Talk:Romulus and Remus

Featured on Template:April 21 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

---

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 irrelavant 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)

I think the above should be put into the article on solar eclipses -- there's a little bit there on historical eclipses already. -- Tarquin

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 croos-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)

---

Death by exposure

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)

---

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 dipose 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 preistess AND the god Aries. 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)

Redating the founding of Rome

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))

"A new study claims to supersede the traditional date given by Varro, that is used worldwide, though never scientifically confirmed. The foundation of Rome took place 437 years after the capture of Troy (1182 BC), According to the Roman history of Velleius Paterculus (Book I.8.5), who sometimes uses Cato's dating system but here uses Varro's:

In the sixth Olympiad, two and twenty years after the first establishment of the Olympic games, Romulus the son of Mars, after avenging the wrongs of his grandfather, founded the city of Rome on the Palatine on the day of the festival of the Parilia... This event took place four hundred and thirty-seven years after the capture of Troy." [1]

"If the founding of Rome by the son of Mars accompanied by his eponymous grandfather Latinus be taken not as myth but as history, it can be said to have taken place shortly before a solar eclipse that was observed at Rome, now being associated with one on June 25, 745 BC which had a magnitude of 50.3%; its beginning occurred at 16:38, its middle at 17:28, and its end at 18:16.

"Varro may have used the consular list with its mistakes, and called the year of the first consuls "245 ab urbe condita" (a.u.c., "from the founding of the city"). He may have accepted from Dionysius of Halicarnassus an interval of 244 years for the kings after the foundation of Rome. Some modern historians claim that an era ab urbe condita did not, in reality, exist in the ancient world, and the use of reckoning the years in this way is modern.

"According to an obscure 16th-century astrologer, Lucius Tarrutius of Firmum, Romulus was conceived in the womb on the 23rd day of the Egyptian month Choiac, at the time of a total eclipse of the Sun. (This eclipse occurred on June 15, 763 BC, with a magnitude of 62.5% at Rome. Its beginning took place at 6:49, its middle at 7:47 and its end at 8:51.) He was born on the 21st day of the month Thoth. The first day of Thoth fell on March 2 in that year (Prof. E.J. Bickerman, 1980: 115). It means that Rhea Sylvia's pregnancy lasted for 281 days. Rome was founded on the ninth day of the month Pharmuthi, which was the 21st of April, as universally agreed.

"The Romans add that about the time Romulus started to build the city, an eclipse of the Sun was observed by Antimachus, the Teian poet, on the 30th day of the lunar month. This eclipse (see above) had a magnitude of 54.6% at Teos, Asia Minor. It started at 17:49 it was still eclipsed at sunset, at 19:20. Romulus vanished in the 54th year of his life, on the Nones of Quintilis (July), on a day when the Sun was darkened. The day turned into night, which sudden darkness was believed to be an eclipse of the Sun. It occurred on July 17, 709 BC, with a magnitude of 93.7%, beginning at 5:04 and ending at 6:57. (All these eclipse data have been calculated by Prof. Aurél Ponori-Thewrewk, retired director of the Planetarium of Budapest.) Plutarch placed it in the 37th year from the foundation of Rome, on the fifth of our July, then called Quintilis, on "Caprotine Nones", Livy (I, 21) also states that Romulus ruled for 37 years."

• It's not entirely original research, as Wikipedia defines it. A secondary source analysing the dating, in the fourth paragraph, by Lucius Tarrutius of Firmum (in addition to the source actually cited in the text itself) can be found here, for example. Wikipedia should certainly be a tertiary source for such things. Uncle G 09:24, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

rule

he was ruling for 50 years

vultures

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.

a naive "biography"

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)

Image

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)

Someone added a picture but I changed it to this one. The other image had an unknown copyright status and will probably be deleted soon. Garion96 21:11, 16 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.

The two meanings of "lupa"

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

Noun

caption

1. A title or brief explanation attached to an illustration or cartoon.

Emphasis added.

Um. Yeah. The caption for the initial picture is ENTIRELY too long. -- MusicMaker5376 20:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Two seperate articles

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)

Why? We don't have separate articles on Cain and Abel, Castor and Pollux, Fred and George Weasley, Patty and Selma Bouvier, or countless others. -Silence 11:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

KCool

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

Augury?

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

New York?

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.

No, that was normal vandalism. For some reason this article attracts quite a lot of that. The New York part is already removed from the article. Garion96 (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Are Romulus and Remus solely fictional?

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)

But it's not crystal clear, in fact. Remus may have been added to the founding myth explain the second suckling child under the bronze Capitoline Wolf, originally intended, however, as emblems of the dual nature of Rome's founding: Etruscans and Sabines. This opens an area of Original Research that Wikipedia avoids. --Wetman 21:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine -- then that should be made crystal clear: Whatever the state of knowledge is about whether Romulus and/or Remus were actual historical characters in addition to being characters of myth -- that state of knowledge should be made clear in the article.Daqu 06:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Detected

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).

Fixed; thank you for noting this. If you suspect a page has been vandalised, you can look at the page history to see changes made recently. You can then revert to a version of the page prior to any vandalism. EALacey 20:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Amsterdam

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).

Thanks. It said "descendants of fugitives from Troy" before it was vandalised in this edit, so I've restored the earlier text. EALacey 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)