evil reges" where the main interest of writers of both political sides. Archaeologists have found evidence of some myths, but as is obvious scant remains more than 2500 years old in an area that has ALWAYS been densely populated are easily the subject of fierce disputes between scholars. So we might just add a paragraph stating this in a more concise form, and go on with a deeper cleaning.

RiccardoRB 06:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)RiccardoRB Kings of Rome King Traditional Reign Latin kings Trojan War–753 BC Romulus 753 BC–716 BC Numa Pompilius 715 BC–674 BC Tullus Hostilius 673 BC–642 BC Ancus Marcius 642 BC–617 BC Lucius Tarquinius Priscus 616 BC–579 BC Servius Tullius 578 BC–535 BC Lucius Tarquinius Superbus 535 BC–510 BC/509 BC

this doesnt seem to make sence as the kings reighns overlap just a hint not sure if this is supost to be like that sorry about spelling having a mental blank

In English usage the word "king" may be synonymous with "sovereign", but it certainly does refer to a religious role. As a crucial part of his coronation service, the king is anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. In addition, the sovereign is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. What goes for a king also goes for a queen (regnant) : "sovereign" tends to be the gender non-specific version of king or queen. Simon

The reign of Romulus

The reign of Romulus -Isn't this just a myth - isn't this something that some academics heartily disagree on!?!? If so, shouldn't it be so stated in the article. I read another wikipedia article saying that Remus/Romulus story and the foundation of Rome is considered a myth by some academics, while other believing it to be a historical fact. Could someone please reconcile these different opinions and explain what is going on!?! --ToyotaPanasonic 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Whoever keeps vandalising this page should be banned. Thats what I think. Anyone else? Flash Man999 01:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has inserted a section about the election of pickles that seems to be vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianroberts1976 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Verginia

Where could I get a list of Wikipedia people (experts) that are knowledgeable on Ancient Rome. I would like to get some input to the "apocryphal" question at Talk:Verginia? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dating the end of the monarchy

We have a problem on this page. The rape of Lucretia is given as 509 and the expulsion in 510. This can not work. Can someone sort out the dating and provide trustworthy references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharoth (talk • contribs) 12:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there really no archaeological record of the events described in this article?

No physical evidence - only written evidence from years later? Someone should review the literature on the Roman Neolithic - I think there's more information that could be used in this article, and would be able to at least have valid citations.--LeValley 05:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point.--69.62.180.183 (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-sentence

I doubt that the following makes sense:

The traditional chronology, as codified by Varro, allots 243 years for their reigns, an average of almost 35 years, which, since the work of Barthold Georg Niebuhr, has been generally discounted by modern scholarship.

Is there some way to fix it?Dynasteria (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Roman Kingdom/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

hello, can someone tell me what a lobby is?

Last edited at 15:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 04:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)