This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For example, in Livius (book I), is not truth that all the others kings «were all elected by the people of Rome».
Each and every article on a Roman king begins with "was the nth legendary King of (ancient) Rome". This article never mentions legends. This is highly confusing, I should think, to the average reader. We need to clarify the nature of the source material for the Roman Kingdom to explain why each king can be described as "legendary" yet also to explain the historicity of the basic facts (existence of a kingdom, growth of the state and a culture). This is not my area of expertise an I am not competent to do this. Srnec ( talk) 15:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is the mention of Napoleon included in this article? Is it somehow relevant? Sisyphus88 ( talk)
Early Rome was not self-governing. "King of Rome" is somewhat misleading, as history teaches that the early Roman state was ruled by neighboring Etrusca, and Rome was merely a province. To call them the King of Rome is like saying that whoever inhabits the Oval Office is the President of Indiana. Rome was a subjugated province of Etrusca [1] Corwin8 ( talk) 02:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we can conclude with T.J. Cornell in his book The Beginnings Of Rome, that Rome wasn't a Etruscean province or something similiar. Please read pages 151 and further (you can read it on google books). He is not on his own, so I can recomendate reading it. (Excuse me for my bad language, while I'm Dutch...) Moneyandgold ( talk) 18:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The translation of rex as king has anachronistic and misleading overtones. "Chieftain" might be a more accurate translation (assuming one is needed at all, which I doubt). "Kingship" is and ever was an extremely variable condition. Haploidavey ( talk) 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Where did we find this? It is approaching two centuries since Barthold Georg Niebuhr; surely it is a little late to be treating the kings as being as historical as the Presidents of the United States.
At the same time, we should represent the traditional narrative correctly; Tarquinius Superbus may not have used much military force, but Livy's story is not a free election. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Part previews via googlebooks:
Frank Walbank (ed), The Cambridge ancient history, Volume 7, Part 2 (reprint of 1989 revision) [2]
H. H. Scullard, A History of the Roman World, 753 to 146 BC, (4th edn., 2002) [3]
Olivier Hekster, Richard Fowler, Imaginary kings: royal images in the ancient Near East, Greece and Rome, (2005) [4] Haploidavey ( talk) 14:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't see any discussion of this unless it's the historicity complaint above. Lycurgus ( talk) 07:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, Romulus is not even confirmed as a historical person, but you still have the year of till when he ruled?! I mean the year 716 BC, and also all the other years, what are your sources for it?! This is ridicolous... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.66.128 ( talk) 12:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
There are no real portraits of the (legendary) kings of Rome, so these should be deleted from the table. Wherever they're from, they are completely fictional. - Eponymous-Archon ( talk) 22:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
It's currently listed as "Proclaimed himself king after murdering his brother, Remus." This doesn't seem entirely accurate. Because I thought in some stories, Romulus (or one of Romulus's men) killed Remus in battle, not as an act of murder? Further, maybe he "proclaimed himself king" in a certain sense, but he was nevertheless entitled to be king. This is quite different from the impression I get when I read that, of a random joe proclaiming himself king (which, at least in my mind, conjures up images of either an oppressive dictator who lords over everybody without any right to be doing so, or else a delusional narcissist who believes himself to be king but isn't actually a king. But Romulus was none of that. Romulus, along with Remus, was a descendant and heir of the royal family of Troy. And Romulus, in particular, was the one divinely-appointed to found the city of Rome and become the first king).
I propose changing it to: "Received the kingship after the death of his brother, Remus." 76.111.168.184 ( talk) 18:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For example, in Livius (book I), is not truth that all the others kings «were all elected by the people of Rome».
Each and every article on a Roman king begins with "was the nth legendary King of (ancient) Rome". This article never mentions legends. This is highly confusing, I should think, to the average reader. We need to clarify the nature of the source material for the Roman Kingdom to explain why each king can be described as "legendary" yet also to explain the historicity of the basic facts (existence of a kingdom, growth of the state and a culture). This is not my area of expertise an I am not competent to do this. Srnec ( talk) 15:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is the mention of Napoleon included in this article? Is it somehow relevant? Sisyphus88 ( talk)
Early Rome was not self-governing. "King of Rome" is somewhat misleading, as history teaches that the early Roman state was ruled by neighboring Etrusca, and Rome was merely a province. To call them the King of Rome is like saying that whoever inhabits the Oval Office is the President of Indiana. Rome was a subjugated province of Etrusca [1] Corwin8 ( talk) 02:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we can conclude with T.J. Cornell in his book The Beginnings Of Rome, that Rome wasn't a Etruscean province or something similiar. Please read pages 151 and further (you can read it on google books). He is not on his own, so I can recomendate reading it. (Excuse me for my bad language, while I'm Dutch...) Moneyandgold ( talk) 18:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The translation of rex as king has anachronistic and misleading overtones. "Chieftain" might be a more accurate translation (assuming one is needed at all, which I doubt). "Kingship" is and ever was an extremely variable condition. Haploidavey ( talk) 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Where did we find this? It is approaching two centuries since Barthold Georg Niebuhr; surely it is a little late to be treating the kings as being as historical as the Presidents of the United States.
At the same time, we should represent the traditional narrative correctly; Tarquinius Superbus may not have used much military force, but Livy's story is not a free election. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Part previews via googlebooks:
Frank Walbank (ed), The Cambridge ancient history, Volume 7, Part 2 (reprint of 1989 revision) [2]
H. H. Scullard, A History of the Roman World, 753 to 146 BC, (4th edn., 2002) [3]
Olivier Hekster, Richard Fowler, Imaginary kings: royal images in the ancient Near East, Greece and Rome, (2005) [4] Haploidavey ( talk) 14:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't see any discussion of this unless it's the historicity complaint above. Lycurgus ( talk) 07:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, Romulus is not even confirmed as a historical person, but you still have the year of till when he ruled?! I mean the year 716 BC, and also all the other years, what are your sources for it?! This is ridicolous... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.66.128 ( talk) 12:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
There are no real portraits of the (legendary) kings of Rome, so these should be deleted from the table. Wherever they're from, they are completely fictional. - Eponymous-Archon ( talk) 22:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
It's currently listed as "Proclaimed himself king after murdering his brother, Remus." This doesn't seem entirely accurate. Because I thought in some stories, Romulus (or one of Romulus's men) killed Remus in battle, not as an act of murder? Further, maybe he "proclaimed himself king" in a certain sense, but he was nevertheless entitled to be king. This is quite different from the impression I get when I read that, of a random joe proclaiming himself king (which, at least in my mind, conjures up images of either an oppressive dictator who lords over everybody without any right to be doing so, or else a delusional narcissist who believes himself to be king but isn't actually a king. But Romulus was none of that. Romulus, along with Remus, was a descendant and heir of the royal family of Troy. And Romulus, in particular, was the one divinely-appointed to found the city of Rome and become the first king).
I propose changing it to: "Received the kingship after the death of his brother, Remus." 76.111.168.184 ( talk) 18:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)