Rome remains a monarchy?

Do you think it is at all possible that Ancient Rome could have remained as a monarchy and still gone onto achieve the great things it did?

And if it had remained a monarhcy would it have remained elective or would it have become based on inheritance?
 
Archaic kingship had trouble maintaining itself onto city-states, historically, or at the point of being virtually a ceremonial magistrature.

With a national definition about a demos, rather than an ethnos (as in Macedonia or Thessaly), you're going to have an important civic conciousness, especially (as it's likely the case) if the kingship is tied up with something seen as "foreign", in this case Etrusceans.

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 the IE tri-functionality as much as genuine organisation).

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, Romanity.
 
Last edited:
What about having a King and Consul instead of two Consuls. Like one is elected for life, with more limited powers and one for a year as usual. Or have the King be the guardian of the constitution or something similar, mainly acting as High Priest and only stepping in in a crisis, like a Dictator. IDK but in theory it should be possible for Rome to retain a King, if only symbolically. The real question to me is, will Rome still rise to dominate much of the world and if so, will we still see an Emperor rise or will he be a revitalized King?
 
Probably. The administrative roots of Rome's greatness were already laid by Servius Tullius.

Supposedly. The 7 kings were more mythical than historical (judging, for starters, by there only being 7 kings). A lot of what was ascribed to the kings wasn't likely in place until the Republic. To give an example, the Servian walls weren't actually built until after the Gallic sack.
 
All very interesting, one does wonder what might be the case had Romulus and Remus never been found by that wolf? :p
 
Do you think it is at all possible that Ancient Rome could have remained as a monarchy and still gone onto achieve the great things it did?

And if it had remained a monarhcy would it have remained elective or would it have become based on inheritance?

Well, "elective monarchy" is not exactly "monarchy". At least in my definition.

Rome did not exist in vacuum. It was first in Italy and after that in the Western Mediterranean in general. And in this region the idea of kingship was not too popular. So no wonder the Romans got without kings as well (after the initial period).
I mean if "most of big boys" go without kings, why should we, the Romans have one? It's not cool.
 
All very interesting, one does wonder what might be the case had Romulus and Remus never been found by that wolf? :p

Again, we may really be in a likely mythical settings. Especially with Romulus and Remus, you have a lot of mythical reference you can find in other IE cultures : divine twins, evolution from peasants to warriors to kings, ...

Eventually it's likely that Romulus and Quirinus, especially, were issued from archaic etrusco-roman deities (it's almost certain for Quirinus, an aspect of Mars associated with farmlands and/or defensive war which is the most ancient aspect of Mars among Romans).

Even Romans tought it was more about poetic licence and imagination than historical reality.
 
Again, we may really be in a likely mythical settings. Especially with Romulus and Remus, you have a lot of mythical reference you can find in other IE cultures : divine twins, evolution from peasants to warriors to kings, ...

Eventually it's likely that Romulus and Quirinus, especially, were issued from archaic etrusco-roman deities (it's almost certain for Quirinus, an aspect of Mars associated with farmlands and/or defensive war which is the most ancient aspect of Mars among Romans).

Even Romans tought it was more about poetic licence and imagination than historical reality.

Very true, all socities do have their creation myths after all/.
 
Archaic kingship had trouble maintaining itself onto city-states, historically, or at the point of being virtually a ceremonial magistrature.

With a national definition about a demos, rather than an ethnos (as in Macedonia or Thessaly), you're going to have an important civic conciousness, especially (as it's likely the case) if the kingship is tied up with something seen as "foreign", in this case Etrusceans.

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 the IE tri-functionality as much as genuine organisation).

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, Romanity.

A couple of nitpicks: the idea that the Roman monarchy was associated with foreign (Etruscan) dominion is a modern one, not really found in the ancient texts. True, Tarquin's family had come from an Etruscan city, but they were ethnically Greek rather than Etruscan, and besides concepts of national identity were pretty fluid at that particular place and time (heck, Rome itself was supposedly a fusion of two different tribes), so there's no real reason to think that the Romans would have seen anything wrong in having an Etruscan ruler.

Also, the tripartite IE theory, whatever its merits for explaining original PIE social organisation (about which I'm not qualified to comment), is only tenuously linked to the Roman tribes. Among other things, there's no indication in the sources that the three tribes had different roles or functions, and some indications (e.g., the fact that they all had to provide soldiers) that they didn't. Really, the only thing they had in common with the PIE tribes was that there were three of them.
 
Can you allow me to reverse my answers? I hope to point it's for good reasons.

Among other things, there's no indication in the sources that the three tribes had different roles or functions, and some indications (e.g., the fact that they all had to provide soldiers) that they didn't.
O'm not really sure you understood my point.

When I said I think it could be as well tri-functionalism than genuine original organisation, I meant it. Not everything in a myth can be traced back to the former.

That said, you have some traces of what could be tri-functionality in the historical myth.
The founder deity/king organising the original society into three distinct bodies (after having searched support from divinities), whom generic name could be related to a variant on "three".

For such a basic foundation on distinct bodies to revolve about three can't be pulled away, when we know that the triads aren't limited to tri-functionalism in IE mythical organisation, but one should consider with more caution the triadic mentions when they can be relevant (Meaning in an important context enough : such as "three raven being seen together is a bad sign" or "three tribes organised with divine avail")

I would point, eventually, that I didn't even pretended even for one second that these tribes had different functions, but that they could have been identified with different functions, more or less totemically (is that a word in english) and such in a real ancient part of Roman history.

Without entering too much in details, it have been advanced that Tites would have been associated with reproduction, Luceres with fighting and Ramnes with political/religious.

It's essentially based on the traditional ethnic division of the tribes, respectivly Sabins of Tatius, Latins of Romulus and Remus, Etrusceans of Lucumon.
These groups are often attributed some caracteristics (Propercius, but on Virgil as well, but it's a long time since I checked,so you'd allow me a possible mistake) : Sabins with their cattle, Etrusceans with their military skills, Latins with the political (and obviously) religious supremacy.

I'm not going to pretend that it couldn't be criticized (even if what is criticized is often an hypothesis made by Dumézil that he abandoned eventually, about these tribes BEING agricultors, fighters, etc.), but in a context of heavy mythification on first roman kings, you'd admit that there's room for including these.

Admittedly, I could have been quick on this for being more clearly understood. (but it wasn't, arguably, the subject at hand), but I think you're putting away too much things in your own answer.

so there's no real reason to think that the Romans would have seen anything wrong in having an Etruscan ruler.
I'm less talking about national identity in a modern sense, than a "national" dynasty; and less "Romans" as a whole than its aristocracy.

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.

You'll 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.

Basically my point is less about having a foreigner as a king, but having someone that is not seen as incarnating the interests of one city on behalf of "foreign" people (which could be either new comers into aristocracy; or neighbours).

Am I clearer?
 
Monarchy in Rome was, after a certain point, not Roman, but Etruscian monarchy.

So there are not only political, but also ethnic and cultural problems with the king (imagine a king speaking a language that is not your's).
 
Basically my point is less about having a foreigner as a king, but having someone that is not seen as incarnating the interests of one city on behalf of "foreign" people (which could be either new comers into aristocracy; or neighbours).

That makes sense, though I'd point out you don't need to remove the monarchy to deal with it. It could be possible to replace the original line of kings with one dependent on support from the local aristocracy, even more so if the original king is exiled (or fled) and supported by an Etruscan city.

Weak kings dependent on local nobility for any exercise of political power would not be capable of showing favor to those foreign cities without the consent of the demos (or at least the aristocracy). From there, a narrower focus on religion would be a natural way for such kings to bolster their legitimacy and influence.
 
I mostly agree with you, hence my previous proposition.

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, Romanity.
 
Top