Where exactly does our knowledge of Roman history part the mythological aspect... in other words, can we truly trust that our history of the monarchy is all historically correct, or for the most part accurate? If so, then was Romulus truly the first king, and if he was, how much can believe of the Remus/Romulus myth?
Fine line between mythology and history?
- Thread starter Interficio
- Start date
B
Bitmap
Guest
Romulus and Remus are not attested as historical persons as far as I know.
The point of divergence would approximately be at the sack of Rome by the Keltoi in 410 BCE (during which practically all records of prior events were destroyed).
I would venture to say even later. Much of Livy is fanciful and thematic in structure contrasting the mores of his day with what he believed they were in the past. Not until the Polybius begins his history can we be sure of some authenticity. Livy does at times mention his sources, but we do not possess them. Thus I would venture to say that for details, the second punic war would be a safe bet as to when history becomes more reliable.Imprecator dixit:
Certainly there is something very fishy about Livy's account of the Caudine Forks.
I believe that he used funeral orations as sources which might account for the prominence of the Fabii.
You should probably regard a proportion of any history as myth...
I believe that he used funeral orations as sources which might account for the prominence of the Fabii.
You should probably regard a proportion of any history as myth...