As s Roman Polytheist, I don't take any of the myths "literally". I take them spiritually. I care more about what I am supposed to get from the story more than I care about if it actually happened exactly as told
Based on what Livius and Cicero wrote, I suspect a lot of the more educated Romans were aware that their early history was mostly a mix of myths, half-truths, and outright fabrication, but I doubt most of them would have cared. For the Romans the value of studying history was finding examples of virtues one should emulate or cautionary examples of actions one should avoid, so whether the story was true or not would matter less than whether it suited the narrative the Romans wanted to tell of themselves and whether it reinforced the morals and social norms they wanted people to live by.
The traditional narrative of Roman history is still the most epic story ever told, regardless of whether or not the early parts of it actually happened
@@lesliea7394 The same person. Livius is just the original Latin spelling of the name. I don't tend to use the anglinizations of Roman names since they're not used in my native language.
Reminds me of how the Romulus and Remus myth is just a co-option of the possible Indo-European twin kinslaying myth. For example, the name of norse Ymir, the primordial giant slain by Odin to found the world, is a direct cognate of the name Remus (or "Jemus", which was it's original form).
Thanks again for another excellent video. I’ve been a subscriber for a few weeks but today I decided to become a new member of the channel due to the consistent superior content and how frequently you publish it! Looking forward to what’s next!
Thanks so much for the kind words and the support! Really love nothing more than positive feedback like this from people who find the work useful and informative. We’re growing fast now so there’s plenty More to come
I honestly believe the Roman monarchy was probably just an elected monarchy; most of the kings don’t seem to be related to each other. It should be noted that the monarchy never really went away. The Rex Sacrorum continued into the Republic. 509 BCE represents the transition of power from the Monarchy to the Senate with Monarchy becoming a religious title rather than a political one.
It is because Rome started out in th more tribal oriented days, soothing fo their kings as akin to chiefs, and the last king of Rome as being one to try to transform Rome into a proper "kingdom" for that time, with a autocratic ruler. In which case the overthrow was more of an attempt to restore and maintain the status quo, while having the double effect of putting more responsibilities, yet simultaneously opportunities, for the people. Take care and God bless
This to me seems more an example of Roman cultural ultraconservativism rather than evidence of a monarchy kept alive under the republican toga. Rome's foundation included a monarch to perform certain crucial religious functions, therefore it was absolutely essential that an office exist whereby those functions could continue uninterrupted -- the Rex Sacrorum.
Great idea for a topic. Wish there was more out there on youtube/podcasts on the monarchy. Just so difficult to approach that era considering the limitations.
thanks for the video, it was done well. i'm so glad you mentioned the Herculaneum scrolls, i love that sort of thing and it made for an interesting rabbit hole of reading.
Thanks so much! I'm cautiously optimistic about the scrolls but if they do pan out then it has the potential to change so much about how we think about the ancient world
I love the healthy dose of historical skepticism in all your videos. I’m sick of every Romabro acting as baby’s first exposure to ancient history (or myth, as it were!).
We don’t really know what was lost. In the best case scenario there were well kept records and reliable authors in the vein of a Thucydides going back into the kingdom era, in the worst case scenario, there were a few more old myths and esoteric writings like the Sibylline books lost to the flames.
Great vid as always!! I for one tend to give the benefit of the doubt when there is ambiguity. If not for anything else, it makes for a more interesting past
Fully agreed - I don't take the early myths as literally true but feel like they are reflective of broader truths regarding the earliest Roman community. Facts might not be 100% right but the vibes are there
Is the statue at 16:43 a depiction of the god Janus? I assume so because of the face on the back of his head, but I have never seem him depicted as a younger man before, so I am curious.
I’ve seen this theory before, and it has its appeal. It’s worth noting that the first two consuls were related to the deposed monarch. Maybe Lars hoped that their blood connections would add legitimacy to the new arrangement.
However the republic even began, I keep wondering why Rome, having stayed a small city state as a kingdom, steady grew an ever larger zone of influence as a republic.
IMHO, this is another excellent video using the founding of Rome to illuminate a great theory of the interconnected roles and significance of history, myth creation, and culture on society
I think the Romans didn't care if the story was truthful or not. The important part was the message that was given to the current generation. I don't think we will ever know the truth. These myths are what the Roman needed to support their society, State and morality. Ancient people really didn't care they used myths and narration as just another tool in the box of statecrafting. We do it today too albeit in a much more refined way. Think of the american dream, the selfmade man and many others.
The similarities between Rome and Athens late 6th Century BC Revolution is hardly evidence one must be a fiction, Revolutions usually come in groups, like how the French Revolution followed not long after the American, and there were some other lesser known Revolutions from that time as well. As far as the relationship with the Etruscans goes, I think you have it backwards, it was the Tarquin Dynasty that was Etruscan foreign occupation to begin with, but because later Romans didn't want to admit to having been conquered they presented the last thing 3 Kings as merely ethnic Etruscans who were still Elected like the prior Kings. Porsena may have had more victories over the rebellious Romans then the later narratives wanted to admit, but that hardly means they didn't win the war in the end. Brittan had lots of victories during the Revolutionary War.
Good point about not discounting similarities between Rome and Athens. Cities throughout the Mediterranean were wrestling with similar political forces around that time.
Yes, it's good to have the facts and the truth, if they can be established, about such an early period of history. But myths and legends can be as important as reality, as they tell us something about the beliefs and the psychology of a people.
Here's hoping there are some historical, as well as philosophical writings in the Herculaneum library. Open questions like this may be settled relatively soon! (Edit: if I hadn't paused to comment at that point, 10 seconds later you made the same point. Duh)
History is astonishing, there are a lot similarities between the modern world and Ancient Rome. A lot of talk of the Roman Empire and the similarities with the US, but that’s a lazy analogy and is really only comparable to the fall of the republic if anything
The more I learn about history and just how hard it is to verify any claim through other sources and archaeology, the more it feels like just about every figure before the Enlightenment should come with an asterisk, because it's likely that their story is at least partially fabricated, if not almost entirely. I just love the idea of most famous humans before the modern age being pretty much all fictional characters, with the truth being forever lost. Also I really really can't stand source bias among both researchers and history nerds. Everyone seems to give Alexander the benefit of the doubt even though it's entirely plausible to imagine Greek historians writing around a couple losses, but look at how people scrutinize the Arabs and Mongols by comparison. As if the Greeks had no reason to embellish their conquests! It's not like we have 20 different regional/cultural contemporary (first hand) accounts of the Macedonian wars, so why is Alexander unimpeachable but other political, religious and military figures aren't? Both Alexander and Augustus to this day see more propaganda in their favor than Jesus and Muhammad combined.
Because it is intellectually honest to state your biases. Your place on the political spectrum will impact the way you view things and cause biases, so by stating any potential biases that may impact the way you analyze the situation you are informing the audience "I have this viewpoint, it may impact the way I view things." Which is an intellectually honest thing to do. I much prefer someone who states their biases when relevant over someone who pretends to be neutral.
Intellectual honesty. One's place on the Political Spectrum will impact the way they view things and may cause biases, and a major point with Intellectual Honestly is that if you may be biased towards a certain conclusion (say because of your political affiliation) you should disclose that to your audience.
@@lucyla9947I find the left/right divide vague... especially when assessing Rome from a modern pov... I'd describe myself as Tacitean or Juvenalian when assessing Rome... Their literature has personality, but that too leaves more questions
@@kwamesmith3214 okay? It's still a useful tool, we're modern people, so naturally we will judge things with a modern perspective, and which modern political perspective you look at things from is still a part of that. Also these videos are made mainly for the layman, someone who is interested in Rome, but isn't necessarily someone with a lot of knowledge, a term like "Tacitean" isn't something they will understand. So even if "leftist" is modern and more vague, it is something that the target audience (someone with a mild interest in Rome but not necessarily a lot of knowledge) will actually be able to understand. Disclosing your biases using a word your Audience doesn't understand isn't actually disclosing anything, and if anything might put them off from watching your videos. And I don't think the creator wants to take the time to explain the exact meaning either, given the length of these videos, it seems like he's going for short overviews, not in-depth explanations, so the time it takes to explain in detail his biases is probably not actually worth it for his goal
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Do you believe the stories of Rome's origins should be taken literally?
No, but they shouldn't be entirely discounted either. THey need to be studied if only because they were what romans believed about themselves.
As s Roman Polytheist, I don't take any of the myths "literally". I take them spiritually. I care more about what I am supposed to get from the story more than I care about if it actually happened exactly as told
@@WildMen4444 "Propaganda"
The bible is taken in 4 ways, the myths of other peoples should also too
Nah. İ think that romans were just a 4 letter word for females genitals. Beginning with c÷÷÷
Based on what Livius and Cicero wrote, I suspect a lot of the more educated Romans were aware that their early history was mostly a mix of myths, half-truths, and outright fabrication, but I doubt most of them would have cared. For the Romans the value of studying history was finding examples of virtues one should emulate or cautionary examples of actions one should avoid, so whether the story was true or not would matter less than whether it suited the narrative the Romans wanted to tell of themselves and whether it reinforced the morals and social norms they wanted people to live by.
The traditional narrative of Roman history is still the most epic story ever told, regardless of whether or not the early parts of it actually happened
Do you mean Livy, and not Livius?
@@lesliea7394 The same person. Livius is just the original Latin spelling of the name. I don't tend to use the anglinizations of Roman names since they're not used in my native language.
Reminds me of how the Romulus and Remus myth is just a co-option of the possible Indo-European twin kinslaying myth. For example, the name of norse Ymir, the primordial giant slain by Odin to found the world, is a direct cognate of the name Remus (or "Jemus", which was it's original form).
It's nice to find a perspective on Rome that isn't made by someone who fetishize Rome. I really like your humanistic perspective.
I honestly thought this was a much larger channel. I was ready to roll my eyes at the call to action but, yeah, you're right to ask.
Thanks again for another excellent video. I’ve been a subscriber for a few weeks but today I decided to become a new member of the channel due to the consistent superior content and how frequently you publish it! Looking forward to what’s next!
Thanks so much for the kind words and the support! Really love nothing more than positive feedback like this from people who find the work useful and informative.
We’re growing fast now so there’s plenty More to come
This has to be one of the best history channels on RUclips.
Your honesty and accuracy is refreshing. Thank you.
I honestly believe the Roman monarchy was probably just an elected monarchy; most of the kings don’t seem to be related to each other. It should be noted that the monarchy never really went away. The Rex Sacrorum continued into the Republic. 509 BCE represents the transition of power from the Monarchy to the Senate with Monarchy becoming a religious title rather than a political one.
It is because Rome started out in th more tribal oriented days, soothing fo their kings as akin to chiefs, and the last king of Rome as being one to try to transform Rome into a proper "kingdom" for that time, with a autocratic ruler. In which case the overthrow was more of an attempt to restore and maintain the status quo, while having the double effect of putting more responsibilities, yet simultaneously opportunities, for the people. Take care and God bless
This to me seems more an example of Roman cultural ultraconservativism rather than evidence of a monarchy kept alive under the republican toga. Rome's foundation included a monarch to perform certain crucial religious functions, therefore it was absolutely essential that an office exist whereby those functions could continue uninterrupted -- the Rex Sacrorum.
The same can be said about emperor's period as well
Great video guys, thanks for taking on board my idea for this topic
Thanks for the suggestion - doing the research for this was a lot of fun so I'll have plenty of future content on the regal era
Great idea for a topic. Wish there was more out there on youtube/podcasts on the monarchy. Just so difficult to approach that era considering the limitations.
thanks for the video, it was done well. i'm so glad you mentioned the Herculaneum scrolls, i love that sort of thing and it made for an interesting rabbit hole of reading.
Thanks so much! I'm cautiously optimistic about the scrolls but if they do pan out then it has the potential to change so much about how we think about the ancient world
I love the healthy dose of historical skepticism in all your videos. I’m sick of every Romabro acting as baby’s first exposure to ancient history (or myth, as it were!).
Much information about early Rome was lost when the the Celts from what is now northern Italy sacked Rome.
We don’t really know what was lost. In the best case scenario there were well kept records and reliable authors in the vein of a Thucydides going back into the kingdom era, in the worst case scenario, there were a few more old myths and esoteric writings like the Sibylline books lost to the flames.
Great vid as always!!
I for one tend to give the benefit of the doubt when there is ambiguity. If not for anything else, it makes for a more interesting past
Fully agreed - I don't take the early myths as literally true but feel like they are reflective of broader truths regarding the earliest Roman community. Facts might not be 100% right but the vibes are there
Great idea for a video 👍
Any more myths you will tackle?
Not to defend the earlier kings but I wonder if their damnation was similar to that of the early emperors who were themselves vilified by the senate
Almost certainly. The truth is so obscured that it's tough to parse fact from fiction.
Is the statue at 16:43 a depiction of the god Janus? I assume so because of the face on the back of his head, but I have never seem him depicted as a younger man before, so I am curious.
Yes, that’s Janus - I was looking for a picture of him for the Pax Romana video and really liked this one so it’s entered into regular rotation
Great analysis of the problems with Roman sources and the difficulties inherent in trying to understand history from the limited available evidence
I’ve seen this theory before, and it has its appeal. It’s worth noting that the first two consuls were related to the deposed monarch. Maybe Lars hoped that their blood connections would add legitimacy to the new arrangement.
However the republic even began, I keep wondering why Rome, having stayed a small city state as a kingdom, steady grew an ever larger zone of influence as a republic.
very interesting topic and a great video (as always!!)
Great channel. Ive said it before, I'm saying it again. Top tier.
Can you explain how’s the Lucratia myth is to “keep women in their place”
Beautiful words as always ❤
IMHO, this is another excellent video using the founding of Rome to illuminate a great theory of the interconnected roles and significance of history, myth creation, and culture on society
Really good stuff, I learned a lot from this
Just found your channel and as a leftist it’s so refreshing to have someone taking about Rome who isn’t a psycho 😊
I highly recommend binging their other videos
just even kinda having an understanding of current life before comparing and making claims with ancient life
Other than Mike Duncan it’s very hard I know.
There’s lots of great channels that cover Rome that aren’t psychos
I highly recommend Thersites The Historian and The Historian's Craft!
Great content
Really engaging storytelling
I think the Romans didn't care if the story was truthful or not. The important part was the message that was given to the current generation. I don't think we will ever know the truth. These myths are what the Roman needed to support their society, State and morality. Ancient people really didn't care they used myths and narration as just another tool in the box of statecrafting. We do it today too albeit in a much more refined way. Think of the american dream, the selfmade man and many others.
Great stuff for a history student like myself! ❤
The similarities between Rome and Athens late 6th Century BC Revolution is hardly evidence one must be a fiction, Revolutions usually come in groups, like how the French Revolution followed not long after the American, and there were some other lesser known Revolutions from that time as well.
As far as the relationship with the Etruscans goes, I think you have it backwards, it was the Tarquin Dynasty that was Etruscan foreign occupation to begin with, but because later Romans didn't want to admit to having been conquered they presented the last thing 3 Kings as merely ethnic Etruscans who were still Elected like the prior Kings.
Porsena may have had more victories over the rebellious Romans then the later narratives wanted to admit, but that hardly means they didn't win the war in the end. Brittan had lots of victories during the Revolutionary War.
Good point about not discounting similarities between Rome and Athens. Cities throughout the Mediterranean were wrestling with similar political forces around that time.
Really puts the past into perspective.
This is so cool!!
Useful.
Yes, it's good to have the facts and the truth, if they can be established, about such an early period of history. But myths and legends can be as important as reality, as they tell us something about the beliefs and the psychology of a people.
Well said. 😊
Here's hoping there are some historical, as well as philosophical writings in the Herculaneum library. Open questions like this may be settled relatively soon!
(Edit: if I hadn't paused to comment at that point, 10 seconds later you made the same point. Duh)
I’m so happy that you’re not a neo-nazi weirdo like almost all the other male RUclipsrs that talk about Rome and it’s history/religion etc etc.
Are these “neo-nazi weirdos” in the room with us right now? You people are so delusional.
Lol yeah, you can see better craft from leftist than maga crazy flatearth
interesting!
Did YOU ever hear the Tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise?
History is astonishing, there are a lot similarities between the modern world and Ancient Rome. A lot of talk of the Roman Empire and the similarities with the US, but that’s a lazy analogy and is really only comparable to the fall of the republic if anything
No late empire is very similar to current America politically and economically
solid
W
The more I learn about history and just how hard it is to verify any claim through other sources and archaeology, the more it feels like just about every figure before the Enlightenment should come with an asterisk, because it's likely that their story is at least partially fabricated, if not almost entirely. I just love the idea of most famous humans before the modern age being pretty much all fictional characters, with the truth being forever lost.
Also I really really can't stand source bias among both researchers and history nerds. Everyone seems to give Alexander the benefit of the doubt even though it's entirely plausible to imagine Greek historians writing around a couple losses, but look at how people scrutinize the Arabs and Mongols by comparison. As if the Greeks had no reason to embellish their conquests! It's not like we have 20 different regional/cultural contemporary (first hand) accounts of the Macedonian wars, so why is Alexander unimpeachable but other political, religious and military figures aren't? Both Alexander and Augustus to this day see more propaganda in their favor than Jesus and Muhammad combined.
Do people really scrutinize/downplay the Mongol victories?
Why does it matter if your a leftist. Just say what you liked about program left or right nonsense leads to division and propaganda all the time.
Because it is intellectually honest to state your biases.
Your place on the political spectrum will impact the way you view things and cause biases, so by stating any potential biases that may impact the way you analyze the situation you are informing the audience "I have this viewpoint, it may impact the way I view things." Which is an intellectually honest thing to do.
I much prefer someone who states their biases when relevant over someone who pretends to be neutral.
Intellectual honesty.
One's place on the Political Spectrum will impact the way they view things and may cause biases, and a major point with Intellectual Honestly is that if you may be biased towards a certain conclusion (say because of your political affiliation) you should disclose that to your audience.
@@lucyla9947I find the left/right divide vague... especially when assessing Rome from a modern pov... I'd describe myself as Tacitean or Juvenalian when assessing Rome... Their literature has personality, but that too leaves more questions
@@kwamesmith3214 okay? It's still a useful tool, we're modern people, so naturally we will judge things with a modern perspective, and which modern political perspective you look at things from is still a part of that.
Also these videos are made mainly for the layman, someone who is interested in Rome, but isn't necessarily someone with a lot of knowledge, a term like "Tacitean" isn't something they will understand. So even if "leftist" is modern and more vague, it is something that the target audience (someone with a mild interest in Rome but not necessarily a lot of knowledge) will actually be able to understand. Disclosing your biases using a word your Audience doesn't understand isn't actually disclosing anything, and if anything might put them off from watching your videos. And I don't think the creator wants to take the time to explain the exact meaning either, given the length of these videos, it seems like he's going for short overviews, not in-depth explanations, so the time it takes to explain in detail his biases is probably not actually worth it for his goal
Some academics speculate a theory and you present it as if it's fact? 🙄
Babe wake up