This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 21, 2007, April 21, 2008, April 21, 2011, April 21, 2013, and April 21, 2014. |
Would it be worth mention to point out the parallels with the recent case of the Chilean child who was nursed by a pack of feral dogs? Of course, that child was not an infant, but it still suggests the scenario is not quite as outlandish as previously thought. Just mostly. :) -- April
Sure. I actually had a student raise her hand last week when I asked "how many of you were raised by wolves?" My point was that they all ought to have had some experience of a built environmnet, but maybe she was being truthful? MichaelTinkler
It is somewhat confusing that our text mentions first Tiberius then Faustulus who has saved the twins. We do not seem to be consistent. What is the source of the word "Tiberius"? If they are two names of the same person, we should indicate it. I.e., Faustulus or Tiberius, or: Faustulus, a.k.a (also called as) Tiberius. Is not it a confusion for the River Tiberius, if the babies were left on its shore? Similar confusion exists at Loba. Was she the same person as Acca Larentia? The latter word may refer to the Lares, domestic gods of the Romans that are actually Romulus and remus, it appears.
The last part of the new text is a bit long and too detailed but it is the cornerstone of the ancient chronology of the world. (It may be shifted under Rome's foundation but then the birth and death of Romulus would be quite irrelavent there.) The three solar eclipses shall be mentioned here TOGETHER. They are actually six but the other three belong to the Greek history. For example, the total eclipse of Odysseus is detailed under our "Penelope" for now. It occurred on April 16, 1178 BCE. Since total eclipses can be observed from the same place only once in 410 years (an average figure of astronomers), these eclipses provide exclusive absolute dates for us. The other two Greek eclipses are as follow: The expulsion of the last Roman king (end of 506, or February 23, 505 BCE in the new system) can be dated, bacause 28 years later (or, in the 28th year as one may believe) Xerxes crossed over to Greece with his army (Polybius, The Histories III, 22. 1-2) and that event is fixed to 478 BCE (as Hind and Chambers, 1889:323 observed long ago) by two solar eclipses. (The modern 509 BCE date is not well supported as absolute date.) Herodotus VII, 37 and VIII, 131 and IX, 1) testifies these two solar eclipses (fifth and sixth) as follow: When Xerxes was departing from Sardis, before crossing over to Greece, the Sun disappeared (on February 17, 478 BCE). Also in the next year, after the return of Cleombrotus to Sparta a solar eclipse was seen on August 1, 477 BCE. There are no other candidates for these eclipses and they fix harmoniously the Greek and Roman chronology. (Z.S., contact zasimon@hotmail.com)
Thanks. It would be great to put this under solar eclipses as well. The details of the three eclipses detailed under Romulus and Remus can be shifted there, as important information for astronomers, etc. However, it would be nice to leave at least the three absolute dates of the three (Roman) eclipses within Romulus and Remus at least. The observation of Tarquin/Tarquin is good, and anyone should feel free to add cross-references, mention something short of it under many other relevant articles if accepted by the co-editors. Also, it is a questionmark form me if Sun or sun shall be written. As a celestial object, it is Sun, but you may render it to a civil or common "sun." (zasimon@hotmail.com)
re KT's query. It was the practice in many cultures to dispose of sickly children by leaving them outside at night. Although falling short of the crime of murder, this effectively doomed them to death from exposure or wild beasts. More recently, the practice was used to dispose of unwanted
children (ie girls) in China. Even in English law infanticide (aged under 1 year) is a lesser crime than murder. jimfbleak 07:23 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
You failed to mention that the two were the sons of the priestess AND the god Ares. This is important to the story because Romulus would in the end be taken back by his father and made a god, according to legend.
What's the deal with the "god of Mars?" is that supposed to be "the god, Mars"? Paul 19:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) –––– I agree that the content lacks clarity. There is no certainty stated as to whether Romulus was a mythical or real person. Also, the origination of the writings on Romulus and Remus is vague and not listed as texts. 2601:603:1B7F:8B3E:B4C7:CBC6:1900:B0BD ( talk) 03:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand the eclipse and dating stuff being in this article. It does not directly relate to Romulus and Remus. It also, it seems to me, goes against the general consensus on Romulus and Remus, which is that they're legendary figures who didn't really exist - thus, giving the "correct" dates for Romulus's reign doesn't make a great deal of sense. Any way we can move it to somewhere else? john k 19:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree and have moved the entire section here, for inspection Zany or scientific, it is a definitive example of "Original research". I did add the quote from Velleius Paterculus, which gives the flavor of the foundation this house of cards is built upon. ( Wetman 20:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC))
he was ruling for 50 years
In the Latin, the word for the birds counted by the twins in augury is vultur, vulturis, obviously the root word for the English "vulture" but also translated as "big bird" and perhaps even refering to eagles, which were though to have a special relationship with Zues.
The sources for these mythic details need to be distinguished from time to time: "as Virgil said..." etc. It currently reads as if we imagine these are biographical details. -- Wetman 20:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it wshould be noted that "she-wolf", in Latin, was a fairly common euphemism for "prostitute" (or so claims my Latin teacher; I have no sources to back this up).
...perhaps the result of too many late-night viewing of "Ilsa, She-wolf of the SS"? -- Wetman 05:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
A couple of times an image was added, and removed again. Couldn't figure out why. Why not add this image? It wasn't added before (I think) and it seems perfect. Garion96 20:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the fact that the call prostitutes 'she-wolf' would be in reference to the fact that wolves were very frowned upon in such time and whilst the twins could have possibly been raised by a prostitue there is a good chance that was not intended. The wolf is a sacred beast to the god mars and to me it seems that could be the significance to Lupa. I mean if you wish to look at it in a mythical sense, it seems likely Mars would send one of his creatures to save the boys.
I don't really know that it's relevant, and I've never heard any "confusion" among scholars about the Romulus and Remus myth, but after seeing what could be the start of an edit war I figured I'd post and confirm that, yes, lupa does mean both she-wolf and prostitute. [2] Seems to me it's probably some first-year Latin student very impressed with himself that he found out that they're the same word. Still, it deserves looking into before reverting it blindly again; maybe it deserves mention somewhere, I don't know. I know it's hard to assume good faith when it's a couple of anons posting this kind of subject matter, but... Kafziel 02:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
caption
Emphasis added.
Um. Yeah. The caption for the initial picture is ENTIRELY too long. -- MusicMaker5376 20:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be two different articles for each of the twins? Or at least one on the legend and another on the rule of Romulus as the first king of Rome? TarquiniusWikipedius 02:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Romulus and remus are on my comic strip for school —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.123.41.98 ( talk • contribs) . 14:25, 23 May 2006
The king-to-be of Rome (whether it was to be Romulus or Remus), was decided over augury. They stood in separate areas and counted the birds that flew overhead. Romulus saw more birds and therefore became king.
Remus, when Romulus was building the walls to the city, was jumping back and forth over the city border, taunting Remus's efforts to build a wall. Remus was then brutally slain by his brother, Romulus, with the words "Sic deinde pereat quicumque alius traniliet moenia mea."
Hopefully this mistake in the introduction will be corrected soon.
Source: Fabulae Romanae Zoni 03:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Zoni
Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? ... With Amulius dead, the city settled down and offered Romulus and Remus the joint crown. However, the twins refused to be the kings so long as their grandfather was still alive, and would not live in the city as subjects. Thus after restoring the kingship to Numitor and properly honoring their mother Rhea Sylvia, the two left England to found their own city upon New York. Before they left England, however, they took with them fugitives, runaway slaves, and all others who wanted a second chance at life. Once Romulus and Remus arrived at the New York, the two argued over where the exact position of the city should be. Romulus was set on building the city upon the Bronx, but Remus wanted to build the city on the strategic and easily fortified Manhattan Island. They agreed to settle their argument by testing their abilities as augurs and by the will of the gods. Each took a seat on the ground apart from one another, and, according to Giuliani, Remus saw six vultures (which were considered to be sacred to Al Gore, their father), while Romulus saw twelve.
This question reveals my vast ignorance on the subject: The article does state that Romulus and Remus belong to fiction and myth. But -- much of the article also treats them as actual persons (e.g., the mention of the lack of certainty of their birthdate). It is bizarre that the article should not state clearly whether they belong solely to myth, or were in fact also real people. My question is this: Are they or are they not believed to have been real (as well as appearing in myth)? In any case, my opinion is that whwatever the case is, this should be made crystal clear in the intro. Daqu 19:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I`ve found a rather obvious and offensive vandalism of this article not too far down, right after the part where it states Romulus slew Remus. I`d fix it myself, but my knowledge of the legend is a bit lacking, so I do not know if the names used are mythologically accurate. But, I do know that coarse language does not belong in this format except in the case of an informative or comparative use, so someone please rectify this defacement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crossfire 7 ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
I removed a statement that Romulus and Remus descend from fugitives from Amsterdam. I guess that would need some more referencing. RFB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RFB ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
The end of 3rd and beginning of 4th para. in the section Life before Rome doesn't follow:
...ordered the death of the twins by exposure.
The servant ordered to kill the twins could not, however, and placed the two in a cradle and laid the cradle on the banks of the Tiber river and went away. Block quote
If the order was to kill the twins by exposure, and the servant 'placed the two in a cradleon the banks of the Tiber and went away', then he could 'kill the twins', and he did, and exactly as ordered.
So "the servant ordered to kill the twins could not, however" is false, surely?
Robert Crowdy 12:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The story of R&R has had influences on art and music. I'd like to read something about that Gautam Discuss 22:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate to illustrate this page with Victorian cartoons? Paul B 09:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It isn't at all appropriate considering they have satirical meaning. 88.111.44.12 ( talk) 16:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
"Sanctuary of Rome's 'founder' revealed" from Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_re_eu/birth_of_rome
"Italian Archaeologists Unveil Grotto Linked to Romulus, Remus" from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312310,00.html
DonL ( talk) 08:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this isnt the way im supposed to post this, but im relatively new. Although Romulus was the more well know of the two brothers, Remus played a large part in the beginning of Rome. Also, the incident at Alba Longa was a relatively important incident in the founding of Rome. I believe that this article should be separated into 3 different articles, one each for Romulus, Remus, and the dispute/revolt in Alba Longa. Also, if anyone could please give me advice ou how to post this properly, i would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.
Sniper201092 ( talk) 21:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This article presents, in naive and tediously pedestrian detail, a synthesized "biography", in the Christian fashion of creating "biographies" for figures like Christopher, Sebastian, Barbara, Margaret, et al. A wholesome corrective would be a report of the findings in Timothy Peter Wiseman, Remus: A Roman Myth (Cambridge University Press) 1995, which analyzes the myth as myth. -- Wetman ( talk) 21:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
http://www.crystalinks.com/romulus.html and this article have a lot of identical stuff, and the Crystalinks page links to this article -- as an extra reference, or is it copied from an earlier version? Of course, if it is the original, we have to cut it all out and that means basically starting afresh -- a very good idea.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Should there be any kind of section about the parallels (and perhaps differences) in the Moses story? What about other comparitive religion/mythology? 208.53.116.182 ( talk) 16:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)amyanda2000
This birth legend is in many respects similar to the 7th century BCE Neo-Assyrian version of the birth of the king Sargon of Akkad in the 24th century BCE who, being born of modest means, was set in the Euphrates river in a basket of bulrushes and discovered by a member of the Akkadian royalty who reared him as their own. Professor Eric H. Cline refers to the story of the birth of Moses as a 'foundation myth', similar to those of Sargon, Cyrus the Great and Romulus and Remus.
208.53.116.182 ( talk) 17:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)amyanda2000
It is tities the tribe of the sabines not titites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.59.113.236 ( talk) 18:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The motif of an abandoned child specifically in a river context is a near universal mythological concept. It shouldn't be hard to understand why since most early and in fact virtually all early major civilizations were based around some type of river. Once again not hard to understand, it provides plentiful potable water for the obvious immediate survival needs and for later irrigation needs necessary to support a large population. Additionally, on a more practical level, women of these societies frequently put their child up for "adoption" using this method.
In the West at least (and still in many non-Western civilizations today), until the rise of Christianity, babies were not really "people" but rather property. It was common if a child had a birth defect to let it die by exposure on a rock or toss it off of a cliff. Even if the baby wasn't "defective" parents would kill their child for reasons such as gender, how pretty it was, or if they just didn't feel like raising a kid. Believe it or not simply sending a child down stream to be picked up was considered more merciful than the other methods. Here the child could be adopted by an older woman, a barren woman, or someone compassionate like with Moses.
If anything Moses is a relatively recent appropriation of this classical motif as is most of early Jewish custom regarding other pre-existing practices. It is only really starting with the Babylonian Exile around 550 B.C. that Jewish custom begins to become exclusively their own. Therefore, I don' believe the "Moses Parallel" needs to be included. If you want to include a small summary of the origin of this myth that uses Moses and others as an example then I'm fine with that. BinaryLust ( talk) 00:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
At the end of the article a reference could be made to the fictional use of the names of both Romulus and Remus in the fictional Star Trek television series' movies and books. Media:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulan#Romulan_Star_Empire . Or I have also seen this type of reference made in the head of an article
-- Vann98 ( talk) 13:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is also missing an entire section of the myth. Romulus and Remus founded a new city, Rome, they did not continue to live in and rule the city of Amulius. Romulus kills Amulius and restores control of the city to Numitor and then the twins decide to found a new one and this isn't reflected in the article. Also, the article talks about Life after the founding of Rome and how Romulus became king after the assasination of Tatius. This is totally wrong, sorry. Romulus and Remus found Rome but they lack anyone to live there. The twins invite the outlaws of Italy to come to this new city. The population is made up entirely of murderers, smugglers, theives and the like and there are no women. To fix this, they have a horse race and invite the families of a nearby city, a people called the Sabines, to come. The romans attack and steal all of the women from these people. Titus Tatius forms a force and attacks Rome to get the women back. The myth says that the women had fallen in love with their Roman captors (badboy effect maybe?) and they throw themselves between the two armies to stop the fighting. The two sides even join together and all the Sabines move into Rome to live. From this point, Tatius and Romulus co-rule Rome until the death of Tatius a few years later, leaving Romulus the sole ruler. The article doesn't show this portion of the myth at all and makes it seem as though they don't really found a new city, rather they just rename the one they were already in... All of this info I've learned from reading the Aeneid and from The Dictionary of Classical Mythology by Pierre Grimal (ISBN-13: 978-0-140-51235-9) Vickler ( talk) 18:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Quite frankly, it's unreasonable to ask the distinguishing of fact and fiction in what is only ASSUMED fact. The story is a legend, and attempting to sever fact from fiction is asking the impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.150.213 ( talk) 02:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I took the liberty of restoring these things. Even though we cannot tell for sure if Romulus and Remus truly were historical figures, I see no reason to remove this info. Lycurgus, the Spartan who was said to be the creator of Spartan's laws and society as it is famous today, is a figure no different from Romulus and Remus, yet his article has info similar to what was removed from this article - and I really do not see a reason to remove such info. It is not claimed that Romulus and Remus or Lycurgus would definetely be historical figures. -- Kurt Leyman ( talk) 13:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Restored infobox with the mother and father figures removed. The infobox adds structure to the article, and Romulus and Remus being historical figures (elements such as being fathered by Mars aside, of course) as some historians argue is not be discarded. I see no reason to remove the box. Lycurgus, the Spartan who was said to be the creator of Spartan's laws and society as it is famous today, is a figure no different from Romulus and Remus, yet his article has info similar to what was removed from this article - and I really do not see a reason to remove such info. It is not claimed that Romulus and Remus or Lycurgus would definetely be historical figures. "Romulus and Remus are definitely mythological figures." Whilst I do not (suprise suprise) belive that Romulus and Remus were fathered by Mars, there is no definete say to them being purely mythological - then again, I am not claiming that they would have certainly been historical figures. They are the mythological founders of Rome, just as Lycurgus was the mythological founder of Spartan law, but historical bases for these figures are something that should not be discarded. The article makes it very clear that Romulus and Remus were the traditional founders of Rome in Roman belifs, and that the dates given by ancient historians like Plutarch are only alleged. -- Kurt Leyman ( talk) 14:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Romulus was not entirely fictional. The City of Rome really was founded by the bastard son of prostitute--he was not actually raised by a wolf, a later embellishment thanks to a linguistic coincidence--and since no twin brother appears on the original king-list he was probably an only child not a twin.
Nevertheless, a man from very humble origins (though not actually raised by a wolf) did found the most influential city in world history.
We should tweak the Article to clarify that legend (exaggerated history) is not the same as myth (tales of the gods) even though they overlap.
My sources are Ovid and Livy among others. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 08:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The issue is discussed above. In the case of probably mythological figures (or even definitely mythological figures), should the lead/infobox contain birth & death dates even if shown somehow (in this case by a footnote) that they are alleged dates? Dougweller ( talk) 16:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I've restored sections that were deleted by Dougweller some while ago. Before today, the article jumped from R+R's childhood to Romulus's joint rule with "Tatius", whose name was just suddenly introduced without any mention of who he was! This made the article completely unreadable and nonsensical. The earlier text has problems, but it is not unsupported. It refers to sources, but does not generally present them as footnotes - fairly typical of Wikipedia text written some years ago when such matters were less important. The article needs to give a full and coherent account of the R+R myth. Just deleting whole sections, seemingly arbitrarily, is like chopping whole chapters from the summary of a book, leaving chapter 1 jumping straight to chapter 4 without any explanation of who new characters are or what happened to the old ones. Paul B ( talk) 16:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder whether the two myths, that have many common traits, bear the mark of some kind of remembrance of a matriarcal society. Children generated by god, ie no known father, and reared by uncles and aunts or strangers who were connected to an uncle, as Acca and Faustulus to Numitor. All these features are typical of a matriarcal order of society. Aldrasto ( talk) 05:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed the dead link and comment (I assume it was based on the linked site) and pasted it here as reminder (to myself as much as any) that Rome's foundation myth requires evaluation within a modern scholarly perspective. Haploidavey ( talk) 02:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
*
Miracles "The parallels here are unmistakable. In both stories we have a "king" addressing his subjects, a cloud enveloping the "king", and the bodily ascension upwards into the heavens. Jesus and Romulus are simply two examples among many."
It's well covered by Cornell and others (citation and context to come).
Haploidavey (
talk) 01:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
We've a mixed lot of sources categorised as "primary" and "secondary"; that's iffy, if not immediately misleading in a subject of such complex historiography. I'll change the format and layout. There'll be inline citations and external links to those "secondary" sources anyway, along with a cited, interpretive modern bibliography. (I'm not at all sure why Fabius and Livy would both be described as primary sources on the subject - and apart from a very brief summary, plus Plutarch's say-so, we have very little Fabius anyway). Haploidavey ( talk) 23:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This quite long list is of little value (and will probably confuse many readers) unless connections and relevance are explained; we can't rely on linked articles to do that. I'll paste it here for now, and re-instate those supported by sources as relevant to the topic. Haploidavey ( talk) 19:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
"The many names associated with Acca Laurentia, are: Acca Larenta, Larentia, Laurentia, Lara, Larunda, Larenta, Larentina, and Terra Mater, or the The Mother of the Lares, Bona Dea, Lupa, Luperca, and Dea Dia, as well as Fauna, who had an oracle on the nearby Aventine Hill and was the wife of Faunus."
"Shepherd kings, as some mythographers would classify Romulus, were torn to pieces in a secret religious ceremony at the end of their "reign" and the beginning of the reign of the next "king"."
Are we sure about the use of the phrase 'Shepherd Kings' in this context? The title 'Shepherd Kings' usually refers to the Hyksos, an ancient Egyptian Tribe from the 18th century BC with no connection to Romulus & Remus. The contributor appears to be using it as though it is an established phrase with some more generalised mythologic meaning. Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butcherscross ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a work on this subject by a French scholar quoted by Dumezil. However it connects the dismembering of Romolus with an Indoiranian ritual. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 04:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As yet I have not been able to retrace the citation. However Frazer wrote of such ritual killing of the king in his work Scapegoat p. 210. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 11:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes Frazer does not talk specifically of shepherd kings: his argument concerns regality itself. The king being a god is as such the object of the projection of group aggressiveness. Hence the ritual murdering of the king-god. Best instance in Latium being o.c. the rex nemorensis. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 13:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thankfully his is a minority opinion, rather than the most notable of "some". Not a matter to be given undue weight in the lede, so if no-one objects, I'll lay him to rest in a footnote. Haploidavey ( talk) 02:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Circa 771 etc? Given that this is mythography (and I sincerely hope we agree that it is), need we be quite so precious in offering historically spurious dates? Would this Plutarchian calculation not be best in a footnote? Haploidavey ( talk) 14:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
About the section on the stories concerning the birth of the two twins, their rearing and deeds to their conflict on the foundation of Rome. I gather the author here has not read Dionysius's version which is by far the most complete and reliable. I would suggest adding it as it is significantly different on many essential points. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 05:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Emilio Peruzzi too gives his positive opinion in his works (Le origini di Roma etc.). Romulus would be Sabine nickname meaning the one from Rome. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 11:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Wiseman is a quotable source to edit this article on the various versions of the story. It is certain Remus was the original name whereas Romulus is a derivate, a nickname. Cf. Remoria a hill on which Remus stood and according to Dionysius that was 5 miles from the Palatine.05:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Aldrasto11 ( talk) 05:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Among ancient sources a precise and explicit mention should go to Varro and Properce about Caelius Vibenna, Titus Tatius and the name of the 3 tribes.
Among contemporary sources it is always interesting the article by S. B. Platner Septimontium in Dictionary of Greek and Roman Ant. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 13:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed there's very little reference for sections The Founding of Rome, and none for The city of Romulus, War with the Sabines, etc. What's up with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.156.14 ( talk) 20:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If we leave that category, we should somehow annotate to be less misleading. Romulus was not entirely fictional, but the story of his being a feral child is fictional, not entirely unlike George Washington's cherry tree.
His father, despite later embellishment, was not Mars but an unknown customer of his mother (a prostitute). Furthermore, the "Lupa" who raised him was his prostitute mother, not literally a female wolf. Nevertheless, there was a real man that was later changed and exaggerated to become mythology. Not only did Ovid and Livy and others write this, but a man named Romulus also appears on the original list of the Seven Kings of Early Rome, the 1st on the list and the Founder. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 08:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only person who, having read the article, was still left feeling confused by the historicity of the subjects. But I'm dismayed to discover that the perplexity goes back to the origins of the article itself, and no editor with the appropriate classical education has seen fit to clarify things. Are these historical figures? Are they mythical figures? Are they historical figures heavily overlain with mythical qualities? The article doesn't say. Instead, it shifts between providing "biographical" details, including specific dates; and mythological elements. What would be helpful is to have a section just dealing with the question of teasing apart history from myth. fishhead64 ( talk) 20:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem with the earliest Roman history is that the student will find (roughly speaking) three different takes on it: the traditional (as in up to the 18th or 19th centuries) approach, which was to treat Livy as accurate & simply retell what he wrote -- with a few nods to Plutarch, Dionysus of Hallicarnassus; what could be called the "19th century" approach, which was to acknowledge problems in the accepted account of this early history (e.g., the tale of Romulus & Remulus echoes many well-known folklore motifs such as twin birth, heros surviving despite being exposed at birth, being suckled by a wild animal); & contemporary approach, which while being critical still values the traditional story for the insights it offers to what the Romans thought of themselves & of their origins. I suspect this article had its origins in the EB 1911 article, which at best demonstrates the second approach, & despite that this article has had attention from intelligent & knowledgeable editors, it hasn't freed it from the limits of that venerable but outdated works, while mingling elements of all three approaches & serving it up as a messy combination. And to repeat myself, the size of this article is going to make even intelligent (& especially veteran) editors reluctant to perform the necessary work on it. -- llywrch ( talk) 19:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I deleted the following passages from this section because they are not sourced. Please do not restore without citations or with new links wherein the differing stories can be supported. In particular, The portion about the King and his Niece's pregnancy features an uncited conclusion regarding blood-guilt. The portion on the Acca/Dea Dia features an unattributed description of the version of the legend itself, uncited conclusion about the connection between the two figures in question, and another unattributed reference to a variation of the legend in the last sentence of the paragraph. The claims about Hercules link to that article, but there is no mention of this account found there. The last portion has the same issues with the legend referenced, as well as claims made regarding Luperca and Lupercus (specifically that he was associated with the fertility of flocks).
I believe the present tense should be used when recounting incidents in the legend. For instance:
Current version
Suggested version
Comments? InformationvsInjustice ( talk) 04:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
It really needs to be overhauled. It's sourced, but it needs to be written in less archaic English: "Weary of kingly government"; "This suspicion they sought to turn aside"; "exasperated of late by the imperious deportment of Romulus toward them"; "made him away".
Also the last three run-on sentences need to be fixed (the one below is the worst offender):
A "foul suspicion" arose that the Senate, weary of kingly government, and exasperated of late by the imperious deportment of Romulus toward them, had plotted against his life and made him away, so that they might assume the authority and government into their own hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationvsInjustice ( talk • contribs) 07:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I propose renaming the article "The legend of Romulus and Remus" with a redirect from here. An ancient sources subsection should be created, which identifies the various (there aren't actually that man) writers whose work has handed down the myth. Modern sources and historicity could be dealt with in another subsection, free of the details of the story itself.
To stress the non-historical nature of the topic, the lead should begin "The legend of R & R is the mythical tale of the twin brothers who, according to the ancient Romans founded the city of Rome and established the semi-historical kingdom which predates the establishment of the Roman Republic..."
The importance of the topic to the understanding of ancient Rome merits whatever input can be gotten from all of you who have done so much great work over the years to maintain and improve the page. InformationvsInjustice ( talk) 20:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Please follow these links to the proposed new articles to replace the existing one.
Romulus: /info/en/?search=User:InformationvsInjustice/sandbox3
Romulus and Remus: /info/en/?search=User:InformationvsInjustice/sandbox2
Comments? Feedback? Help? Informata ob Iniquitatum ( talk) 04:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Should the article be reassessed? In light of the revisons? How does that process work? Informata ob Iniquitatum ( talk) 20:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Nice work here, and vastly better than before. Anyone can reassess, and probably will. It's entirely up to you, of course, but I'd wait a couple of weeks, and see if the rewrite draws more attention, and more editing. At least it's now where it belongs, and is shaped as it should be. Haploidavey ( talk) 20:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
There are links between this "sacred twin" imagery and functions of the Dioscuri/ Castor and Pollux and Lares, and R&R borrowings or parallels; probably best made very briefly, in a subsection of iconography. Still can't find my copy of Wiseman's Remus, which deals with these connections (among much else). Haploidavey ( talk) 20:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The lead is really hard to read, what with the enormous Mignard painting. Per MOS, leading image should be on the right. How about the altar image as lead image, and the Lupa somewhere below? And the Mignard (substantially and lawfully shrunken) nested further down? Haploidavey ( talk) 00:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
and
i don't understand how these are meant to be read in a way that makes any sense. 73.74.12.238 ( talk) 00:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
It's been over a decade and this guy still hasn't gotten satisfaction. It doesn't matter that Livy may have omitted it: by far the common modern version of the story is that Romulus and Remus got violent over teasing over a short wall ( murus Romuli), probably misunderstanding the ancient idea of the furrow created during the sulcus primigenius. Wherever it came from, it should be mentioned prominently here with suitable sourcing and (if necessary) caveats. — LlywelynII 07:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 21, 2007, April 21, 2008, April 21, 2011, April 21, 2013, and April 21, 2014. |
Would it be worth mention to point out the parallels with the recent case of the Chilean child who was nursed by a pack of feral dogs? Of course, that child was not an infant, but it still suggests the scenario is not quite as outlandish as previously thought. Just mostly. :) -- April
Sure. I actually had a student raise her hand last week when I asked "how many of you were raised by wolves?" My point was that they all ought to have had some experience of a built environmnet, but maybe she was being truthful? MichaelTinkler
It is somewhat confusing that our text mentions first Tiberius then Faustulus who has saved the twins. We do not seem to be consistent. What is the source of the word "Tiberius"? If they are two names of the same person, we should indicate it. I.e., Faustulus or Tiberius, or: Faustulus, a.k.a (also called as) Tiberius. Is not it a confusion for the River Tiberius, if the babies were left on its shore? Similar confusion exists at Loba. Was she the same person as Acca Larentia? The latter word may refer to the Lares, domestic gods of the Romans that are actually Romulus and remus, it appears.
The last part of the new text is a bit long and too detailed but it is the cornerstone of the ancient chronology of the world. (It may be shifted under Rome's foundation but then the birth and death of Romulus would be quite irrelavent there.) The three solar eclipses shall be mentioned here TOGETHER. They are actually six but the other three belong to the Greek history. For example, the total eclipse of Odysseus is detailed under our "Penelope" for now. It occurred on April 16, 1178 BCE. Since total eclipses can be observed from the same place only once in 410 years (an average figure of astronomers), these eclipses provide exclusive absolute dates for us. The other two Greek eclipses are as follow: The expulsion of the last Roman king (end of 506, or February 23, 505 BCE in the new system) can be dated, bacause 28 years later (or, in the 28th year as one may believe) Xerxes crossed over to Greece with his army (Polybius, The Histories III, 22. 1-2) and that event is fixed to 478 BCE (as Hind and Chambers, 1889:323 observed long ago) by two solar eclipses. (The modern 509 BCE date is not well supported as absolute date.) Herodotus VII, 37 and VIII, 131 and IX, 1) testifies these two solar eclipses (fifth and sixth) as follow: When Xerxes was departing from Sardis, before crossing over to Greece, the Sun disappeared (on February 17, 478 BCE). Also in the next year, after the return of Cleombrotus to Sparta a solar eclipse was seen on August 1, 477 BCE. There are no other candidates for these eclipses and they fix harmoniously the Greek and Roman chronology. (Z.S., contact zasimon@hotmail.com)
Thanks. It would be great to put this under solar eclipses as well. The details of the three eclipses detailed under Romulus and Remus can be shifted there, as important information for astronomers, etc. However, it would be nice to leave at least the three absolute dates of the three (Roman) eclipses within Romulus and Remus at least. The observation of Tarquin/Tarquin is good, and anyone should feel free to add cross-references, mention something short of it under many other relevant articles if accepted by the co-editors. Also, it is a questionmark form me if Sun or sun shall be written. As a celestial object, it is Sun, but you may render it to a civil or common "sun." (zasimon@hotmail.com)
re KT's query. It was the practice in many cultures to dispose of sickly children by leaving them outside at night. Although falling short of the crime of murder, this effectively doomed them to death from exposure or wild beasts. More recently, the practice was used to dispose of unwanted
children (ie girls) in China. Even in English law infanticide (aged under 1 year) is a lesser crime than murder. jimfbleak 07:23 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
You failed to mention that the two were the sons of the priestess AND the god Ares. This is important to the story because Romulus would in the end be taken back by his father and made a god, according to legend.
What's the deal with the "god of Mars?" is that supposed to be "the god, Mars"? Paul 19:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) –––– I agree that the content lacks clarity. There is no certainty stated as to whether Romulus was a mythical or real person. Also, the origination of the writings on Romulus and Remus is vague and not listed as texts. 2601:603:1B7F:8B3E:B4C7:CBC6:1900:B0BD ( talk) 03:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand the eclipse and dating stuff being in this article. It does not directly relate to Romulus and Remus. It also, it seems to me, goes against the general consensus on Romulus and Remus, which is that they're legendary figures who didn't really exist - thus, giving the "correct" dates for Romulus's reign doesn't make a great deal of sense. Any way we can move it to somewhere else? john k 19:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree and have moved the entire section here, for inspection Zany or scientific, it is a definitive example of "Original research". I did add the quote from Velleius Paterculus, which gives the flavor of the foundation this house of cards is built upon. ( Wetman 20:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC))
he was ruling for 50 years
In the Latin, the word for the birds counted by the twins in augury is vultur, vulturis, obviously the root word for the English "vulture" but also translated as "big bird" and perhaps even refering to eagles, which were though to have a special relationship with Zues.
The sources for these mythic details need to be distinguished from time to time: "as Virgil said..." etc. It currently reads as if we imagine these are biographical details. -- Wetman 20:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it wshould be noted that "she-wolf", in Latin, was a fairly common euphemism for "prostitute" (or so claims my Latin teacher; I have no sources to back this up).
...perhaps the result of too many late-night viewing of "Ilsa, She-wolf of the SS"? -- Wetman 05:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
A couple of times an image was added, and removed again. Couldn't figure out why. Why not add this image? It wasn't added before (I think) and it seems perfect. Garion96 20:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the fact that the call prostitutes 'she-wolf' would be in reference to the fact that wolves were very frowned upon in such time and whilst the twins could have possibly been raised by a prostitue there is a good chance that was not intended. The wolf is a sacred beast to the god mars and to me it seems that could be the significance to Lupa. I mean if you wish to look at it in a mythical sense, it seems likely Mars would send one of his creatures to save the boys.
I don't really know that it's relevant, and I've never heard any "confusion" among scholars about the Romulus and Remus myth, but after seeing what could be the start of an edit war I figured I'd post and confirm that, yes, lupa does mean both she-wolf and prostitute. [2] Seems to me it's probably some first-year Latin student very impressed with himself that he found out that they're the same word. Still, it deserves looking into before reverting it blindly again; maybe it deserves mention somewhere, I don't know. I know it's hard to assume good faith when it's a couple of anons posting this kind of subject matter, but... Kafziel 02:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
caption
Emphasis added.
Um. Yeah. The caption for the initial picture is ENTIRELY too long. -- MusicMaker5376 20:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be two different articles for each of the twins? Or at least one on the legend and another on the rule of Romulus as the first king of Rome? TarquiniusWikipedius 02:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Romulus and remus are on my comic strip for school —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.123.41.98 ( talk • contribs) . 14:25, 23 May 2006
The king-to-be of Rome (whether it was to be Romulus or Remus), was decided over augury. They stood in separate areas and counted the birds that flew overhead. Romulus saw more birds and therefore became king.
Remus, when Romulus was building the walls to the city, was jumping back and forth over the city border, taunting Remus's efforts to build a wall. Remus was then brutally slain by his brother, Romulus, with the words "Sic deinde pereat quicumque alius traniliet moenia mea."
Hopefully this mistake in the introduction will be corrected soon.
Source: Fabulae Romanae Zoni 03:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Zoni
Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? ... With Amulius dead, the city settled down and offered Romulus and Remus the joint crown. However, the twins refused to be the kings so long as their grandfather was still alive, and would not live in the city as subjects. Thus after restoring the kingship to Numitor and properly honoring their mother Rhea Sylvia, the two left England to found their own city upon New York. Before they left England, however, they took with them fugitives, runaway slaves, and all others who wanted a second chance at life. Once Romulus and Remus arrived at the New York, the two argued over where the exact position of the city should be. Romulus was set on building the city upon the Bronx, but Remus wanted to build the city on the strategic and easily fortified Manhattan Island. They agreed to settle their argument by testing their abilities as augurs and by the will of the gods. Each took a seat on the ground apart from one another, and, according to Giuliani, Remus saw six vultures (which were considered to be sacred to Al Gore, their father), while Romulus saw twelve.
This question reveals my vast ignorance on the subject: The article does state that Romulus and Remus belong to fiction and myth. But -- much of the article also treats them as actual persons (e.g., the mention of the lack of certainty of their birthdate). It is bizarre that the article should not state clearly whether they belong solely to myth, or were in fact also real people. My question is this: Are they or are they not believed to have been real (as well as appearing in myth)? In any case, my opinion is that whwatever the case is, this should be made crystal clear in the intro. Daqu 19:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I`ve found a rather obvious and offensive vandalism of this article not too far down, right after the part where it states Romulus slew Remus. I`d fix it myself, but my knowledge of the legend is a bit lacking, so I do not know if the names used are mythologically accurate. But, I do know that coarse language does not belong in this format except in the case of an informative or comparative use, so someone please rectify this defacement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crossfire 7 ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
I removed a statement that Romulus and Remus descend from fugitives from Amsterdam. I guess that would need some more referencing. RFB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RFB ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
The end of 3rd and beginning of 4th para. in the section Life before Rome doesn't follow:
...ordered the death of the twins by exposure.
The servant ordered to kill the twins could not, however, and placed the two in a cradle and laid the cradle on the banks of the Tiber river and went away. Block quote
If the order was to kill the twins by exposure, and the servant 'placed the two in a cradleon the banks of the Tiber and went away', then he could 'kill the twins', and he did, and exactly as ordered.
So "the servant ordered to kill the twins could not, however" is false, surely?
Robert Crowdy 12:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The story of R&R has had influences on art and music. I'd like to read something about that Gautam Discuss 22:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate to illustrate this page with Victorian cartoons? Paul B 09:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It isn't at all appropriate considering they have satirical meaning. 88.111.44.12 ( talk) 16:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
"Sanctuary of Rome's 'founder' revealed" from Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_re_eu/birth_of_rome
"Italian Archaeologists Unveil Grotto Linked to Romulus, Remus" from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312310,00.html
DonL ( talk) 08:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this isnt the way im supposed to post this, but im relatively new. Although Romulus was the more well know of the two brothers, Remus played a large part in the beginning of Rome. Also, the incident at Alba Longa was a relatively important incident in the founding of Rome. I believe that this article should be separated into 3 different articles, one each for Romulus, Remus, and the dispute/revolt in Alba Longa. Also, if anyone could please give me advice ou how to post this properly, i would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.
Sniper201092 ( talk) 21:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This article presents, in naive and tediously pedestrian detail, a synthesized "biography", in the Christian fashion of creating "biographies" for figures like Christopher, Sebastian, Barbara, Margaret, et al. A wholesome corrective would be a report of the findings in Timothy Peter Wiseman, Remus: A Roman Myth (Cambridge University Press) 1995, which analyzes the myth as myth. -- Wetman ( talk) 21:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
http://www.crystalinks.com/romulus.html and this article have a lot of identical stuff, and the Crystalinks page links to this article -- as an extra reference, or is it copied from an earlier version? Of course, if it is the original, we have to cut it all out and that means basically starting afresh -- a very good idea.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Should there be any kind of section about the parallels (and perhaps differences) in the Moses story? What about other comparitive religion/mythology? 208.53.116.182 ( talk) 16:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)amyanda2000
This birth legend is in many respects similar to the 7th century BCE Neo-Assyrian version of the birth of the king Sargon of Akkad in the 24th century BCE who, being born of modest means, was set in the Euphrates river in a basket of bulrushes and discovered by a member of the Akkadian royalty who reared him as their own. Professor Eric H. Cline refers to the story of the birth of Moses as a 'foundation myth', similar to those of Sargon, Cyrus the Great and Romulus and Remus.
208.53.116.182 ( talk) 17:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)amyanda2000
It is tities the tribe of the sabines not titites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.59.113.236 ( talk) 18:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The motif of an abandoned child specifically in a river context is a near universal mythological concept. It shouldn't be hard to understand why since most early and in fact virtually all early major civilizations were based around some type of river. Once again not hard to understand, it provides plentiful potable water for the obvious immediate survival needs and for later irrigation needs necessary to support a large population. Additionally, on a more practical level, women of these societies frequently put their child up for "adoption" using this method.
In the West at least (and still in many non-Western civilizations today), until the rise of Christianity, babies were not really "people" but rather property. It was common if a child had a birth defect to let it die by exposure on a rock or toss it off of a cliff. Even if the baby wasn't "defective" parents would kill their child for reasons such as gender, how pretty it was, or if they just didn't feel like raising a kid. Believe it or not simply sending a child down stream to be picked up was considered more merciful than the other methods. Here the child could be adopted by an older woman, a barren woman, or someone compassionate like with Moses.
If anything Moses is a relatively recent appropriation of this classical motif as is most of early Jewish custom regarding other pre-existing practices. It is only really starting with the Babylonian Exile around 550 B.C. that Jewish custom begins to become exclusively their own. Therefore, I don' believe the "Moses Parallel" needs to be included. If you want to include a small summary of the origin of this myth that uses Moses and others as an example then I'm fine with that. BinaryLust ( talk) 00:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
At the end of the article a reference could be made to the fictional use of the names of both Romulus and Remus in the fictional Star Trek television series' movies and books. Media:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulan#Romulan_Star_Empire . Or I have also seen this type of reference made in the head of an article
-- Vann98 ( talk) 13:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is also missing an entire section of the myth. Romulus and Remus founded a new city, Rome, they did not continue to live in and rule the city of Amulius. Romulus kills Amulius and restores control of the city to Numitor and then the twins decide to found a new one and this isn't reflected in the article. Also, the article talks about Life after the founding of Rome and how Romulus became king after the assasination of Tatius. This is totally wrong, sorry. Romulus and Remus found Rome but they lack anyone to live there. The twins invite the outlaws of Italy to come to this new city. The population is made up entirely of murderers, smugglers, theives and the like and there are no women. To fix this, they have a horse race and invite the families of a nearby city, a people called the Sabines, to come. The romans attack and steal all of the women from these people. Titus Tatius forms a force and attacks Rome to get the women back. The myth says that the women had fallen in love with their Roman captors (badboy effect maybe?) and they throw themselves between the two armies to stop the fighting. The two sides even join together and all the Sabines move into Rome to live. From this point, Tatius and Romulus co-rule Rome until the death of Tatius a few years later, leaving Romulus the sole ruler. The article doesn't show this portion of the myth at all and makes it seem as though they don't really found a new city, rather they just rename the one they were already in... All of this info I've learned from reading the Aeneid and from The Dictionary of Classical Mythology by Pierre Grimal (ISBN-13: 978-0-140-51235-9) Vickler ( talk) 18:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Quite frankly, it's unreasonable to ask the distinguishing of fact and fiction in what is only ASSUMED fact. The story is a legend, and attempting to sever fact from fiction is asking the impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.150.213 ( talk) 02:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I took the liberty of restoring these things. Even though we cannot tell for sure if Romulus and Remus truly were historical figures, I see no reason to remove this info. Lycurgus, the Spartan who was said to be the creator of Spartan's laws and society as it is famous today, is a figure no different from Romulus and Remus, yet his article has info similar to what was removed from this article - and I really do not see a reason to remove such info. It is not claimed that Romulus and Remus or Lycurgus would definetely be historical figures. -- Kurt Leyman ( talk) 13:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Restored infobox with the mother and father figures removed. The infobox adds structure to the article, and Romulus and Remus being historical figures (elements such as being fathered by Mars aside, of course) as some historians argue is not be discarded. I see no reason to remove the box. Lycurgus, the Spartan who was said to be the creator of Spartan's laws and society as it is famous today, is a figure no different from Romulus and Remus, yet his article has info similar to what was removed from this article - and I really do not see a reason to remove such info. It is not claimed that Romulus and Remus or Lycurgus would definetely be historical figures. "Romulus and Remus are definitely mythological figures." Whilst I do not (suprise suprise) belive that Romulus and Remus were fathered by Mars, there is no definete say to them being purely mythological - then again, I am not claiming that they would have certainly been historical figures. They are the mythological founders of Rome, just as Lycurgus was the mythological founder of Spartan law, but historical bases for these figures are something that should not be discarded. The article makes it very clear that Romulus and Remus were the traditional founders of Rome in Roman belifs, and that the dates given by ancient historians like Plutarch are only alleged. -- Kurt Leyman ( talk) 14:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Romulus was not entirely fictional. The City of Rome really was founded by the bastard son of prostitute--he was not actually raised by a wolf, a later embellishment thanks to a linguistic coincidence--and since no twin brother appears on the original king-list he was probably an only child not a twin.
Nevertheless, a man from very humble origins (though not actually raised by a wolf) did found the most influential city in world history.
We should tweak the Article to clarify that legend (exaggerated history) is not the same as myth (tales of the gods) even though they overlap.
My sources are Ovid and Livy among others. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 08:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The issue is discussed above. In the case of probably mythological figures (or even definitely mythological figures), should the lead/infobox contain birth & death dates even if shown somehow (in this case by a footnote) that they are alleged dates? Dougweller ( talk) 16:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I've restored sections that were deleted by Dougweller some while ago. Before today, the article jumped from R+R's childhood to Romulus's joint rule with "Tatius", whose name was just suddenly introduced without any mention of who he was! This made the article completely unreadable and nonsensical. The earlier text has problems, but it is not unsupported. It refers to sources, but does not generally present them as footnotes - fairly typical of Wikipedia text written some years ago when such matters were less important. The article needs to give a full and coherent account of the R+R myth. Just deleting whole sections, seemingly arbitrarily, is like chopping whole chapters from the summary of a book, leaving chapter 1 jumping straight to chapter 4 without any explanation of who new characters are or what happened to the old ones. Paul B ( talk) 16:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder whether the two myths, that have many common traits, bear the mark of some kind of remembrance of a matriarcal society. Children generated by god, ie no known father, and reared by uncles and aunts or strangers who were connected to an uncle, as Acca and Faustulus to Numitor. All these features are typical of a matriarcal order of society. Aldrasto ( talk) 05:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed the dead link and comment (I assume it was based on the linked site) and pasted it here as reminder (to myself as much as any) that Rome's foundation myth requires evaluation within a modern scholarly perspective. Haploidavey ( talk) 02:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
*
Miracles "The parallels here are unmistakable. In both stories we have a "king" addressing his subjects, a cloud enveloping the "king", and the bodily ascension upwards into the heavens. Jesus and Romulus are simply two examples among many."
It's well covered by Cornell and others (citation and context to come).
Haploidavey (
talk) 01:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
We've a mixed lot of sources categorised as "primary" and "secondary"; that's iffy, if not immediately misleading in a subject of such complex historiography. I'll change the format and layout. There'll be inline citations and external links to those "secondary" sources anyway, along with a cited, interpretive modern bibliography. (I'm not at all sure why Fabius and Livy would both be described as primary sources on the subject - and apart from a very brief summary, plus Plutarch's say-so, we have very little Fabius anyway). Haploidavey ( talk) 23:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This quite long list is of little value (and will probably confuse many readers) unless connections and relevance are explained; we can't rely on linked articles to do that. I'll paste it here for now, and re-instate those supported by sources as relevant to the topic. Haploidavey ( talk) 19:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
"The many names associated with Acca Laurentia, are: Acca Larenta, Larentia, Laurentia, Lara, Larunda, Larenta, Larentina, and Terra Mater, or the The Mother of the Lares, Bona Dea, Lupa, Luperca, and Dea Dia, as well as Fauna, who had an oracle on the nearby Aventine Hill and was the wife of Faunus."
"Shepherd kings, as some mythographers would classify Romulus, were torn to pieces in a secret religious ceremony at the end of their "reign" and the beginning of the reign of the next "king"."
Are we sure about the use of the phrase 'Shepherd Kings' in this context? The title 'Shepherd Kings' usually refers to the Hyksos, an ancient Egyptian Tribe from the 18th century BC with no connection to Romulus & Remus. The contributor appears to be using it as though it is an established phrase with some more generalised mythologic meaning. Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butcherscross ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a work on this subject by a French scholar quoted by Dumezil. However it connects the dismembering of Romolus with an Indoiranian ritual. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 04:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As yet I have not been able to retrace the citation. However Frazer wrote of such ritual killing of the king in his work Scapegoat p. 210. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 11:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes Frazer does not talk specifically of shepherd kings: his argument concerns regality itself. The king being a god is as such the object of the projection of group aggressiveness. Hence the ritual murdering of the king-god. Best instance in Latium being o.c. the rex nemorensis. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 13:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thankfully his is a minority opinion, rather than the most notable of "some". Not a matter to be given undue weight in the lede, so if no-one objects, I'll lay him to rest in a footnote. Haploidavey ( talk) 02:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Circa 771 etc? Given that this is mythography (and I sincerely hope we agree that it is), need we be quite so precious in offering historically spurious dates? Would this Plutarchian calculation not be best in a footnote? Haploidavey ( talk) 14:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
About the section on the stories concerning the birth of the two twins, their rearing and deeds to their conflict on the foundation of Rome. I gather the author here has not read Dionysius's version which is by far the most complete and reliable. I would suggest adding it as it is significantly different on many essential points. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 05:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Emilio Peruzzi too gives his positive opinion in his works (Le origini di Roma etc.). Romulus would be Sabine nickname meaning the one from Rome. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 11:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Wiseman is a quotable source to edit this article on the various versions of the story. It is certain Remus was the original name whereas Romulus is a derivate, a nickname. Cf. Remoria a hill on which Remus stood and according to Dionysius that was 5 miles from the Palatine.05:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Aldrasto11 ( talk) 05:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Among ancient sources a precise and explicit mention should go to Varro and Properce about Caelius Vibenna, Titus Tatius and the name of the 3 tribes.
Among contemporary sources it is always interesting the article by S. B. Platner Septimontium in Dictionary of Greek and Roman Ant. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 13:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed there's very little reference for sections The Founding of Rome, and none for The city of Romulus, War with the Sabines, etc. What's up with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.156.14 ( talk) 20:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If we leave that category, we should somehow annotate to be less misleading. Romulus was not entirely fictional, but the story of his being a feral child is fictional, not entirely unlike George Washington's cherry tree.
His father, despite later embellishment, was not Mars but an unknown customer of his mother (a prostitute). Furthermore, the "Lupa" who raised him was his prostitute mother, not literally a female wolf. Nevertheless, there was a real man that was later changed and exaggerated to become mythology. Not only did Ovid and Livy and others write this, but a man named Romulus also appears on the original list of the Seven Kings of Early Rome, the 1st on the list and the Founder. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 08:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only person who, having read the article, was still left feeling confused by the historicity of the subjects. But I'm dismayed to discover that the perplexity goes back to the origins of the article itself, and no editor with the appropriate classical education has seen fit to clarify things. Are these historical figures? Are they mythical figures? Are they historical figures heavily overlain with mythical qualities? The article doesn't say. Instead, it shifts between providing "biographical" details, including specific dates; and mythological elements. What would be helpful is to have a section just dealing with the question of teasing apart history from myth. fishhead64 ( talk) 20:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem with the earliest Roman history is that the student will find (roughly speaking) three different takes on it: the traditional (as in up to the 18th or 19th centuries) approach, which was to treat Livy as accurate & simply retell what he wrote -- with a few nods to Plutarch, Dionysus of Hallicarnassus; what could be called the "19th century" approach, which was to acknowledge problems in the accepted account of this early history (e.g., the tale of Romulus & Remulus echoes many well-known folklore motifs such as twin birth, heros surviving despite being exposed at birth, being suckled by a wild animal); & contemporary approach, which while being critical still values the traditional story for the insights it offers to what the Romans thought of themselves & of their origins. I suspect this article had its origins in the EB 1911 article, which at best demonstrates the second approach, & despite that this article has had attention from intelligent & knowledgeable editors, it hasn't freed it from the limits of that venerable but outdated works, while mingling elements of all three approaches & serving it up as a messy combination. And to repeat myself, the size of this article is going to make even intelligent (& especially veteran) editors reluctant to perform the necessary work on it. -- llywrch ( talk) 19:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I deleted the following passages from this section because they are not sourced. Please do not restore without citations or with new links wherein the differing stories can be supported. In particular, The portion about the King and his Niece's pregnancy features an uncited conclusion regarding blood-guilt. The portion on the Acca/Dea Dia features an unattributed description of the version of the legend itself, uncited conclusion about the connection between the two figures in question, and another unattributed reference to a variation of the legend in the last sentence of the paragraph. The claims about Hercules link to that article, but there is no mention of this account found there. The last portion has the same issues with the legend referenced, as well as claims made regarding Luperca and Lupercus (specifically that he was associated with the fertility of flocks).
I believe the present tense should be used when recounting incidents in the legend. For instance:
Current version
Suggested version
Comments? InformationvsInjustice ( talk) 04:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
It really needs to be overhauled. It's sourced, but it needs to be written in less archaic English: "Weary of kingly government"; "This suspicion they sought to turn aside"; "exasperated of late by the imperious deportment of Romulus toward them"; "made him away".
Also the last three run-on sentences need to be fixed (the one below is the worst offender):
A "foul suspicion" arose that the Senate, weary of kingly government, and exasperated of late by the imperious deportment of Romulus toward them, had plotted against his life and made him away, so that they might assume the authority and government into their own hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationvsInjustice ( talk • contribs) 07:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I propose renaming the article "The legend of Romulus and Remus" with a redirect from here. An ancient sources subsection should be created, which identifies the various (there aren't actually that man) writers whose work has handed down the myth. Modern sources and historicity could be dealt with in another subsection, free of the details of the story itself.
To stress the non-historical nature of the topic, the lead should begin "The legend of R & R is the mythical tale of the twin brothers who, according to the ancient Romans founded the city of Rome and established the semi-historical kingdom which predates the establishment of the Roman Republic..."
The importance of the topic to the understanding of ancient Rome merits whatever input can be gotten from all of you who have done so much great work over the years to maintain and improve the page. InformationvsInjustice ( talk) 20:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Please follow these links to the proposed new articles to replace the existing one.
Romulus: /info/en/?search=User:InformationvsInjustice/sandbox3
Romulus and Remus: /info/en/?search=User:InformationvsInjustice/sandbox2
Comments? Feedback? Help? Informata ob Iniquitatum ( talk) 04:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Should the article be reassessed? In light of the revisons? How does that process work? Informata ob Iniquitatum ( talk) 20:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Nice work here, and vastly better than before. Anyone can reassess, and probably will. It's entirely up to you, of course, but I'd wait a couple of weeks, and see if the rewrite draws more attention, and more editing. At least it's now where it belongs, and is shaped as it should be. Haploidavey ( talk) 20:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
There are links between this "sacred twin" imagery and functions of the Dioscuri/ Castor and Pollux and Lares, and R&R borrowings or parallels; probably best made very briefly, in a subsection of iconography. Still can't find my copy of Wiseman's Remus, which deals with these connections (among much else). Haploidavey ( talk) 20:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The lead is really hard to read, what with the enormous Mignard painting. Per MOS, leading image should be on the right. How about the altar image as lead image, and the Lupa somewhere below? And the Mignard (substantially and lawfully shrunken) nested further down? Haploidavey ( talk) 00:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
and
i don't understand how these are meant to be read in a way that makes any sense. 73.74.12.238 ( talk) 00:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
It's been over a decade and this guy still hasn't gotten satisfaction. It doesn't matter that Livy may have omitted it: by far the common modern version of the story is that Romulus and Remus got violent over teasing over a short wall ( murus Romuli), probably misunderstanding the ancient idea of the furrow created during the sulcus primigenius. Wherever it came from, it should be mentioned prominently here with suitable sourcing and (if necessary) caveats. — LlywelynII 07:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)