A Roman Kingdom

Tarquinius doesn't get overthrown ,because he doesn't wage so many wars and doesn't build the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.Will they survive to the Middle Ages?
 
Fall of Roman Kingdom and rise of Roman Republic is so greatly covered with myths and legends that we even don't know what actually happened. But let's say that story is somehow accurate. Kingship was already fading form in Italy and Greece so might be that Roman monarchy would collapse sometimes later. And could Roman Kingdom survive to Middle Ages? Impossible to say. There is still thousand years to Middle Ages so many things can happen.
s
 
The fall of the Roman Monarchy wasn't a random political event; around the time of the c. 500s BC, a lot of monarchies across the Mediterranean were being replaced by plutocratic/aristocratic republics (Italy, North Africa, Phoenicia) or direct democracies (Greece). There must be some underlying factor because of this: trade between cities in the region, foreign influences, or even the Mediterranean climate, where all these cities happened to be located.
 
We don't even know when the Roman kingdom fell, as records were destroyed with the Gallic sack of Rome. But the records we have are wrong, as conveniently, according to them Rome turned into a republic literally a year year before Athens, which means Rome can call itself the first democracy. It's a little too convenient.
 
The fall of the Roman Monarchy wasn't a random political event; around the time of the c. 500s BC, a lot of monarchies across the Mediterranean were being replaced by plutocratic/aristocratic republics (Italy, North Africa, Phoenicia) or direct democracies (Greece). There must be some underlying factor because of this: trade between cities in the region, foreign influences, or even the Mediterranean climate, where all these cities happened to be located.
Well, this being post 1900, maybe the internet was at play?
my-name-is-ass-smart-ass-gener-tor-ilu-4254188.png
 
Tarquinius doesn't get overthrown ,because he doesn't wage so many wars and doesn't build the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.
I doubt we should base ourselves entierly (altough we shouldn't be hypercritic for the kicks of it) on classical Roman accounts of the fall of the Monarchy, partly because of what was said by people who actually contributed to the thread, partly because from the mythified form these accounts have (which in a dumérlian analysis, eventually holds more on post-IE cosmogony than mythified history).

I won't dwell on a PoD for these reasons, and just assume that Roman kingship somehow survives in the Ist millenium BCE.

Archaic kingship had trouble maintaining itself onto city-states, historically, or did so turning to be a more or less symbolical (up to ceremonial ) magistrature.
Roman people would still likely be considered a demos rather than an ethnos (as in Macedonia or Thessaly), you're going to have an important political-civic conciousness and identity, especially (as it's likely the case) if the kingship is tied up with something seen as "foreign", in this case Etrusceans.
Rome, as an independent city, could less tolerate attempts againt its regional hegemony over Latins from the powerful Etrusceans that while far from being united, represented a political threat as in possibly limitating Roman power or even structures (Tarquinus expansion of centuries' tradition can be easily interpretated as a way to bypass Roman aristocracy power from Etrusco-Latins rulers).

The tale on both Tarquinus rise of the throne could be interpretated by meddling from neighbouring Etruscean cities on Rome, meddling that would have more or less annoyed Roman aristocracy. One could argue that there's as much mentions of fight between Etrusceans kings and their neighbours. Rightly so. But I think what could be relevant are the mentions of a treaty (treaties) passed with Etruscean cities.
The problem would be eventually less about having a foreigner as a king (which was common enough), but having someone that is not seen as incarnating the interests of one city on behalf of "foreign" people (which could be either newcomers into aristocracy or neighbours).

Now, would it have been possible to keep a royal magistrature? I think it would be, but it would not be monarchical (assuming archaic kingship was such, which it was most probably not).
One could see a parallel between the dual magistrature in Rome and the dual kingship in Sparta, but the latter case may be accidental and coming from three original spartian tribes. (Rome is supposed to have hosted three original tribes as well, but it's hard seeing what's part of a more or less genuine historicity, and what could come from a PIE tri-functionality (or non-functional triade) as much as genuine organisation.

Rome, as an independent city, could less tolerate attempts againt its regional hegemony over Latins from the powerful Etrusceans that while far from being united, represented a political threat as in possibly limitating Roman power or even structures (Tarquinus expansion of centuries' tradition can be easily interpretated as a way to bypass Roman aristocracy power from Etrusco-Latins rulers).

A non-etruscean tribal kingship could have less troubles maintain itself in Rome as it did in Sparta...However, this would ask a really dark (knowledge-wise speaking) and butterflying PoD, with a trial kingship.

Assuming we're talking of an latino-etruscean kingship, we could see the rex evolving towards a more and more religious role, while praetori assuming the day-to-day management, and ending eventually with a rex elected the same way than the IOTL interreges and flamines.
This would change little structurally, while it could mean a more stable Roman "Republic" in its archaic history.

It could mean a more conservative, religiously speaking,early classical Romanity.

Will they survive to the Middle Ages?
Such a PoD could efficiently butterfly away the second half of Classical Antiquity, with the whole concept of Late Antiquity and Middle-Ages being flushed down : there's no real way to say how much powerful or weak this Roman state would be, and how long it would last, even if I think that it would meet the fate of most tribal kingship in face of political changes.
 
Question: could a surviving Etruscan monarchy in Rome lead to an (even stronger) Etruscan influence in Rome, leading to an eventual adoption of Etruscan language by the Romans?

Now, would it have been possible to keep a royal magistrature?

The Athenian example comes to my mind. Transform the Roman King into a powerless equivalent of the Archon basileus, and it will maybe survive.*

Here an idea for a POD: IOTL, the Romans replaced the monarchy into a magistrature. It is likely that instead of immediatly appointing two Consuls, their head of state was called Praetor Maximus for the first decades of the Republic. The only difference between the old King and the new Praetor was that his term was limited to one year. Now the Romans could simply have limited to King's term to one year, and voilà, you have your surviving monarchy.

*In fact the Romans never abolished their monarchy. They gave the military and judicial powers to the magistrates, but maintained the office of Rex Sacrorum for the king's religious obligations. Even during the Principate, the Romans still had a king.
 
Question: could a surviving Etruscan monarchy in Rome lead to an (even stronger) Etruscan influence in Rome, leading to an eventual adoption of Etruscan language by the Romans?

It is possible but Etruscan should be dominant group long enough so them have be able to suppress Latin revolt or whatever ended Etruscan regime in Rome.
 
Question: could a surviving Etruscan monarchy in Rome lead to an (even stronger) Etruscan influence in Rome, leading to an eventual adoption of Etruscan language by the Romans
I think a good point of comparison would be the Etruscean influence in Campania : politically, it certainly existed for a time, but with a cultural influence that is not materially obvious. I'd expect a certain level of political tuscisation, a bit like IOTL, but rather a mix of hellenized local cultures with a more or less important Etruscan adstratum, especially with a roman kingship that, to last, should be be considered as civic, "native" even if held by a foreigner.
 
I think a good point of comparison would be the Etruscean influence in Campania : politically, it certainly existed for a time, but with a cultural influence that is not materially obvious. I'd expect a certain level of political tuscisation, a bit like IOTL, but rather a mix of hellenized local cultures with a more or less important Etruscan adstratum, especially with a roman kingship that, to last, should be be considered as civic, "native" even if held by a foreigner.

Well, yes, Etruscan influence was a thing in Rome and in other parts of Italy, but is some form of "Etruscization" of Rome possible? Rome is probably of Etruscan origin (see the Ruma theory for its name), it's likely that its last kings were Etruscans and it borders the territory of Etruscan cities. Roman culture, including its alphabet, was shaped by Etruscan influence. Would it be too much to imagine that, after centuries of Etruscan dominance, the Romans finally adopt the language of their kings?
 
Well, yes, Etruscan influence was a thing in Rome and in other parts of Italy, but is some form of "Etruscization" of Rome possible? Rome is probably of Etruscan origin (see the Ruma theory for its name), it's likely that its last kings were Etruscans and it borders the territory of Etruscan cities. Roman culture, including its alphabet, was shaped by Etruscan influence. Would it be too much to imagine that, after centuries of Etruscan dominance, the Romans finally adopt the language of their kings?

I doubt that would be the case. Although they shared many words and characteristics, Latin and Etruscan are not even from the same language family. I believe it's more likely for the Etruscan kings to learn Latin than the other way around, especially if they want to keep their positions as kings.
 
We don't even know when the Roman kingdom fell, as records were destroyed with the Gallic sack of Rome. But the records we have are wrong, as conveniently, according to them Rome turned into a republic literally a year year before Athens, which means Rome can call itself the first democracy. It's a little too convenient.

Unlikely, given that the Republic wasn't actually a democracy as the ancients understood the term, and, far from calling themselves the first democracy, Romans generally looked down on Athenian-style constitutions for being too open to demagoguery and mob rule.

Question: could a surviving Etruscan monarchy in Rome lead to an (even stronger) Etruscan influence in Rome, leading to an eventual adoption of Etruscan language by the Romans?

It is possible but Etruscan should be dominant group long enough so them have be able to suppress Latin revolt or whatever ended Etruscan regime in Rome.

The notion that late monarchical Rome was under Etruscan political domination is a common one, but nevertheless entirely without foundation. Even if some of the Kings were of Etruscan origin (although note that, in the ancient sources, Tarquinius Priscus was supposed to have migrated to Rome because his Etruscan ancestry wasn't pure enough for him to seek office in Tarquinii), Rome was, as far as we can tell, always a rather cosmopolitan city, and this period of central Italian history was marked by a high level of horizontal mobility among members of the upper classes. There are also historical examples of states choosing their rulers from outside the native ruling class (e.g., in medieval Italian cities), and Rome may have followed such a practice, judging by the fact that, as far as the historians tell us, none of the Roman Kings were patricians. In sum, there's nothing all that surprising or noteworthy about the idea of an Etruscan becoming King, and ideas to the contrary are mostly rooted in modern notions of nationality and citizenship that are inapplicable to archaic Italy.

It's also worth considering just what an "Etruscan regime" or "Etruscan domination" would entail. The Etruscans, of course, weren't politically united, so if Rome was dominated by an external Etruscan polity this would presumably entail being made subject to a nearby Etruscan city-state. But Rome's size during this period was already enough to put it in the top tier of Italian cities, so it's unlikely that any other city would be strong enough to subjugate it for a full three generations. The other situation in which it would make sense to talk of an "Etruscan regime" would be if the Roman ruling class were deposed and replaced by Etruscans, who then formed the dominant power-group and confined native Romans to the lower classes. Needless to say, there's no evidence for such a situation, either in the ancient historians or in inscriptions or the archaeological record.

partly because from the mythified form these accounts have (which in a dumérlian analysis, eventually holds more on post-IE cosmogony than mythified history).

Dumezil's tripartite theories are pretty implausible, TBH. Aside from anything else, there's no evidence that Rome was organised along tripartite lines at any stage in its history, and certainly not in the fourth century BC when this mythological pseudo-history was supposedly written down.

(Rome is supposed to have hosted three original tribes as well, but it's hard seeing what's part of a more or less genuine historicity, and what could come from a PIE tri-functionality (or non-functional triade) as much as genuine organisation.

As said above, there's no evidence for tripartition in ancient Roman society, and this particular three tribes = three functions theory ended up being abandoned by Dumezil himself.
 
Dumezil's tripartite theories are pretty implausible, TBH.
They hold pretty well (as long they are a continuation than a fixed analysis, but that's true for litterally every holistic explanation on the period), still, for what matter european proto-history, and have the benefit to explain more things than messing up.

Aside from anything else, there's no evidence that Rome was organised along tripartite lines at any stage in its history, and certainly not in the fourth century BC when this mythological pseudo-history was supposedly written down.
You're confusing being organized as such, and being tought as such. Using a much later exemple with feudal tripartite organisation, the exemples we get from the Xth and XIth texts are less (I would even say "not") about society being strictly organized around three aspects (half of these texts stress that "nowadays, it all went down") than being tought as an ideal order as such. The same is perfectly assumable for the IVth century BCE, projecting in a mythified past not their current organisation, but what they tought being ideal.

At the risk of repeating myself : tri-functional theory isn't about an historical social organisation, but a proto-historical social organisation whom modes of tought survived more or less clearly. Trying to make more of it is, IMO, either an exageration (such as identitarian far-right usually does) or a mock trial as Ginzburg did.

As said above, there's no evidence for tripartition in ancient Roman society, and this particular three tribes = three functions theory ended up being abandoned by Dumezil himself.
I specifically said "either tri-functionality or non-functional triade" tough : I rather agree with these that point the possible existence of a double or one-and-half triad either as artifact or parallel evolution on which the functions aren't that appearant and the "mode of tought" is more superficial.

As said above myself, the point is nevertheless not about a strict organisation of archaic Roman history, and your selective quoting there is twisting my point (I'm not sure how deliberate it is, to be honest): the point was that it was about a comparison between the dual magistrature in Rome and the dual kingship in Sparta, exploring the possibility of a dual kingship in Latium on the grounds of a origin among hypothetical main Lacademonian tribes that could get an equivalent in archaic Rome ALTOUGH it might be (or, rather, be mixed with) an "idealized" artifact from a IE-issued conception and not wholly usable as far as we're talking historical social organisation, without trying to separate what is conceptual and what's tradition (which can associate Tites, Luceres and Ramnes respectively with cattle, war and direction/religion)

Nevertheless, Romulean tribes,(not wholly, I agree) not as the expression of Sabins, Etrusceans and Latin groups (as tempting it might be) but rather as a political expression with an ethnic adlecture (such as ethnicity of the chief) and as such as a tripartie division of archaic Roman society.
The existence of a tripartite early definition, regardless of the ideal artifact, might be an interesting point for what matter the development of a tripartite or dual kingship/magistrature in archaic Rome, IMO.
 
You're confusing being organized as such, and being tought as such. Using a much later exemple with feudal tripartite organisation, the exemples we get from the Xth and XIth texts are less (I would even say "not") about society being strictly organized around three aspects (half of these texts stress that "nowadays, it all went down") than being tought as an ideal order as such. The same is perfectly assumable for the IVth century BCE, projecting in a mythified past not their current organisation, but what they tought being ideal.

I'm not aware of any evidence that the ancient Romans thought the ideal society would be tripartite; are you? For all the periods of which we have evidence, Roman priesthood, military service and landowning were all mixed up and interlinked: farmers were also soldiers, as were priests and political leaders. There's no evidence of anybody lamenting this as a decline from the good old days of tripartite social organisation; if anything, it was seen as a good thing, since having an army drawn from the whole citizen body gave Rome much greater manpower than its enemies.

As said above myself, the point is nevertheless not about a strict organisation of archaic Roman history, and your selective quoting there is twisting my point (I'm not sure how deliberate it is, to be honest): the point was that it was about a comparison between the dual magistrature in Rome and the dual kingship in Sparta, exploring the possibility of a dual kingship in Latium on the grounds of a origin among hypothetical main Lacademonian tribes that could get an equivalent in archaic Rome ALTOUGH it might be (or, rather, be mixed with) an "idealized" artifact from a IE-issued conception and not wholly usable as far as we're talking historical social organisation, without trying to separate what is conceptual and what's tradition (which can associate Tites, Luceres and Ramnes respectively with cattle, war and direction/religion)

With all due respect, it's not always clear what point you're trying to make. In this paragraph, for example, it's not clear whether you're saying that the Romans got the idea of a dual monarchy (I assume you're referring to the consuls here, since there's little evidence that the actual kingship was held by two people) from Sparta (which, even if it's true, isn't really relevant to the question of Indo-European tripartite ideology in Rome), or whether you think that there's some link between tripartite ideology and dual monarchy (which isn't as obvious to me as it seems to be to you). Nor am I sure where you get the idea that tradition "can associate Tites, Luceres and Ramnes respectively with cattle, war and direction/religion," given that the actual tradition as it's come down to us contains no hint of such a division (on the contrary, the Romulean army was supposed to have been drawn from all tribes equally), and that even Dumezil himself ended up abandoning this three tribes = three functions idea.
 
Last edited:
Unlikely, given that the Republic wasn't actually a democracy as the ancients understood the term, and, far from calling themselves the first democracy, Romans generally looked down on Athenian-style constitutions for being too open to demagoguery and mob rule.

When the Romans began to write down their history, the meaning of the word democracy had changed. The Athenian example had vanished, and the term democracy was applied to nearly every republican constitution. In the 2nd century BCE, Polybius used democracy to describe political systems that would never had been described as democracies in the 4th century. Likewise, Cassius Dio used the word democracy to describe the Roman Republic (as opposed to the monarchy of the Principate).

So the theory isn't that unlikely, if you take into account that words sometimes change their meaning.
 
I'm not aware of any evidence that the ancient Romans thought the ideal society would be tripartite; are you?
Maybe there's a language bareer there : I was more thinking about idéel than idéal. In short, not ideal in the sense of "good, advisable", but more in the sense of conceptual, abstract
I won't dwell too much on the rest of the first part of your post, but you're misunderstanding the trifunctional theory there : it's not about arguing it did survived protohistoric times and directed the social organisation of historical societies (as you said, and especially with the development of Roman state and society, it became more interwebed), but that ideal and litterary concepts did survived as mode of toughts there and there, and influenced the vision that historical societies could have from their own origins and/or justifications.

With all due respect, if you're going to complain about people "twisting your point", you should probably try writing more clearly so it's actually possible to understand what your point is.
I don't want to be antagonizing there but I'm not responsible of any selective quoting and re-writing one can do.

In this paragraph, for example, it's not clear whether you're saying that the Romans got the idea of a dual monarchy (I assume you're referring to the consuls here, since there's little evidence that the actual kingship was held by two people) from Sparta (which, even if it's true, isn't really relevant to the question of Indo-European tripartite ideology in Rome)
There, for exemple, you replaced "dual magistrature", referring to republican rome and the dual repartition of consuls and praetors or duumviri, with "dual kingship" in Rome. Regardless of your intent, it's an obvious rewriting which doesn't owes anything to clarity or lack thereof : I only mentioned exploring the possibility of a dual kingship in Latium.

Scrolling the thread back up to the first post, I said "One could see a parallel" between dual magistrature in Rome and dual kingship in Sparta, but a parallel that might be "accidental". I brang the point only to say that a maintained royalty in Rome could go trough a similar evolution from what happened in Rome and Sparta IOTL : there's no much other exemple of dual rulership on a roughly equal footing in the ancient world (well, you have Carthage with the passage from "kings" or tyrannic suffets), and while possibly accidental (as in, not only not sharing any kind of historical influence; but not coming from similar causes either) there's room for fructuous comparison there for an allohistorical development.

While the Titus Livius' affirmation that Titus and Romulus shared a dual kingship should be taken cautiously (probably an late addition) it could be used as an exemple on how an early dual kingship could have been justified in the Vth/IVth century.

TL, DR: we have an exemple of dual kingship in a relative close place from Rome, that could be interesting to use when it comes to maintaining kingship in Rome that used a dual magistrature. Nothing more, nothing less.

or whether you think that there's some link between tripartite ideology and dual monarchy (which isn't as obvious to me as it seems to be to you).
It's not really obvious to me either on how you can spot this in my post : you're making a mountain, so to speak, about what was an aside about how a dual kingship coming from original tribal situation may not be entierly usable for Rome, given the heavily mythologizied history. In short, not justifying the appearance of a dual kinship because of a tripartite distinction of early Roman society, but because this was probably not historical to begin with, but conceptual.

Or :

1) We have exemples of dual institutions in Rome and Sparta
2) Maybe it could be useful for this ATL
3) But the parallel could be accidental (as in neither coming from similar causes or influence)
3a) Furthermore, Roman history tends to be heavily mythologized at this point, and the institutional development as described should be taken with caution.

I would just add that the duplication of Tites, Luceres and Ramnes as anterior and posterior tribes might be another discussion point there.

Nor am I sure where you get the idea that tradition "can associate Tites, Luceres and Ramnes respectively with cattle, war and direction/religion," given that the actual tradition as it's come down to us contains no hint of such a division (on the contrary, the Romulean army was supposed to have been drawn from all tribes equally)
Ramnes's association with direction is probably the easiest, trough Romulus and the link with power and divine. Luceres are said to have prepared for war the quicker IIRC (Lycmon being possibly a military function than a name and is labelled as a general, which is not entierly the case for others), and Titus power is said to come from wealth (cattle for Propertius for exemple, but as well the wealth carried by his soldiers).
Note, again, that it doesn't meant it was the case, and doesn't collide with a more or less equal share (that was more stressed between Titenties and Ramnes, tough : I'm under the impression that Luceres aren't that taken in consideration), as we're talking of an idealized distinction (rather than division) of early Roman society.

and that even Dumezil himself ended up abandoning this three tribes = three functions idea.
Not exactly : whqt he acknowledged was to have confused imagination and mode of tought from one hand, with social reality and historical organisation from another.
In this case, he agreed that the primitive tribes of Rome weren't organized along functional lines, but possibly tought as such as an idealization, again not unlike the three orders of society in the Xth and XIth western Europe : society wasn't really organized into three determinate groups; but it was tought having been the idealized case.

I'll stress again, that said, the part about "non-functional" triad : not that it's not a debatable point (it's a minor position even for comparativists), but I think it highlights the notion of artifact and mode of tought, against any temptation to placate tripartite division as fully functional and historical.
 
When the Romans began to write down their history, the meaning of the word democracy had changed. The Athenian example had vanished, and the term democracy was applied to nearly every republican constitution. In the 2nd century BCE, Polybius used democracy to describe political systems that would never had been described as democracies in the 4th century. Likewise, Cassius Dio used the word democracy to describe the Roman Republic (as opposed to the monarchy of the Principate).

So the theory isn't that unlikely, if you take into account that words sometimes change their meaning.

Polybius, IIRC, described Rome as having a mixed constitution, not a democratic one, whilst Dio was writing centuries later. Even ignoring this, though, Rome seems to have been one of the last Latin cities to abolish its monarchy, so even if they did doctor their records to make the Republic older than Athenian democracy, that still wouldn't make Rome the oldest republic/democracy/whatever you want to call it. Even ignoring this, Rome didn't actually make much of the alleged fact of its being the older republic/democracy/whatever. Even ignoring this latter point, whilst the Varronian chronology ended up becoming standard, there were other chronologies given by other antiquarians which work out as making the establishment of the Republic slightly later than Athenian democracy.

I don't want to be antagonizing there but I'm not responsible of any selective quoting and re-writing one can do.

I'm trying not to sound snotty here, but you keep misspelling or misusing English words (including ones, like "ideal", which are vital to understanding your argument) and have a penchant for extremely long, rambling sentences, which makes it very difficult to understand you sometimes. I'm not deliberately misrepresenting you, and it is very frustrating to be accused of doing so when your writing style is so obscure.
 
Last edited:
Polybius, IIRC, described Rome as having a mixed constitution, not a democratic one

True, but Polybius also called many Greek city-states of the 2nd century democracies, even if the time of classical democracies was long gone. In fact, these "democracies" were just cities or federations with a popular assembly. But this doesn't make a city a democracy. So I think the term democracy was used in many ways by the Greeks, and not always matched our conception of democracy.
 
Top