The Village of Rome

Rome was founded, according the legend, in 753 BC. Archaeological excavation reveals that at this time there was indeed a sizeable town constructed on the area, so the old myth may not be too far off.

It would have started out as separate communities established on a number of Rome's seven hills, the lowland area between them being marshy and not the best for habitation. Over time these communities would have joined together as a single entity. The marshlands were drained and the households on the seven hills would have agreed that cooperation was in everyone's best interests. Rome lay at in important position in the North-South route in Italy, an important bridge over the river Tiber was in the area so it was significant in trade and military terms.

Rome would basically have started out like any smalltime town. It was toyed with and dominated by other major players in the area like the Sabines and Etruscans before it grew to become significant enough in its own right to be independent. Shortly afterwards it had to assert itself in against a huge array of local enemies, leading to the strong militarisation of the state of Rome. The rest, as they say, is history.

Originally posted by Ponce de Leon Interesting, lets put the Etruscans and the Sabines into play here. I know some facts about the Etruscans, but i am not very sure about the Sabines. Can u give me some details about them?

The Sabines were a neighbouring tribe. The legend goes that Rome's first King, Romulus, accepted into his newly founded city anyone who wanted to become a citizen. As a result alot of the lower members of society such as criminals, ex-slaves and the impoverished chose to join him in his city. However, because these men were so lowly born there was a major problem in finding wives for them. The Romans tricked the Sabines into going to sporting games while the Romans actually went to the Sabines' villages and stole their wives away. The Sabines and Romans were going to do battle, but the stolen wives intervened to prevent it. After that Rome had a number of Sabine Kings ruling over here.

Such is the legend. Real possibilities include that the Sabines established dominance over the Romans for a time, or that the Romans agreed to join with the Sabines in a union whereby the Romans were the junior partner (hence the number of Roman Kings who were actually from the Sabine tribes).

Emperor meant "winner in fight". Romans became very reluctant of monarchy after Tarchinus Superbus (the Greedy), so the last they wanted were to have another king. Caesar was apparently offered the monarchical dignity but he chose to rule as dictator, which in those times didn't have the negative connotations it has now, being a traditional Roman emergency office.

Augustus chose as title that of Princeps (the first one), while the title of imperator was still being awarded to him as to other Roman leaders. Only later the "emperor" title became clearly synonim of the supreme dignity.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Originally posted by Ponce de Leon Interesting, lets put the Etruscans and the Sabines into play here. I know some facts about the Etruscans, but i am not very sure about the Sabines. Can u give me some details about them? The Sabines were a neighbouring tribe. The legend goes that Rome's first King, Romulus, accepted into his newly founded city anyone who wanted to become a citizen. As a result alot of the lower members of society such as criminals, ex-slaves and the impoverished chose to join him in his city. However, because these men were so lowly born there was a major problem in finding wives for them. The Romans tricked the Sabines into going to sporting games while the Romans actually went to the Sabines' villages and stole their wives away. The Sabines and Romans were going to do battle, but the stolen wives intervened to prevent it. After that Rome had a number of Sabine Kings ruling over here. Such is the legend. Real possibilities include that the Sabines established dominance over the Romans for a time, or that the Romans agreed to join with the Sabines in a union whereby the Romans were the junior partner (hence the number of Roman Kings who were actually from the Sabine tribes).

 

Curiously the semilegendary episode of the Rape of the Sabines has inspired a lot of artists

 

Here a sample:

Luca Giordano:

Sodoma:

Nicolas Poussin:

 

Rubens:

 

David:

 

Giambologna:

 

Picasso:

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Leonardo Originally posted by Maju Emperor meant "winner in fight".   Just curious to know where you have found this etymology AFAIK "Imperator" derives from the verb "imperare" = to order, to command, and originally it had only a military, not political, meaning.

I dind't intend to be ethymological just the meaning that Romans gave to the term before it became a monarchical title: it was an acclamation by the soldiers (and confirmed by the Senate) of this or that general being "imperator".

You are right that ethymologically means something else: roughly "commander".

Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperator