Did Romulus and Remus exist?

[Robert Vermaat]

Dia Aeneas exist?
Did Brutus really sail to Britain (and, more importantly, did he really slay the last giants there)?
Who do these Trojans have such Greek-sounding names, even though some think the Trojans (or whatever their real name was) were not that related to the Greeks?
Why did the Romans want to have Trojan ancestors?
Why did the English want Trojan ancestors?
Did Port really found Portsmouth?
Was Wightgar really the first Saxon (or Jute) to land on Wight?

Did that she-wolf exist, too? :wink:

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Dia Aeneas exist?
Did Brutus really sail to Britain (and, more importantly, did he really slay the last giants there)?
Who do these Trojans have such Greek-sounding names, even though some think the Trojans (or whatever their real name was) were not that related to the Greeks?
Why did the Romans want to have Trojan ancestors?
Why did the English want Trojan ancestors?
Did Port really found Portsmouth?
Was Wightgar really the first Saxon (or Jute) to land on Wight?

Did that she-wolf exist, too?

What could we, contemporary men, really do, waiting for accurate scientific confirmations? Simple: trusting the Ancients!
Not literally, of course, but rather reading between the lines of the Tradition and the Myth.
Sometimes, proceeding with the findings, we see (unexpectedly) the facts confirmed, sometimes disproved. Until proved otherwise.
In both the cases, doubts persist always, even if we get that we consider an incontrovertible evidence, and so, Science, as the more important technical tool we have, helps the Tradition and the Myth rather than shelving it, IMO.
So, even if always fighting against the factoids, I like to think we could move ourselves "aesthetically", freely considering the "Beauty" of the ancient Tradition through its vast legacy and also considering its "elegance" in telling us about the ancient world as the Ancients liked to convey it to posterity.
Any age and ideology tried to re-shape the ancient world according to their own tastes, should we repeat the same mistake?

Valete,

[DanM]

I was reading in my encyclopedia a few days ago, and it said that the etruscan civilization was fonded just after the trojan war. I say, Aeneas was real, the greeks bent the truth, he escaped troy, sailed to italy, and founded the etruscans. Romulus and remus were real, and they were descendants of aeneas. Their dad might have been some warrior-king named mars, or something sounding similar.

[Ceannt]

hi i am new to RAT but i will give my two pence :lol: romanus and remus were a creation myth/story that the Romans used to explain were they as a people came from.

[hoplite14gr]

Events happen... big events...And people tell the tale.

Time passes and the tales become legend.
Usually every big legend has a foundation of truth.
The question is how big?

Theseas fought Skeiron who was aided by a sea tortoise.
Skeiron was a Megrean king allied with Aegina whose warriors sported the tortoise on their shields if we belive Strabo and Pausanias.

Two leaders led in a substantial breakthrough the people of Latium.
Their names might have been Romylus or Romus.
We simple cant prove or disprove.

Etruscans are sed to be descendants from a polulation Sardeis so some truth might be in Aenias legent.

MYTHIMI in Greek is tell a tale not necessarlly a completly verfiable one.

Kind regards

[Aetius Helvius Merula]

I'm with Stefanos on this one. I think the story of 2 kings, suckled by a female wolf, wasn't literally true, but wasn't invented out of thin air either. Perhaps there were two brothers named Romulus and Remus, or something that sounded similar in the Latin of the time. Perhaps they were raised by a woman so formidable that the patriarchs of the day called her a 'she-wolf'. Perhaps they weren't actually kings, but leading men of their tribe or village. Or, maybe Romulus did kill his brother over a question of leadership.

We'll never know, but it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. As Stefanos said, extraordinary things happen, people talk about it, and embellish the story each time, and so on. Before too long you have a legend. And legends take on a reality all of their own. Did they really exist? It seems enough people thought so, therefore for all intents and purposes they did. I don't imagine the earliest Romans needed their myths and folk tales any less than we do today.

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

Salve,

Without stirring up a religious hornets nest… we have to remember that all folklore, legends, and even ‘history’ are based in fact…. It’s just that over time the real human person tends to get replaced with this ‘omnipotent’ historical figure and events are retold and re-written until they become almost mythical.

Did Jesus walk on water and rise from the dead? Did Mohammad ride his stallion Burak into heaven? Did Moses speak to God “as a friend speaks to a friendâ€

[Tarbicus]

There are a number of true actual cases of wolves (and other animals) suckling human babies and children found in the wild. There is also a case for the brothers' adoptive mother being a prostitute or promiscuous. Either/or/or even both, who knows? Regal fratricide is also a consistent event right throughout history, so I see no reason to discount that one.

[Robert Vermaat]

Slave,

Hi Anthony,

why do you start your post with "Slave", when you obviously (I can but hope) mean to write 'Salve'?

[Aetius Helvius Merula]

Probably because he's grizzled centurion, and uses that term for all lesser beings

But seriously, you're right, Anthony. History is written by the winners. Had the Etruscans or Samnites or anyone else ground down Rome, someone else's origin myth would be told in place of theirs. But it's not how it happened.

Another thing to consider is this. As Rome got stronger and became a major force in Italy, they may well have felt the need to embellish and dignify their origins, so as to instill some pride in themselves and be a little more 'respectable' to their rivals. They may have liked the idea of divine, legendary or noble origins better than the simple one. Even if they knew better. I know I feel a certain sort of pride in knowing my family tree goes back to a Norman knight. Even though he may have been just a scruffy thug who grabbed a Yorkshire village named Boynton, rather than the dashing cavalier of the imagination. Makes for a better story. And that's how it may have been for early Romans.

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

why do you start your post with "Slave", when you obviously (I can but hope) mean to write 'Salve'?

Yeah.... that was a typo! ... and I'm not all that "grizzled"!!! LOL :wink:

[jespah2000]

I'd have to agree with what appears to be the growing consensus here, that the Romulus and Remus myth was probably fiction, although based on what was can only hope were a few concrete facts. Rome's first historians (if you can call Fabius Pictor a historian and still keep a straight face!) were writing over 500 years after Rome's traditional founding... thats 500 years where the myth had time to grow, change and evolve. While I think its unlikely that anybody in the chain of transmission tried to deliberately mislead his audience or fabricate anything outright, things do have a tendency to grow in the retelling!

That being said, the story does have a few parts which seem to ring true, most notably the role of the she-wolf. While its possible, as Tarbicus noted, that a she-wolf did actually suckle the young Romulus and Remus, her inclusion in the story might also refer to an ancient Central-Italian colonization practice (mentioned by Alfoldi in his Early Rome and the Latins) where young people from a community would be sent out into the wild to found a new colony, and were told to follow a sacred animal (wolf, boar, etc.) until it stopped for water. Apparently the Samnites were still doing this well into the historical period, and it may explain the prominent role which animals often play in Central Italian foundation myths. While this might be a stretch with regards to Rome, it is a possibility...