a question of the cultural "father" of rome....

[petrinus]

romes cultural father as he has been called by academics, historians, and perhaps romans -giving credence to their claims, is said to have been one numa pompilius, the second king of rome and of all things a sabine(elected by romans as he may have been). yet further along we trod to arrive at lucius tarquinius (priscus), who i find more evidence for birthing "roman" culture. consider that with numerous defeats of the sabines, latins , and etruscans, he acquired and implemented the roman use of such regalia as the eagle scepter, the purple tunic, and the fasces(thats the bundle of rods bound round an axe). tarquinius introduced the circus games. tarquinius expanded the senate adding 100 etruscan nobles to its number(to the chargrin of romans im sure) however he was keeping in the intended theme of the people being represented by the senate even if the monarch at this juncture had the final say. so already i see tarquinius credited with so much more than is listed under pompilius, not to mention, tarquinius' successor, one servius tulius, the sixth king of rome(incidentaly another sabine, possibly a prince and some say a slave?!-perhaps both i wonder? (could history have its sabines so confused? ...i digress) i find it striking that in my research servius is credited with implementing the first use of stamped copper coinage, the relocation of dianic festival and dedication of her temple in her rome, the initiation of a census and ranking of the citizenry, and the completion of the temple of jupiter. not to mention the conquest of etruscan veii(did the etruscan nobility within the senate tremble or triumph, one must wonder).
so in summary my question remains why is this numa pompilius the father of roman culture, yes he may have turned a warband of collected criminals and rapists into a civilization but i dont see how that qualifies, as any civilization is really a collection of baser beings come together. further more his acquisition of the thrown as i understand it was in the wake of romulus' murder...(some view his acension by lightining and embodiment of quirinus a likely cover for the senate stabbing him while he prayed on the riverbank and washing his body down river...also strange(unrelated?) how lightining would later strike and kill romes third king tullus hostilius) now how civilized or culturaly specific is that? i should amend here that pompilius did not as we know engineer romulus' death.
any information on pompilius' great cultural contributions to the early roman civilization and specificaly culture would be appreciated.

in utilizing the poll feature please leave a brief reply as to why, thank you for your input as always.

[Jona Lendering]

Chosing from the options, my vote's for Servius Tullius; the four first kings are legendary, Priscus is too vague to be known, but Servius Tullius was a real "tyrant" in the classical sense, giving Rome one of its most important political structures. The alternative was Tarquinius Superbus, but many of his measures were reverted.

If I would have been allowed to cast my vote to a non-monarchical event, I think, that the Lex Hortensia of 287 was the pivotal point in creating the structure of the Republic that created the Mediterranean Empire.

[petrinus]

jona, by legendary you arent saying mythical i hope, though i concede that their legacies are a touch inflated but subsequent family lines to give considerable credence to their crowns.
why do you paint servius a tyrant? i had thought tarquinius(superbus) the tyrant by history's retelling of him overthrowing servius as he did and forcing the public into hard labor not to mention his bully business with the latin league(intensify the roman military as it did)

[Tertius Mummius]

As far as I know, Numa Pompilius literally introduced "cult", i. e. service to the gods as a service to the state, thus defining the state as both an institution supported and desired by the gods. These "religious laws" must have been different from those of the surrounding etruscan and latin cities, as they provided a sense of citizenship among a ragtag community.
Whenever something went wrong in the reign of the kings or early republic, someone pointed back to the ways of pious Numa, and order was restored in accordance to his laws.

[Jona Lendering]

jona, by legendary you arent saying mythical i hope, though i concede that their legacies are a touch inflated but subsequent family lines to give considerable credence to their crowns.

Someone has pointed out that the names Numa Pompilius, Ancus Martius, and Tullius Hostilius presupose the tria nomina, which came into existence in the fifth century BCE; hence, the names are very, very old. I believe they are historical persons and were kings of Rome - and that's about all I think we can take for granted. I would not bet on the geneologies, as they can easily be fabricated.

why do you paint servius a tyrant? i had thought tarquinius(superbus) the tyrant by history's retelling of him overthrowing servius as he did and forcing the public into hard labor not to mention his bully business with the latin league(intensify the roman military as it did)

I mean tyrant in the classical, not modern, sense: the man with (often) unconstitutional powers who breaks the power of the aristocracy and replaces it with an oligarchy - cf. the Comitia Centuriata replacing the Comitia Curiata. Go here.

[SigniferOne]

Comitia Centuriata an oligarchy? An oligarchy means an exclusive rule by an unelected few. Even if the Comitia was initially slanted, it wasn't an oligarchy by any means.

In any cause I put down Servius Tullius as well. He instituted the Comitia, the Class-based heavy hoplite military system, built walls, and facts seem to show that he prior to being King had traveled Etruria and had a couple of adventures to boot

[Theodosius the Great]

Good article, Jona.

Writers like Herodotus of Halicarnassus and Thucydides make it clear that democrats thought that the power of tyrants was uncontrolled, so that they easily became violent and mean despots, surrounded by sycophants.

I know the Greek word "despot" shares a similar history. It is also corrupted with modern, negative connotations. But this term dates to the Byzantine period which is why I guess it isn't discussed on your website.

And indeed, trade and commerce often benefited from the measures taken by tyrants, so that it was possible to embark on large-scale building policies, which also served as some sort of legitimization of the tyrant's power.

Indeed, I read that this is why Rome didn't become such a beautiful city until Augustus established the Principate. The City began to resemble the ornate Hellenistic capitals of the East when Augustus and his successors began to transform "brick to marble".

~Theo

[Jona Lendering]

Comitia Centuriata an oligarchy? An oligarchy means an exclusive rule by an unelected few. Even if the Comitia was initially slanted, it wasn't an oligarchy by any means.

The ancients called it a "mixed constitution"; and indeed, the Comitia -especially the Comitia tributa- had a democratic aspect. Still, I think that Comitia Centuriata can better be called oligarchic than democratic, if only because it was in its first stage controled by the rich and powerful. Is "oligarchizing" a possibility? Plutocracy? I think it is merely a matter of definition.

[SigniferOne]

When the ancients described 'mixed constitution' elements, they described elements in themselves indivisible and insoluble. For example, a group of nobles that is solely aristocratic; an assembly that is totally democratic. Combine these insoluble elements together, and you have a mixed constitution.

The Comitia was merely way to elect politicians into power, similar to the democratic assembly, but with richer elements having originally a higher prerogative.

The 'aristocratic' element in Archaic Rome I would say was the Senate, dissoluble within itself. The 'democratic' element would be the Comitia Tributa, or later the Concilium Plebis. Comitia Centuriata was kind of an oddball between the two, which is perhaps indicative of Tullius' political insight.