Did Trojans found Rome?

[daft]

There are myths and tales about the founding of Rome. Some historians/writers of antiquity point to the escapees from Troy-after it had been razed by the Greeks as to the true founders of the city of Rome.
Do you believe Trojan refugees could have founded Rome?

 

[sophie]

Did the mythical Troy of Homer ever really exist?

We don't know, and it's, in all likelihood, unknowable.

 

[Kyriakos]

IIRC the claim that Rome was founded by refugees from Troy originated in the Aenead. Obviously in the Homeric Epics there would be no mention of Rome, cause it likely did not even exist at the time they were created and being narrated.

Don't know if the origin of Rome is known as to who founded it. The plains it is centered at were in a border area with the Etruscans, and at least one mythical account places a Spartan colony there too (but this doesn't have to mean much either). By the 8th century BC there were already Greek colonies in Italy, Sicily, and originally also in Sardinia.

 

[ParkCungHee]

No, they were too busy founding Cornwall.

 

[Gucumatz]

And the Aenead is a source to many probably invented myths by Vergil. Overall the claim seems to be quite unlikely

 

[Louis XXIV]

IIRC the claim that Rome was founded by refugees from Troy originated in the Aenead. Obviously in the Homeric Epics there would be no mention of Rome, cause it likely did not even exist at the time they were created and being narrated.

IIRC, it predates the Aeneid, but Virgil certainly ran with the idea and made it a huge epic. I don't think there's much of a basis in reality (and even Virgil had to wrestle with the competing origin myth and the idea that the Latins were local). I think people try too hard to find truth in legend, but I'm always intrigued at the theory of an Asia Minor origin of the Etruscans, which could provide a grain of truth to the Aeneid (although I'm skeptical).

 

[Flying Pig]

I've always thought that the content of origin myths is more interesting than their veracity. We can't know what actually happened in the early days of Rome, but it's surely worth a mention that their origin stories involve being exiles from a foreign land, having to displace the natives and joining with them to form a new people, as well as civil strife from the murder of Remus to the Withdrawal of the Plebians. By contrast, the Athenians believed themselves sprung from the very soil of Attica - it's not difficult to detect something of the collective psyche in these stories.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

From what I remember when this came up in class a couple of years ago, the whole Romans=Trojans angle was basically an ethical smokescreen for the Romans militarily and politically interfering in Greece, i.e. "they did it to our ancestors, its just cosmic justice."

 

[Louis XXIV]

My understanding is that the claims by the Romans to Trojan heritage predates their interference in Greece. Certainly, they sued that as a justification, but I don't think it was the genesis of the claim.

 

[Plotinus]

It's an awful lot like the Hebrew myth of the Exodus. One could also see that as being used to justify their actions against neighbouring peoples, though in a somewhat different way.

 

[Glassfan]

Apparently something to do with wolves...

 

[Louis XXIV]

It's an awful lot like the Hebrew myth of the Exodus. One could also see that as being used to justify their actions against neighbouring peoples, though in a somewhat different way.

Although the Hebrew Exodus story always said that they were there originally and just left. Given that, they were the original owners taking back their land. Its easier to justify taking something that's actually yours. The Aeneas story says that Romans weren't originally from the Italian peninsula and that they took land as outsiders (although, I should point out that they joined up with the Latins so I suppose they were outsiders mixed with natives). Granted, both stories have God or gods telling them to do it and giving them permission, but it seems like deliberately undermining their claim rather than strengthening it.

That being said, as far as I'm aware, none of Rome's conquests were justified as a sort of divine right to the land. They were usually justified as coming to the aid of an ally or as necessary to protect someone from attack. They used (unequal) alliances to incorporate territory into their system rather than simply subjugating and imposing a governor on them. This changed when they left Italy proper and went to Sicily, but any origin myth was irrelevant for Sicily.

 

[daft]

It's an awful lot like the Hebrew myth of the Exodus. One could also see that as being used to justify their actions against neighbouring peoples, though in a somewhat different way.

I agree, it was perfectly fine for the "chosen tribe" to basically kill of the local-native population of their "promised land".

 

[timtofly]

It's an awful lot like the Hebrew myth of the Exodus. One could also see that as being used to justify their actions against neighbouring peoples, though in a somewhat different way.

So the myth is that a civilization was doing great and working for the greatest employer of the time. They were left alone in their own little area and actually did not have to fight during the creation of a large family group. While it is true the last few decades were rough because their employer started to instigate birth control, and their work conditions changed for the worse.

They did need the 40 years of training to take over their new homeland. If they had started out small and had to fight their way their whole existence, they would have never understood what peace was. If they had actually cleared out all of the inhabitants like they were supposed to, then they may have not had to fight the next 200 years. Egypt would have left them alone for they were devastated after the plague's and loosing their army.

Now you can just look at it as making up stories to make up futile excuses. But what other nation gets to build themselves up with so much relative ease, especially given how volatile that region is even to this day? Not even Africans living in the US during it's first 150 years had it that good. They were actually slaves.

The only reason the Hebrews were made slaves is as a people group they did get too large, and the Egyptians feared they would overrun them. The Hebrews were not promised Egypt. They were too spoiled to leave Egypt and had to be forced out.

 

[Flying Pig]

Although the Hebrew Exodus story always said that they were there originally and just left. Given that, they were the original owners taking back their land. Its easier to justify taking something that's actually yours. The Aeneas story says that Romans weren't originally from the Italian peninsula and that they took land as outsiders (although, I should point out that they joined up with the Latins so I suppose they were outsiders mixed with natives). Granted, both stories have God or gods telling them to do it and giving them permission, but it seems like deliberately undermining their claim rather than strengthening it.

That being said, as far as I'm aware, none of Rome's conquests were justified as a sort of divine right to the land. They were usually justified as coming to the aid of an ally or as necessary to protect someone from attack. They used (unequal) alliances to incorporate territory into their system rather than simply subjugating and imposing a governor on them. This changed when they left Italy proper and went to Sicily, but any origin myth was irrelevant for Sicily.

Reading between the lines of Roman propaganda, I think it's fair to say that they felt the need to justify wars, but not acquisitions - all land was fair game anyway in their book, but they did like to believe that they didn't fight without a good reason.

 

[CaterpillarKing]

The way that doesn't include Romulus and Remus is that Indo-Europeans migrated in from the Ukraine area all over Asia and Europe and eventually into Italy where they made a small town now know as Rome. It was rather small until the Etruscans and Latin times and then you know what happens.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk